A/67/44 rehabilitative, therapeutic and supervisory measures established in articles 78 to 84 of the Criminal Code can entail internment in specialized labour, educational, care, psychiatric or detoxification institutions for a period of between 1 and 4 years. The Committee is concerned that it has received no information about conditions of internment in these institutions (arts. 2, 11 and 16). As part of the criminal legislation reform process announced by the delegation, the Committee recommends that the State party amend the aforementioned provisions of the Criminal Code with a view to ending the use of administrative detention on the basis of vague, subjective and imprecise criminal concepts such as pre-criminal social dangerousness. Monitoring and inspection of places of detention (13) The Committee notes that the Attorney-General’s Office and the Ministry of the Interior are empowered to inspect detention facilities and that, in accordance with legislation in force, judges and prosecutors have access to prisons and other detention facilities. However, the Committee has no information on the number and nature of the visits made by the Attorney-General’s Office or other agencies during the period under review, or on the content of the records and resolutions issued by the Attorney-General’s Office and the related follow-up. The Committee remains concerned about the lack of monitoring and systematic, effective, independent inspection of all places of detention and disagrees with the State party’s statement that the continuous improvement of the system does not call for other types of visit or additional assistance (arts. 11 and 12). The Committee reiterates the recommendation previously made to the State party in 1997 (A/53/44, para. 118 (d)) to establish an independent national system to effectively monitor and inspect all places of detention and follow-up on the outcome of this systematic monitoring. The Committee encourages the State party to consider the possibility of ratifying the Optional Protocol to the Convention with a view to establishing a system of regular unannounced visits by national and international monitors, in order to prevent torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The Committee also reiterates its previous recommendation (ibid., (i)) that the State party should allow human rights NGOs into the country and cooperate with them in the identification of cases of torture and ill-treatment. Death penalty (14) The Committee notes the information provided by the State party concerning the last three executions of persons sentenced to death in Cuba, which, after a summary procedure, were carried out on 11 April 2003. Despite the delegation’s explanations, the Committee still has serious reservations as to whether in these cases the State party respected due process guarantees such as the detainees’ right to have adequate time and facilities to prepare their defence and to communicate with counsel of their choosing. While noting that there are currently no convicted prisoners awaiting execution in the State party and that all death sentences have been commuted to prison sentences of 30 years or life, the Committee remains concerned about the high number of offences that carry the death penalty, including common crimes and vaguely defined categories of State security-related offences (arts. 2, 11 and 16). The Committee urges the State party to respect the international norms established in the Safeguards guaranteeing protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty (approved by Economic and Social Council resolution 1984/50 of 25 May 1984). The State party is invited to consider the possibility of abolishing the death penalty and to GE.12-44492 127