A/HRC/13/42* page 143 Country Response territory of another State. • No experiences in countering terrorism can be mentioned where secret detention has been considered as an effective tool. • Promotion and protection of human rights constitutes one of the priority areas in Liechtenstein’s foreign policy, and it regards full respect of human rights as a vital element to ensure the effectiveness of any counter terrorism measure. • 24. Mauritius • No instances of secret detention in the penitentiary system as a means to counter terrorism. • No involvement or collaboration in secret detention on the territory of another State. • The Constitution guarantees the protection of the right to liberty, entitling all persons who have been detained with the right to inform his/her relatives/friend and the right to a visit. As to measures to combat terrorism - the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2002 does not provide for “secret detention” but does allow for “incommunicado detention” for up to 36 hours with access only to a Police Officer of a certain rank. • It is believed that as a counter-terrorism measure, the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2002 falls within the International Human Rights framework. 25. Mexico • No instances of secret detention in the penitentiary system. Even within the context of military detentions, there is a requirement to keep a register of all detainees, and there are procedural safeguards against secret detentions. • No involvement or collaboration in secret detention on the territory of another State. • No further comments on effectiveness of secret detention or other counter-terrorism measures or on past experiences with secret detention. 26. Moldova • No instances of secret detention in the penitentiary system • No involvement or collaboration in secret detention on the