A/HRC/13/66 several provisions of the criminal legislation of Honduras, which remain in force, are considered incompatible with international standards. For instance, the need to reformulate the definition of torture was underlined by the Committee against Torture in June 2009.3 In December 2006, the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention recommended that serious thought be given to providing the Office of the Attorney General with its own investigative police body 4 and the Human Rights Committee highlighted the need for an independent body to supervise the selection, promotion and discipline of members of the judiciary in order to guarantee their independence.5 13. Other norms were identified by the mission as incompatible with international standards, presenting in many cases an ambiguous or imprecise formulation, and inconsistent with the principle of legality and the necessity to guarantee legal certainty. This has allowed for arbitrary application, particularly of criminal legislation, of the Police and Social Coexistence Law, the Telecommunications Law and the Emergency Law, as well as of provisions criminalizing sedition and illegal demonstrations. In short, this inadequate legal framework has allowed for abuses during the period under review, as described below. 14. The de facto authorities declared a state of emergency through successive decrees. These decrees did not comply with international standards, essentially those of article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and article 27 of the American Convention on Human Rights. In particular, they did not meet requirements regarding the gravity of the emergency, the principle of necessity, and the proportionality of the measures adopted.6 The authorities also failed to notify the United Nations and OAS, as required by the relevant international instruments. The legality principle was also violated as the decrees were not published in a timely manner and the formulation of the restrictions was not sufficiently precise, particularly regarding the framework and applicable time of curfews. 15. Decree 011-2009 declared the state of emergency and established a curfew and the suspension of guarantees of personal liberty, freedom of association, assembly, and movement. While the decree was adopted on 30 June, it was only published on 27 July. Although it was supposed to be in force for only 72 hours, its provisions and the curfew continued to be applied well beyond this period. 16. Decree 016-2009 was announced on 21 September and published on 26 September. It restricted freedom of movement and prohibited demonstrations not authorized by the police and military authorities, and publications that could be considered “offensive to dignity” or to public servants, in violation of the law or governmental resolutions. The decree also authorized the National Commission of Telecommunications (CONATEL), through the police and the army, to suspend radio, television or cable broadcasts. While the authorities announced the abrogation of this decree on 6 October, this decision was only published on 17 October. 17. Decree 016-2009 made reference to the 1921 Emergency Law, which provides for the application of military jurisdiction for crimes such as sedition, the suspension of habeas corpus associated with military jurisdiction, and the possibility, under some circumstances, of suspending the judiciary. References to this law, and its mere existence, were of particular concern as it does not comply with relevant international human rights norms, in 3 4 5 6 6 CAT/C/HND/CO/1, para. 7. A/HRC/4/40/Add.4, para. 104. CCPR/C/HND/CO/1, para. 16. See paragraph 5 of the Committee on Human Rights general comment No. 29 (2001) on article 4: Derogations during a state of emergency. GE.10-11700