CAT/C/CMR/CO/4 Terminating criminal prosecutions in the “social interest” or for “public order” 24. The Committee notes with concern that the current Code of Criminal Procedure contains a provision under which the Ministry of Justice may terminate criminal prosecutions in the “social interest” or for “public order”. While noting article 2 of Act No. 2006/022, which specifies the organization and functioning of administrative courts and contains provisions that penalize the abuse of authority, as well as the claim by the State party that this procedure has only been invoked once since it came into force in 2006, the Committee is concerned by the absence of appeals against the decision of the Ministry of Justice, as well as the lack of a definition of the terms in article 64 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (arts. 2, 12 and 13). The State party should review the Code of Criminal Procedure in order to ensure that all criminal proceedings lead to the acquittal or conviction of the accused. Any decision by the Ministry of Justice to terminate criminal proceedings, even in the “social interest” or for “public order”, should be open to judicial appeal. Acts regarding the state of emergency and the maintenance of law and order 25. The Committee notes with concern that Act No. 90/047 of 19 December 1990 on the state of emergency is in force. Given the guarantees in article 2, paragraph 2, of the Convention, the Committee notes with concern that the legislation on the state of emergency and Act No. 90/054 concerning the maintenance of law and order allow, under a state of emergency, for periods in police custody of two months, renewable once, and, in cases of banditry, for periods of police custody set at 15 days, also renewable (art. 2). The State party should ensure that international principles governing states of emergency are respected, and in particular review the need for maintaining its state of emergency legislation in the light of the criteria laid down in article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Cameroon has been a party since 1984. The State party should also adhere strictly to the absolute prohibition of torture, in accordance with article 2, paragraph 2, of the Convention, which states that no exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture. Systematic monitoring of places of detention 26. The Committee notes the adoption of Act No. 2004/016, which established the National Commission on Human Rights and Freedoms in accordance with the Paris Principles (General Assembly resolution 48/134, annex) and that the Commission has been granted “B” status by the Subcommittee on Accreditation of the International Coordinating Committee of National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights (ICC). Nevertheless, the Committee is surprised that the Commission participated in the consideration of the report of Cameroon as part of the State party’s delegation rather than as an independent body. In addition, the Committee notes the low number of prison visits (according to information from the State party and the Commission, the latter visited only eight prisons between 2000 and 2010) and the lack of proper follow-up on the part of the authorities approached by the Commission. The Committee also notes that some NGOs have accreditation enabling them to visit prisons, but is concerned by reported difficulties in gaining access to prisons and the low number of prison visits carried out by NGOs (arts. 2, 11 and 13). The State party should provide all the human and financial resources necessary to enable the National Commission on Human Rights and Freedoms to carry out its mandate, and should guarantee its independence. The Committee encourages the 8 GE.10-42570