justified a request for compensation for material and non-pecuniary damage. Requests for compensation had to be addressed to the administration and then to a court. Conclusions and recommendations 180. The Committee thanked the Government of Germany for its clear, comprehensive and objective report and its representatives for the pertinent replies they provided to the questions submitted to them. The Committee welcomed the legal and administrative measures that had been taken in Germany to prevent and, where necessary, punish torture, and it was pleased to note that Germany was doing everything in its power to fulfil the obligations it had assumed in ratifying the Convention. The Committee requested the German authorities to inform it of the result of the investigation initiated in Bremen into the incidents brought to its attention; and also requested the Government of Germany to envisage the possibility of making the declarations necessary to be bound by articles 21 and 22 of the Convention. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya 181. The Committee considered the additional report of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (CAT/C/9/Add.12/Rev.1) at its 130th and 135th meetings, on 17 and 19 November 1992 (see CAT/C/SR.130, 135 and 135/Add.2). 182. The report was introduced by the representative of the State party, who highlighted the information contained in it with regard to the political system, the legislative, the executive and the judicial authorities of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, as well as the legal framework for the implementation of the Convention. The representative also stressed that the report dealt with other questions raised by the members of the Committee during their consideration of the initial report. 183. Generally, members of the Committee wished to receive more information on the way in which the Convention was implemented in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. It was asked, in this connection, whether the Convention had become part of the country’s legislation, whether the courts applied the Convention directly and whether an individual could base his actions on the principles embodied in the Convention. More information was also requested on the structure and functioning of the judiciary. It was asked, in particular, how judges were appointed, whether judges could be dismissed, and if so, by which authority, whether there was a disciplinary body to ensure that they carried out their duties properly, whether the Supreme Court operated as a Constitutional Court and whether it had the function of determining the legality of legislation and the consistency of law with the Great Green Document on Human Rights in the Age of the Masses. It was also asked whether there was any organic link between the police officer or the department who arrested an individual and the authority which instituted criminal proceedings on the one hand, and the investigating authorities and the courts which handed down sentences, on the other; whether the Attorney General was responsible for investigations or whether it was the examining magistrate or another body; who had the authority to consider questions concerning detention by the police and whether Libyan law provided that no case could be heard in the absence of a defence lawyer. In addition, members of the Committee sought clarification about the People’s Court and its relationship with civil, criminal and other courts, the role of the personal status courts which applied Islamic law, and the legal effects of the individual amnesty. It was further asked whether the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya was prepared to accept the optional provisions contained in articles 21 and 22 of the Convention. -32-