A/66/44 (6) The Committee also takes note with satisfaction of the organization of various training and awareness-raising activities in the field of human rights, inter alia for judges and police officers. C. Principal subjects of concern and recommendations Definition and criminalization of torture (7) The Committee notes that article 8 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which establishes the jurisdiction of the courts for acts of torture committed abroad, refers to article 1 of the Convention. However, it remains concerned that the Criminal Code, despite having recently been revised, does not include a definition of torture that fully accords with article 1 of the Convention. The Committee is also concerned at the lack of any specific provision making torture an offence (arts. 1 and 4). The State party should incorporate in its criminal law a definition of torture that is fully consistent with article 1 of the Convention. The Committee considers that States parties, by naming and defining the offence of torture in accordance with articles 1 and 4 of the Convention and by making it distinct from other crimes, will directly advance the Convention’s overarching aim of preventing torture, inter alia, by alerting everyone, including perpetrators, victims and the public, to the particular gravity of the crime of torture and by increasing the deterrent effect of the prohibition of torture. Absolute prohibition of torture (8) While noting that articles 127 to 130 of the Criminal Code, on abuse of authority, severely punish unlawful orders issued by public authorities, the Committee is concerned that the recent revisions of the State party’s Criminal Code do not include provisions expressly prohibiting the invocation of exceptional circumstances or an order from a superior officer or public authority as a justification of torture (art. 2). The State party should adopt specific provisions prohibiting the invocation of exceptional circumstances or an order from a superior officer as a justification of torture, as recommended by the Committee in its previous concluding observations. The State party should take effective legislative, administrative, judicial and other measures to prevent acts of torture, including by strengthening safeguards for any officer who refuses to carry out an illegal order given by a superior officer. Non-refoulement (9) The Committee regrets that an appeal to the Supreme Court against a return (refoulement) or expulsion order has suspensive effect only if combined with a motion to stay execution. Moreover, given that the granting of refugee status in Monaco is subject to approval by the French Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons (OFPRA), the Committee regrets the lack of follow-up by the State party to asylum applications dealt with by the French authorities, and also notes the practical difficulties facing asylum-seekers in Monaco who wish to appeal against a rejection of their application (art. 3). The State party should establish a mechanism for following up on the cases of asylumseekers dealt with by the French Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons. It should also ensure that appeals against return (refoulement) or expulsion orders automatically have suspensive effect, in order to uphold the principle of nonrefoulement. Moreover, although foreigners are expelled or returned only to France, which is also a party to the Convention, the Committee is particularly concerned at the lack of follow-up in cases of expulsion concerning, inter alia, non-European GE.11-45568 115