minorities were concerned, all of them had their respective associations. The gypsies - the largest minority in Hungary - had formed about 150 associations on various levels, which were very active in human rights-related activities. There was also a parliament of gypsies which defended the rights of that minority at the national level. As to professional groups, the influential Hungarian Lawyers Association constituted a guarantee of respect for human rights, including protection against torture. A bill on the rights of national and ethnic minorities was before the Parliament. The bill had been discussed in the Council of Europe at Strasbourg and had been found to represent a good approach to the issue; it covered all aspects and needs of minorities, both national and ethnic. A bill concerning the regulation of the media was being debated in Parliament and it was hoped that it would shortly be enacted. 354. The representative further stated that a bill providing for Hungary’s accession to the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was currently before the Parliament. Public opinion polls had revealed a slight majority in favour of abolition of the death penalty. Progressive abolition of harsh penalties was a tradition of Hungarian legal doctrine, and it should not be difficult to follow up the Constitutional Court’s opinion that the death penalty should be abolished not only for political offences but also for other offences to which it had hitherto been applicable. The representative explained that anyone could refer to the Convention in court and judges could refer to it directly, but this had not been done so far because the domestic law had proved to be adequate in this respect. Statistics concerning cases of torture up to 1990 were available in the report; the later statistics were only of a general character. The representative also provided the Committee with a detailed description of the office of the ombudsman for the protection of civil and political rights and of the ombudsman for the protection of the rights of national and ethnic minorities in his country. 355. With regard to article 3 of the Convention, the representative said that if no agreement existed with a country whose nationals should be prosecuted for torture, Hungary would have recourse to the relevant provisions of the Convention itself, and would extradite an alleged torturer even in the absence of an extradition agreement. 356. With respect to article 4 of the Convention, the representative stated that the punishment of acts related to torture could only be carried out according to the Penal Code. Torture, as defined in the Convention, constituted in Hungarian law an aggravating circumstance affecting certain acts which involved deprivation of personal freedom. Article 228 of the Criminal Code sanctioned punishments for such acts, and the penalties had been increased under Act 17 of 1993, which also obliged judges to deal very severely with such offences, taking into account article 4 of the Convention. 357. As to whether Hungarian practice conformed to articles 6 and 7 of the convention, the representative indicated that a national of another State suspected of having committed an offence specified in the Convention was subject to the same treatment and procedures as a Hungarian national. Under the Convention, problems relating to extradition must be settled according to the principles of universal jurisdiction. He also pointed out that Act XXXII issued in 1993 provided that every detainee must be informed in his mother tongue of his rights as they related to all phases and aspects of his detention. 358. In connection with article 10 of the Convention, the representative informed the Committee that necessary information on human rights, including that concerning the Convention against Torture, could be obtained by citizens from the official gazette, the press and professional publications. In that connection, he referred to the Acta Humana series published by the Hungarian -58-