A/68/44 pain or suffering. Nor is the offence of torture defined anywhere else in the State party’s criminal legislation, which is clearly in breach of its obligations under the Convention (art. 1). The State party has an obligation to revise its legislation, particularly its Criminal Code, with a view to adopting a definition of torture which, in accordance with article 1 of the Convention, includes acts involving the infliction of mental pain or suffering, along with a provision that specifically criminalizes it. The State party should also ensure that the Criminal Code sets out appropriate penalties for acts of torture. Criminalization of attempted torture (8) The Committee is concerned by the fact that the provisions contained in articles 46 and 47 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that refer to the Attorney General’s ability to lay charges and initiate legal action do not explicitly criminalize either attempts to commit torture or acts which constitute complicity or participation in torture and therefore are not in full compliance with article 4 of the Convention (art. 4). The State party should make the necessary modifications in its Criminal Code to explicitly criminalize attempts to commit torture and acts constituting complicity or participation in torture and to define them as acts of torture, in accordance with article 4 of the Convention, and to establish appropriate penalties for that offence. Direct application of the Convention by domestic courts (9) While taking note of the fact that the State party’s delegation has indicated that domestic courts can refer to the Convention for information purposes, the Committee is nonetheless concerned by the lack of detailed information about the status of the Convention in the State party’s domestic legal system. It is also concerned by the lack of information on cases in which the Convention has been applied by the courts of the State party or has been invoked before them (art. 2). The State party should clarify the nature of the Convention’s status in its domestic legal system. It should ensure that public officials, judges, magistrates, prosecutors and attorneys receive training that covers the provisions of the Convention so that they are in a position to invoke the rights set forth in the Convention directly before the courts of the State party and to assert those rights before the courts. The State party should also provide the Committee with specific, representative examples of cases in which the Convention has been applied directly by the courts or has been invoked before them. Fundamental legal safeguards (10) While noting that, under the laws of the State party, persons in detention are protected by fundamental legal safeguards, the Committee is nevertheless concerned by reports that persons held in police custody or in other places of detention are not always given the benefit of the fundamental legal safeguards provided for in articles 53 and 54 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In accordance with international standards, the safeguards provided for in those articles include access to legal counsel from the outset of the period of detention, access to a physician of the person’s choice and the right to notify someone of their choice of the arrest. The Committee notes that the length of time that a person can be held in police custody is limited to 48 hours under the Code of Criminal Procedure, but it remains concerned by the fact that, in certain regions, criminal investigation officers can issue a non-renewable eight-day detention order for the purpose of bringing a person before a judge. The Committee is also concerned by the lack of information on the maximum duration of pretrial detention (art. 2). 14 GE.13-46043