A/67/44 (6) The Committee notes the State party’s positive response to the request for a visit of the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture, which was subsequently confirmed in the voluntary commitments assumed by Cuba during the universal periodic review performed by the Human Rights Council in February 2009 (A/HRC/11/22, para. 130 (37)). The State party noted the Special Rapporteur’s interest in making this visit but the dates have not yet been confirmed (A/HRC/19/61, para. 6). C. Principal subjects of concern and recommendations Definition and crime of torture (7) While noting the information provided by the State party regarding work towards a possible reform of the Criminal Code, the Committee regrets that torture, as defined in article 1 of the Convention, is still not codified as a specific offence. As regards the State party’s assertion that other similar criminal offences are expressly defined in its domestic legislation, the Committee draws the State party’s attention to its general comment No. 2 (2007), on the implementation of article 2 by States parties, which emphasizes the preventive value of codifying torture as a distinct offence (CAT/C/GC/2, para. 11) (arts. 1 and 4). The Committee reiterates the recommendation made in 1997 (A/53/44, para. 118 (a)) that the State party should expressly criminalize torture in its domestic legislation and should adopt a definition of torture covering all the aspects contained in article 1 of the Convention. The State party must also ensure that such offences are punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature, in accordance with article 4, paragraph 2, of the Convention. Fundamental due process safeguards (8) While noting the information provided by the State party concerning the content of the Criminal Procedure Act and related implementing regulations, the Committee highlights the lack of information on procedures in place to ensure the practical application of fundamental legal safeguards. The Committee is concerned about consistent reports that the State party does not extend all legal safeguards, including prompt access to a lawyer and an independent medical examination and notification of arrest to a family member, to all prisoners, including in particular those who are deprived of their liberty on alleged political grounds, from the outset of detention. The Committee regrets that no statistical data have been provided either about complaints or allegations of torture or about habeas corpus proceedings initiated during the period under review. The Committee is concerned that article 245 of the Criminal Procedure Act establishes that habeas corpus applications are inadmissible “when the deprivation of liberty is the result of a sentence or pretrial commitment order issued in criminal proceedings”. While noting the delegation’s explanations on this matter, the Committee considers that this provision unreasonably restricts the right to challenge the legality of detention by excluding those situations where the deprivation of liberty, having been initially lawful under prevailing legislation, becomes unlawful retrospectively (arts. 2 and 16). The State party must adopt effective measures without delay to ensure that all detainees enjoy in practice all fundamental legal safeguards, including the right to have access to counsel at the time of arrest, to be examined by an independent physician, to have contact with a family member, to be informed of their rights and the charges against them, and to be brought before a judge without delay. The State party must also adopt the measures necessary to guarantee the right of any person who has been deprived of their liberty to have access to an immediate remedy to challenge the legality of their detention. 124 GE.12-44492