A/66/44 C. Principal subjects of concern and recommendations Incorporation of international law (7) While noting that the State party has a dualist system of reception of international treaties, the Committee is concerned that the State party has not yet fully incorporated the Convention in its domestic law (art. 2). The State party should, in the context of the forthcoming constitutional review announced by the delegation, consider fully incorporating the provisions of the Convention in its domestic legislation in order to allow the application by domestic courts of obligations set out in the Convention. Appropriate penalties for acts of torture (8) While noting that penalties foreseen in Section 78, as revised, of the amended Criminal Code (2008), provide for a maximum fine of 150,000 rupees and for an imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years for the offence of torture, the Committee is remains concerned that some aggravating circumstances, such as the permanent disability of the victim, are not taken specifically into account. It also notes with concern that penalties for other crimes, such as drug trafficking, are higher than those for torture (arts. 1 and 4). The State party should revise its Criminal Code to make acts of torture offences punishable by appropriate penalties that take into account their grave nature, in accordance with article 4 of the Convention. Absolute prohibition of torture (9) While noting that “courts in Mauritius are unlikely to find that exceptional circumstances can justify torture” (CAT/C/MUS/3, para. 15), the Committee is concerned about the absence in the legislation of the State party of a provision to guarantee that no exceptional circumstances whatsoever may be invoked as a justification of torture, as prevented by article 2, paragraph 2, of the Convention. The State party should incorporate in its legislation a provision on the absolute prohibition of torture and that no justification may be invoked in any circumstances. Fundamental legal safeguards (10) While noting the information provided by the State party, the Committee is concerned at the lack of clarification as to whether arrested and detained persons in police custody have access to a doctor, if possible, of their choice, at the outset of their detention and preserving the right to privacy. The Committee is also concerned at the lack of clear information as to whether detained persons are promptly informed on their right to contact their family or a person of their choice. The Committee is further concerned about the appropriate registration of persons between their arrest and the moment they are brought before a judge (art. 2). The State party should take measures to ensure that: (a) Persons arrested and detained in police stations have access at the outset their detention, to a doctor, if possible, of their choice; (b) (c) detention. GE.11-45568 Visits by a doctor are conducted in a confidential manner; They can inform their family or a person of their choice about their 109