complain at any time to others than was Possible for independent visitors detention. the warden of the prison, and whether to receive complaints in places of it 590, The representative of the State party said that the maximum period of pre-trial detention was normally five days. Solitary confinement was only imposed in cases of espionage or where the person concerned constituted a danger to the security of the State or to other persons. Except in the case 0f espionage. all accused persons and detainees could contact a lawyer or Nothing in law prevented citizens from membersof their family after arrest, suing for damages as a result of unlawful arrest or from obtaining of prisoners, to compensation. A committee existed to protect the interests inspect detention centres and to hear complaints. Officials of the Public ~roseCUtOr's Office and representatives of the Chamber of Deputies, as well a8 delegates from bodies such as Amnesty International, had the possibility to ascertain the conditions under which persons were held in detention. 591, Administrative detention was reserved for very special circumstances, for exemple when there was a perceived danger to others. Thus, when a murder had been committed, persons likely to engage in acts of vengeance could be taken into preventive custody for a period not exceeding five days. house arrest, the restriction of freedom of movement or preventive detention could also be resorted to when information had been received concerning the preparation of a crime. The draft Law on State Security had been examined by the Chamber of Deputies and was currently before the Senate. kt the present time, there were no political detainees in Jordan. Cases involving persons who were mentally ill were considered by a commission of medical specialists who were responsible for determining whether a person was suffering from a mental disorder that might induce him to disturb public order. If a crime had been committed, a lawyer was appointed and the responsibility of the person involved for his acts was investigated, Such cases called for close collaboration between the medical and legal professions. t of prisoners auther de- With regard to that issue, members of the Committee wished to know whether any restrictions were placed on the right of prisoners to receive visits and to maint&in contacts with the outside world and to what extent the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners were complied with, They also sought information on the conditions and duration of solitary confinement and on any complaints received about ill-treatment of detainees, and about measures that had been taken to investigate complaints ond punish those found guilty. In addition, members asked whether corporal llunishment was prohibited under the new law and what provision had been made for the rehabilitation and retraining of prisoners. 592. 593. The representative of the State party, in his reply, stated that a high-level committee had visited prisons and found no evidence of torture or ill-treatment. There were no legal restrictions on prisoners’ visits, except where espionage and mental instability of detainees were involved. No ~~i6crimination was Practised in regard to detention in particular centres. He further indicated that the Government, pursuing the path of reform, now referred to prisons as rehabilitation or correction centres where the emphasis -145-