between German law and Germany’s international obligations, precedence was given to international obligations over any others. That case had never arisen, however. 175. In connection with article 2 of the Convention, the representative explained that the police was required to bring any person who had been arrested before a judge on the day following his arrest; the judge informed the person of the charges against him as well as of his rights. The suspect could call the lawyer of his choice and refuse to make any statements in his absence. Persons who were suspected or accused of terrorism were treated in the same way as other offenders. A person placed in remand custody could at any time request the judge to interrupt his detention. Within a period of six months at most, the Supreme Court of the Land had to rule whether remand custody was not too severe a measure in relation to the charges and circumstances of the case. The representative further explained that the use of violence by the police within the limits authorized by law concerned situations such as body searches, fingerprinting etc., where the suspect refused to comply with police instructions. In that kind of situation, the police acted in accordance with the principle of proportionality; in other words, the restraint used should be proportional to the end sought. On the other hand, the representative informed the Committee that investigations were being carried out in two cases of ill-treatment allegedly suffered by persons arrested by the police, which had been reported by Amnesty International. 176. With regard to article 4 of the Convention, the representative pointed out that under article 223 of the German Penal Code, physical or moral ill-treatment was punishable and that any person causing serious bodily harm to, or jeopardizing the health of another person could be sentenced to a maximum of three years’ imprisonment. In this connection, he referred to a number of judgements handed down by the courts in respect of different kinds of physical or mental ill-treatment. For the same crime, an official such as a police officer could incur much more severe punishment than an ordinary citizen, since he could be sentenced to 5 years’ imprisonment and, in very serious cases, to 15 years’ imprisonment. The extortion of testimony by mental torture was also an offence under German Criminal Law and confessions obtained under duress could not be used before a court. 177. With reference to articles 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the Convention, the representative stated that a foreigner suspected of having committed torture abroad could be brought before a German court, if the country of origin did not request his extradition. However, the government procurator could not, under article 153(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, institute proceedings in certain circumstances, as when the person concerned had already been sentenced abroad for the same offence or if an additional sentence might constitute unduly severe punishment. 178. In connection with articles 10 and 11 of the Convention, the representative referred, in particular, to directives concerning the training of officials with a view to making them aware of the need to respect strictly article 136 (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure providing that confessions obtained under duress could not be used before the court. The representative acknowledged that not only personnel responsible for the application of laws, but also medical personnel, health workers, psychologists, psychiatrists and social educators should be fully informed about matters connected with torture and that work in that field should be intensified. 179. Referring to article 14 of the Convention, the representative explained that the normal rule of responsibility for the commission of illegal acts applied to public officials; any wrong done to persons or damage to property -31-