A/69/44 (e) Act No. 104/2009 on compensation to victims of violent crimes and domestic violence, and Act No. 112/2009 on the legal regime applicable to the prevention of domestic violence and to the protection of and assistance for its victims; and (f) Act No. 113/2009 on protection measures for minors. (6) The Committee also welcomes the adoption of the following administrative and other measures: (a) The appointment of the Ombudsman as the national preventive mechanism, in accordance with the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, on 20 May 2013; (b) Order No. 12786/2009 of 19 May 2009, regulating the conditions of detention in judicial police facilities and in the courts and public prosecution services; (c) The Order of the Director-General for Prison Services on the Regulation on the Use of Coercive Measures, of 3 September 2009; and (d) in 2008. C. The creation of the National Network of Educational Guardianship Centres, Principal subjects of concern and recommendations Definition of torture (7) While noting the State party’s position that the definition of torture in article 243 of the Criminal Code is sufficiently broad to cover discrimination among the purposes for inflicting torture, the Committee observes that the domestic courts have never applied this article to situations in which torture was inflicted for reasons based on discrimination. The Committee regrets, therefore, that despite its previous concluding observations (CAT/C/PRT/CO/4, para. 6), the State party has not yet made a specific reference to discrimination in the definition of torture set out in the Criminal Code (arts. 1 and 4). The Committee reiterates its earlier recommendation (CAT/C/PRT/CO/4, para. 6) and calls on the State party to reconsider amending article 243 of the Criminal Code to explicitly include discrimination among the purposes for inflicting torture, in strict conformity with article 1 of the Convention. The Committee draws attention to paragraph 9 of its general comment No. 2 (2008) on the implementation of article 2 by States parties, which indicates that discrepancies between the Convention’s definition and that incorporated into domestic law create potential loopholes for impunity. Fundamental safeguards (8) The Committee regrets that, despite its previous concluding observations (CAT/C/PRT/CO/4, para. 7), the State party has not taken steps to guarantee that the time spent in detention for identification purposes (maximum 6 hours) is deducted from the total period of police custody (48 hours), particularly in the light of the explanations provided by the State party that detention for identification purposes can be used whenever there are sufficient grounds to believe that the person might have perpetrated a crime. The Committee is concerned that persons detained for identification purposes and suspected of a crime might not be afforded, in practice, the same safeguards as other detained persons under the regular procedure during this six-hour period. The Committee bears in mind, in this regard, that there have been instances in which detained persons have not been informed of their rights from the outset of the detention. The Committee also notes that the right to access to a lawyer promptly upon detention is not effective in practice for those who cannot afford a private lawyer, since access to an ex officio lawyer is guaranteed only at the detention hearing before the judge (arts. 2, 11, and 12). GE.14-12596 73