convicted prisoners and detainees were informed about the Convention, what the cases were in which human rights and freedoms could be restricted, as referred to in the Act on criminal investigation activities, and what legal grounds existed for those restrictions. Further information was requested on the amendments which had been made to existing legislation, and on law enforcement. The text of the legislation mentioned in the report was also requested. 120. In connection with article 2 of the Convention, members of the Committee wished to know, in particular, what the maximum length of pre-trial detention was, at what stage the lawyer was brought in to assist the accused person, and whether the rules governing arrest and detention applied equally to the ordinary police, the State security forces and the armed forces. 121. With reference to articles 1 and 4 of the Convention, members of the Committee wished to know whether the existing Ukrainian Penal Code gave a definition of torture, what the penalties were for public officials who violated the Convention, and whether there were any cases of torture in Ukraine. 122. With regard to articles 6 and 7 of the Convention, it was asked whether there was an immigration act in Ukraine, whether ordinary criminals and military personnel found guilty of a crime were subject to the same rules and regulations and what happened to convicted prisoners who served their sentence in another State. 123. Referring to article 10 of the Convention, members of the Committee requested information on measures taken for the training of public officials about matters relating to torture and its prohibition. 124. In his reply, the representative of Ukraine, referring to the difficult transitional period of his country, stressed that three different governments had been formed in less than one year and in such circumstances a government had no time to adopt legislation aimed at providing solutions to the problems which had been mentioned. In particular, the new codes to which reference had been made during the discussion did not yet exist. In view of the complexity of the situation, it would be very difficult, therefore, to provide supplementary information, apart from the specific information on changes which had just been reported. 125. Referring to questions of a general nature raised by the members of the Committee, the representative stated that in Ukraine the provisions of international treaties had force of law without having to be incorporated into the legislation, except in cases where implementation machinery had to be established. For example, the Convention against Torture provided for compensation to be paid to victims for injury or damage they had suffered. In that case, specific legislation had been enacted to compensate, in particular, victims of political repression. The representative also stressed that the independence of the judiciary was a guarantee against torture and confessions obtained by force and, in his view, the adoption of an act on the judiciary providing for such independence was the most important measure to be taken at present in his country. With regard to cases of restriction on the exercise of human rights, he said that, in the past, cases of restriction were kept secret, while, at present, they were established by law. For example, it was known in which cases telephone listening devices could be used and when correspondence could be opened. 126. Referring to article 2 of the Convention, the representative explained that an individual could be held in pre-trial detention for three hours but, if there were grounds for believing that he would be accused of a crime and it was necessary to hold him longer, he could be held for three days, provided that, -23-