A/HRC/13/42* page 144 Country Response territory of another State. • No further comments on effectiveness of secret detention or other counter-terrorism measures or on past experiences with secret detention. 27. Montenegro • No information or evidence that persons suspected of terrorism have been arrested or detained on the territory of Montenegro or that they have been secretly detained. The relevant authorities or institutions do not possess information about potential arrest or secret detention of those suspected of terrorism, nor about any such imprisonment and/or arrest resulting in death or violence. • No facilitation of secret detention. • As to counter-terrorism measures, a number of laws have been passed which sanction the criminal act of terrorism and provide for identification of such perpetrators and establish institutional bodies responsible for detection, investigation and decision making in cases of suspected terrorist acts. • Emphasizes that Montenegro is a member of CAT, OPCAT and the European Convention. 28. Paraguay • No information on any instances of secret detention. All arrests should be carried out within the legal framework. • Paraguay does not have any specific anti-terrorism laws, so that all crimes are dealt with in accordance with the Penal code. There is a draft law currently being considered in relation to anti-terrorism measures. • No information of any secret detention facilities, nor are there any plans for construction of such sites. • No involvement or collaboration in secret detention on the territory of another State. • Emphasizes Paraguay’s compliance with its international human rights obligations. 29. Peru • The Ministry of Interior has no knowledge of any instances of secret detention in the penitentiary system, nor any facilities for secret detention. • No involvement or collaboration in secret detention on the