CAT/C/CHN/CO/5 Monitoring and inspection of places of detention 28. Notwithstanding the State party’s position that the procuratorates are responsible for supervising detention, the Committee remains concerned that their dual function as prosecutors and supervisors compromises the independence of their functions, as previously indicated by the Committee (see CAT/C/CHN/CO/4, para. 20). Furthermore, it notes the existence of other monitoring mechanisms, such as the special supervisors of detention facilities or the representatives of the People’s Congresses, but it regrets the lack of information regarding their reporting obligations and the effectiveness of their recommendations (arts. 11 and 16). 29. The Committee calls upon the State party to: (a) Establish an independent oversight body to monitor places of detention, with the mandate to carry out unhindered and unannounced visits. The recommendations of such body should be made public in a timely and transparent manner and the State party should take action upon its findings; (b) Grant access to places of detention to domestic and international human rights bodies and experts; (c) Consider the possibility of ratifying the Optional Protocol to the Convention. State secrets provisions and lack of data 30. Recalling its previous recommendations (see CAT/C/CHN/CO/4, paras. 16 and 17), the Committee remains concerned at the use of State secrecy provisions to avoid the availability of information about torture, criminal justice and related issues. While appreciating the State party’s assertion that “information regarding torture does not fall within the scope of State secrets”, the Committee expresses concern at the State party’s failure to provide a substantial amount of data requested by the Committee in the list of issues and during the dialogue. In the absence of the information requested, the Committee finds itself unable to fully assess the State party’s actions in the light of the provisions the Convention. Furthermore, the Committee regrets that the same concerns raised in its previous recommendation with regard to the 1988 Law on the Preservation of State Secrets persist in relation to the 2010 Law on Guarding State Secrets. The Committee is also disturbed at reports that a significant amount of information related to torture and the actions of public security authorities under the Criminal Procedure Law remain out of the public domain owing to the State secrets exception of the Regulations on Open Government Information. Furthermore, it notes with concern the limited scope of the Regulations on Open Government Information to information about administrative actions by administrative organs, excluding matters within the criminal law system (arts. 12, 13, 14 and 16). 31. The Committee calls for the declassification of information related to torture, in particular, information about the whereabouts and state of health of detained persons whose cases fall under the scope of the State Secrets Law. The State party should also declassify information on the numbers of deaths in custody, detainees registered, allegations of torture and ill-treatment and consequent investigations, administrative detention and death penalty cases. The State party should ensure that the determination as to whether a matter is a State secret should be the object of an appeal before an independent tribunal. 9