obtain redress through such bodies could apply directly to the courts; whether there were any other factors and difficulties affecting the implementation of the Covenant; and what measures had been taken to promote public auarene66 of the provisions of the Covenant. 457. In addition, members of the Committee wished to know specifically what derogations had boen made from Obligation6 ,under the Covenant in the Current state of emergency; whether these Blerogations had been duly notified to the Secretary-General under article 4 of the Covenant: whether legal provisions had been made for ensuring that the amended Constitution would remain compatible with the Covenant; what were the difficulties,that could arise if the constitution was amended to bring it into conformity with the standards of was between the Constitution and the the Covenant; what the legal relationship emergency regulations8 whether the series of laws referred to in article 95 of the Constitution and the proposed new article 15 were considered a6 %6rogations; what remedlies were available to person6 whose right6 had been violated by Indian forces and what action had been taken by the Sri Lank.an Government with respect to complaint6 of disappearances as a result of action6 taken by Indian troops; what was the number of Woas corou application6 ma%e an%how many had been declared valid; and whether lawyers engaged in pursuing complaints feared reprisals. 458. Members also wished to know whether the grounds of reasonableness upon which a detention order made by the Secretary to the Ministry of Defence was subject to review were determined by the courts an% what criteria were used in that determinations what the demands of the separatists were an% how the Government envisaged resolving the situationr what had been done to update legislation in light of the Convention on the Rights of the Child; how, specifically, did "persona1 laws" %erogate from the rights of women and children an% what actions Bid the Government propose to take in order to give effect to the provisions of the Covenant in this regard: why individual6 ha% no direct access to the Parliamentary COmmiSSiOner for Administration (Ombudsman); why the system of censorship ha% been adopted in stagesr whethar constituents had a particularly close relationship with their Member of Parliament: to what extent Members of Parliament were aware of the human rights enshrined in the Covenants and why the proposed new amendment to the Constitution Substituted the Concept of race for that of ethnicity. 459. In reply, the representative Said that the Covenant could not be directly invoked before the courts, since international law became part of domestic law only upon formal incorporation. However, the rights provided for under the Covenant were enshrined in the chapter of the Constitution dealing with fundamental rights. Emergency regulation6 had to be consistent with the COnStitutiOn and, hence, with the Covenant, The %eclaration of a state of emergency had to be ratified by Parliament and could be 6truck down by the Courts on ground6 of unconstitutionality. Only the derogation6 permitted by the Covenant were permitted under the emergency regulations. Gafeguards with regard to the writ of -as corq@ and the ability to challenge the validity of the regulation6 in a court of law remained unimpaired. Information on humanrights instrument6 had been distributed to the armed forces and the policer seminars on human right6 topics had been con%ucte% for member6 of those services) and teaching about human rights had been made part of the school curriculum. -115-