A/67/44 for providing detailed replies to the questions raised at that time, as well as the additional written replies supplied subsequently. B. Positive aspects (3) The Committee welcomes the ratification by the State party of the following international instruments during the reporting period: (a) The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, in 2008; and (b) The International Labour Organization (ILO) Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105), in 2007. (4) The Committee takes note of the commitment made by the State party to ratify the Optional Protocol to the Convention and to develop an action plan for putting into practice the recommendations of the universal periodic review, including those concerning appropriate measures to prevent torture and ill-treatment. (5) The Committee takes note that: (a) The State party’s Constitution prohibits torture; (b) The State party has stated that the signing in September 2011 of the road map to end the political crisis, which had led to the appointment of a consensus candidate for the post of prime minister, should also allow national institutions paralysed since 2009 by the crisis to begin functioning normally again. The return to normal operations of such institutions, and in particular of Parliament, would permit the passage or amendment of laws to bring domestic legislation into line with the standards set forth in international human rights instruments ratified by the State party; (c) The State party has pledged to renew the standing invitation it has verbally made to the special procedures of the Human Rights Council as soon as possible; and (d) C. A de facto moratorium on the death penalty is in place. Principal subjects of concern and recommendations Criminalization of torture and ill-treatment (6) While taking note of Act No. 2008-008 of 25 June 2008 which prohibits torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in line with the Convention, the Committee is concerned about the failure to specify the range of penalties for acts of illtreatment, which leaves the penalty completely at the discretion of the judge. In the Committee’s view, the absence of a specified range of penalties violates the principle that both the offence and the penalty must be prescribed by law. In addition, the Committee regrets the failure to apply this law since its enactment in 2008, a fact borne out by reports that judges, lawyers and law enforcement officers are unaware of its existence (art. 4). The State party should amend its law against torture in order to incorporate a scale of penalties for acts of ill-treatment and amend its Criminal Code and Code of Criminal Procedure to include relevant provisions from the law against torture, thereby facilitating their enforcement. In the meantime, the State party should circulate this law to judges, lawyers, criminal investigation officers, the heads of local administrative units (fokontany) and prison staff with a view to its immediate application. Categorization of torture and the statute of limitations (7) The Committee notes that the Act of 2008 draws a distinction between acts of torture categorized as offences, punishable by 2 to 5 years of imprisonment, and those defined as serious offences, punishable by terms of imprisonment of 5 to 10 years. The GE.12-44492 55