A/67/44 (14) The Committee is concerned at the lack of access for international monitoring mechanisms, both governmental and non-governmental, to detention facilities in Belarus. The Committee also expresses regret at the outstanding request for a country visit by the five mandate holders of the special procedures, particularly the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture and the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, and the State party’s failure to response to requests for a visit by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) (arts. 2, 11 and 16). The Committee urges the State party to: (a) Grant access to independent governmental and non-government organisations to all detention facilities in the country, including police lock-ups, pretrial detention centres, security service premises, administrative detention areas, detention units of medical and psychiatric institutions and prisons; (b) Strengthen further the cooperation with United Nations human rights mechanisms, particularly by permitting visits by the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression and the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, as accepted by the State party in the context of the universal periodic review (A/HRC/15/16, para. 97.17), as soon as possible; and (c) Consider accepting the request by the United Commissioner for Human Rights for a visit by an OHCHR team. Nations High National human rights institution (15) In the light of recommendations made by several human rights mechanisms and the State party’s commitment made in the context of the universal periodic review to consider establishing a national human rights institution (A/HRC/15/16, para. 97.4), the Committee regrets the lack of progress made to that end (art. 2). The Committee recommends the State party to work towards establishing a national human rights institution in accordance with the principles relating to the status of national institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights (Paris Principles). Definition, absolute prohibition and criminalization of torture (16) While noting the information provided by the State party that the definition of torture contained in article 1 of the Convention is used for the purpose of criminal prosecution of perpetrators of acts of tortures and the Office of the Procurator-General is preparing a bill on amendments to the criminal legislation, the Committee is concerned that such definition of torture has never been applied by domestic courts. The Committee remains concerned that the national legislation does not contain provisions defining torture and ensuring absolute prohibition of the torture. It is also concerned that articles 128 and 394 of the Criminal Code do not criminalize torture in accordance with article 4, paragraph 2, of the Convention (arts. 1, 2 and 4). In the light of the Committee’s previous recommendation (A/56/44, para. 46 (a)) and the State party’s acceptance of the recommendations made in the course of the universal periodic review (A/HRC/15/16, paras. 97.28 and 98.21), the State party should, without delay, define and criminalize torture in its Criminal Code in full conformity with article 1 and 4 of the Convention. Furthermore, the Committee recommends that the State party ensure that the absolute prohibition against torture is non-derogable and that acts amounting to torture are not subject to any statute of limitations. 16 GE.12-44492