A/68/44 (b) Act No. 2005-06 of 10 April 2005 on combating human trafficking and related practices; (c) Act No. 2000-38 and Act No. 2000-39 of 29 December 2000 establishing the post of a judge to supervise detention conditions, as well as Decree No. 2001-362 of 4 May 2001 on procedures for the execution and remission of criminal sanctions. (7) The Committee also welcomes: (a) The adoption in 2009 of the national action plan (2008–2013) to combat human trafficking, especially trafficking in women and children, and the establishment in 2010 of a national anti-trafficking unit that brings together governmental and nongovernmental institutions; (b) The promotion of community justice, with a view to expanding and spreading across the country a network of legal advice centres offering mediation, information and legal counselling services; (c) The second national action plan to hasten the end of the practice of excision (2010–2015), approved and launched in February 2010; (d) The establishment of institutions like the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Promotion of Peace (in 2004) and the Office of the Ombudsman, pursuant to Act No. 91-14 of 11 February 1991 and Act No. 99-04 of 29 January 1999. C. Principal subjects of concern and recommendations Definition of torture (8) While taking note of the amendment to the Criminal Code (Act No. 96-15 of 28 August 1996), article 295-1 of which defines torture as required by article 1 of the Convention, the Committee regrets that the definition does not include certain key elements of article 1, notably the reference to “a third person” other than the victim (art. 1). The State party should revise its Criminal Code, particularly article 295-1 on the definition of torture, to bring it fully into line with article 1 of the Convention. In particular, it should include in the definition acts aimed at obtaining information from, punishing, intimidating or coercing a third person. Absolute prohibition of torture (9) The Committee is concerned about the State party’s justification of amnesty laws in relation to the situation in Casamance on the grounds that they are vital for the restoration of peace. The Committee reiterates its concern that the State party’s laws should not encourage impunity for acts of torture or violate article 2 of the Convention, which states that “internal political instability” may not be invoked as a justification of torture (art. 2). In the light of its general comments Nos. 2 (CAT/C/GC/2) and 3 (CAT/C/GC/3), the Committee considers that amnesties or other impediments which preclude prompt and fair prosecution and punishment of perpetrators of torture or ill-treatment violate the principle of non-derogability of the prohibition of torture. They would constitute an intolerable obstacle for victims seeking redress, and would contribute to a climate of impunity. In view of this, the Committee urges the State party to repeal any amnesty for torture or ill-treatment and to provide it with detailed information on the redress granted to torture victims in Casamance. Fundamental legal safeguards (10) The Committee is concerned that detainees do not enjoy all their fundamental rights from the moment they are, de facto, deprived of liberty, especially since legislation provides for the assistance of a lawyer only as from the twenty-fifth hour of detention and GE.13-46043 69