CAT/C/KAZ/CO/3 torture and ill-treatment that have been investigated and by which body (bodies); the number of persons prosecuted and under what charges; and the penalties applied for those found guilty. Accountability for acts of torture 9. While noting that acts of torture are outlawed by article 347-1 and 141-1 of the Criminal Code (art. 145 of the revised Criminal Code that will enter into force in 2015), the Committee is concerned that law enforcement officials accused of committing acts amounting to torture are frequently prosecuted under articles 307 and 308 of the Criminal Code (arts. 361 and 362 of the revised Criminal Code) for “abuse of official power” and “excess of authority or official powers”, which carry penalties of up to five years and for violations of article 107 of the Criminal Code which outlaws “the infliction of physical or psychological suffering through systematic beatings or other violent actions” and which mentions the use of torture as an aggravating circumstance. The Committee is also concerned at the low number of persons convicted for having committed acts of torture. The Committee is further concerned at reports of cases in which individuals convicted of torture under the Criminal Code have nevertheless received extremely lenient sentences such as conditional sentences and probation (arts. 2 and 4). The State party should ensure that all persons accused of acts amounting to torture as defined by the Convention are prosecuted for the crime of torture under articles 347-1 and 141-1 of the Criminal Code (article 145 of the revised Criminal Code that will enter into force in 2015) rather than for offences of lesser severity. The State party should ensure that those convicted are punished with appropriate penalties that are commensurate to the gravity of the crime of torture, as set out in article 4, paragraph 2, of the Convention. Transfer of detention authority to the Ministry of Justice 10. The Committee is gravely concerned that, despite its previous recommendation to the State party to complete the process of transferring control of all detention and investigation facilities from the Ministry of Internal Affairs to the Ministry of Justice, in 2011 the State party instead transferred authority over the penal correction system back to the Ministry of Internal Affairs. The Committee regrets that the State party’s delegation indicated at the review its intention to maintain that arrangement. The Committee reiterates its concern that when places of detention are controlled by the same government ministry with responsibility for the police and internal security, that arrangement creates an incentive for the investigating authorities to seek to use detention as a tool of the investigative process or a means to compel prisoners to confess to the charges against them and thus amplifies the risk of torture and ill-treatment in such places of detention (arts. 2 and 11). The Committee reiterates that the State party should transfer authority for all detention and investigation facilities, including prisons, temporary holding facilities (IVSs) and remand centres (SIZOs) away from the Ministry of Internal Affairs. That step would be consistent with international standards and would reduce incentives for officials at such places of detention to commit torture and ill-treatment. Events in Zhanaozen in December 2011 11. The Committee is gravely concerned at reports that the State party did not effectively investigate allegations that officials committed torture and ill-treatment during interrogations of individuals detained in connection with violence in the context of protests in Zhanaozen on 16 December 2011. The Committee is particularly concerned at reports that most of the 37 defendants prosecuted in March 2012 in connection with the violence retracted their confessions at the trials, as did at least 10 witnesses, claiming that their 4