381. In connection with that issue, members of the Committee wished to know whether there had been any allegations that criminal convictions had been handed down on the basis of confessions obtained under duress and what the regulations had been adopted possible remedies would be in such cases: whether to abolish corporal punishment in all schools; and what measures had been taken to give effect to the right of everyone not to be subjected to medical Clarification was also or scientific experiment without his free consent. requested of the reservation made by the United Kingdom, on ratifying the Covenant, relating to the right to apply to persons lawfully detained in penal establishments of any kind suah laws and procedures as it might deem necessary for the preservation of discipline : of provisions relating to the admissibility of confessions in Northern Ireland; and of the apparent discrepancy between article 3 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights, which was identical to article 7 of the Covenant, and article 28 of the Basic Law. 3U2. In his reply, the representative of the State party said that while allegations of serious ill-treatment aimed at obtaining confessions had If the occasionally been made, they had been very rare in recent years. allegation was made in the course of a criminal trial, the matter was decided during the trial itself and, if upheld, such statements were not admitted as evidence. The Police and Criminal (Northern Ireland) Order contained extensive provisions relating to ordinary criminal offences and ensured that statements obtained under duress were not admissible and allowed the judge to rule on admissibility if there was any suggestion that evidence had been unfairly obtained. A wide-ranging programme of measures to prevent ill-treatment of suspects had been introduced in recent years, mostly under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. 383. Responding to other questions, the representative explained that medical treatment without the consent of the patient was considered to be an assault under the law. Although corporal punishment had been abolished for all publicly funded schools and publicly funded pupils in independent schools, it remained legal for privately funded pupils at independent schools. Such a distinction was justified because the Government did not want to criminaliee every form of chastisement of children. Excessive punishment of a child would be covered by the ordinary law on offences against the pereon, 304. With reference to that issue, members of the Committee requested clarification of the apparent discrepancy between the indication in the report that a detainee had to be brought before a magistrate’s court and charged within 96 hours of his arrest and the statement that detention periods were subject to the sanction of the court after 36 hours. They inquired whether legislation similar to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act,. 1984, had come into operation in Northern Ireland; whether m_aratfa payments to persons who had been detained in custody resulted from an enforceable right to compensation, in the sense of article 9, paragraph 5, of the Covenant; and whether suspects systematically underwent a medical examination or could themselves request such examinations. Further information was also requested about the practice regarding periods recommended by the Home Secretary that life prisoners should serve: and on the provision in the Prevention of -95-