preventive mechanism and enter into a dialogue with it on possible implementation measures ” (art. 22), and “ the States Parties to the present Protocol undertake to publish and disseminate the annual reports of the national preventive mechanisms ” (art. 23). III.Safeguards against torture and ill-treatment 33.The Subcommittee delegation examined both elements and situations that might provide safeguards for people deprived of their liberty or that might exacerbate the risk of torture and ill-treatment. In so doing, it took into account the country’s legal and institutional framework relative to the prevention of torture and the physical conditions and practices in the places visited. A.Legal framework 34.The main human rights treaties ratified by Mexico establish the international responsibility of States to protect the physical and mental integrity of persons and the obligation to adapt domestic legislation appropriately so as to achieve that end. 35.The Subcommittee notes that the primary and secondary legislation defining the crime of torture does not fully meet international standards. In that regard, the Subcommittee makes reference to the recommendations made by the Committee against Torture and wishes to express to the State party its concern that those recommendations have not yet been implemented. 36.The Subcommittee wishes to remind the State party that establishing a proper definition of the offence of torture, in conformity with the international treaties on the subject, fulfils a preventive function. All applicable domestic legislation should provide for investigation, prosecution and punishment of any act involving torture or ill-treatment, irrespective of the setting in which it occurs and of the modality or purpose of the act. Furthermore, the severity of the penalties for such acts should match the gravity of the offence. Such acts should not be considered ordinary offences, especially since they often occur in settings in which the victims are under the custody of the State, which is supposed to protect people’s right to physical and mental integrity. 37.In addition to the need for a proper definition of the offence, the Subcommittee believes that a clear policy and practice are needed in order to convey the message that there will be no impunity and that acts of torture and ill-treatment will never be tolerated under any circumstances or in any situation. 38.The Subcommittee also believes that the way in which laws are applied and interpreted by justice officials plays a crucial role in the fight against torture and in its prevention. Practices that amount to torture or ill-treatment should therefore not be classified as ordinary offences. 39.Regarding the judicial evaluation of evidence, the State party bears the burden of proving that its agents and institutions have not committed acts of torture. Victims should not be expected to prove that torture has occurred, particularly as they may have been subjected to conditions that make it impossible to prove: in most cases, victims of torture are held in closed places without access to legal assistance. Moreover, as is explained below, it is not always easy to prove that acts of torture have been committed. Whether or not it is possible to do so depends, inter alia, on the techniques used. 40.The Subcommittee strongly recommends that appropriate legislative, administrative and any other needed measures be taken in order to bring primary and secondary legislation into co mpliance with international treaties on torture, particularly the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the Inter - American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. In accordance with the pro homine principle, the latter convention affords the greatest protection of the rights of the individual in the inter-American regional context of which Mexico is a part. This includes the establishment of penalties that are commensurate with the seriousness of the offence, so that torture is not put on the same level as offences such as injury. This revision of the legislation should be accompanied by adequate training and awareness - raising programmes for ju dicial , police and prison officials on the proper way to classify and investigate allegations of torture so that investigation processes do not lead to the classification of torture as a lesser offence. 41.It is essential that the Government of Mexico implement all the administrative, legislative and judicial measures needed in order to ensure the effective application at all levels — but especially at the state and municipal levels — of the international standards that Mexico has agreed to adopt and that it investigate, punish and provide redress for injury caused when such acts are committed, applying the broadest and most comprehensive international definition of torture. 42.More specifically, within the framework of investigation in criminal proceedings in Mexico, the delegation noted that the accusatory body (Office of the Public Prosecutor) holds persons accused of criminal offences in its custody during significant periods of time, during which they are normally interviewed and a statement is taken. This procedure and practice not only do not conform to international standards, under which the statement of the accused must be taken by a competent judicial authority (see article 7, paragraph 5, of the American Convention on Human Rights and articles 9, paragraph 3, and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights), but they also create a risk that acts of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment will be committed in order to obtain information, evidence or statements in a manner contrary to due process and to the physical and mental integrity of the individuals concerned. Because the Office of the Public Prosecutor is not a judicial authority, but especially because it is the prosecuting authority, there is a confluence of circumstances that puts accused persons at risk of being subjected to acts of physical or psychological violence intended to impair their sensory ability and unnerve them, thereby inducing them to make statements incriminating themselves or others and thus violating both fundamental constitutional guarantees and the standards established under the human rights treaties ratified by the State party. The Subcommittee believes that in order to avert the risk of torture or ill-treatment, there should be a functional and institutional separation between investigation, prosecution and responsibility during detention. The Subcommittee notes that in accordance with the