A/HRC/45/16/Add.2 35. The Working Group recalls the importance of properly compiled detention registers in minimizing instances of arbitrary deprivation of liberty. These should be managed and updated in such detail as to allow any independent inspection or monitoring body to ascertain whether procedural safeguards have been observed. This would always require not only the recording of the date and time when the detainee arrived in the facility but also the date and time of the arrest, to allow verification of whether the time spent in transit from the place of arrest to the facility was excessive.5 Pretrial detention 36. According to article 117 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the maximum period of preventive detention while awaiting trial is six months; the Working Group was informed that this period is respected in practice. 37. However, this article also provides for an exception to the six-month limit when it has been announced before the end of the six-month period that the suspect will be transferred to a competent criminal court. Furthermore, this provision allows for the possibility of an extension of pretrial detention for renewable periods of 45 days, if the charge involves a felony. The accused must be released if he or she spends in pretrial detention a period equal to half of the maximum penalty for the crime for which he or she has been remanded. 38. The Working Group is concerned that these provisions may result, and in some instances are resulting, in periods of prolonged pretrial detention, contrary to article 9 (3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. According to the testimony received, although the current pretrial detention periods do not appear excessive, many detainees are being remanded for lengthy periods, in some cases for years. The National Human Rights Committee also drew attention to this issue in its 2018 report, noting that the use of pretrial detention should be limited and alternative measures to detention should be expanded. Lèse-majesté offences 39. Under article 134 of the Penal Code, a person who “challenges by any public means the exercising by the Emir of his rights or authorities, or criticizes his person” is liable to imprisonment for up to five years. The same penalty applies to offences in relation to the Deputy Emir or the Crown Prince. Article 134 of the Penal Code was considered by the Working Group in its opinion No. 48/2016; the Working Group concluded that detention pursuant to this provision was arbitrary, because it criminalized the right to freedom of expression. 40. The Working Group was informed that article 134 of the Penal Code was rarely applied. However, while this provision remains in the Penal Code, there is a real risk that it will stifle free speech or be used to prosecute persons who peacefully exercise their right to freedom of expression. Under international human rights law, the mere fact that peaceful forms of expression are considered to be insulting to a public figure is not sufficient to justify the imposition of penalties. 41. The Working Group considers that a claim in a civil case, rather than prosecution under the criminal law, is sufficient to remedy any statement deemed defamatory directed at any individual, including members of the royal family of Qatar. The Working Group calls upon the Government to repeal article 134 of the Penal Code and any other provisions that criminalize the peaceful exercise of human rights. Detention based on discriminatory grounds 42. According to the Qatari authorities, the penalties for committing certain sexual offences, including adultery, are the same for both men and women. For example, under article 281 of the Penal Code, it is a crime for a man to have sexual intercourse with a woman over 16 outside of marriage, the penalty for which is imprisonment for up to seven years. The woman who consents to that act is liable for the same penalty. Moreover, under article 298 5 8 A/HRC/42/39, para. 69.