detainees could be released of the sentence. on probation after serving one half or two thirds 123. In reply to questions concerning the Dangerous Recidivists Act, the representative explained that the decision to place a person in solitary confinement was initially the responsibility of a tribunal but that an administrative organ - a prison board - then took the final decision. Appeal was possible against the decision of the tribunal. There were plans to abolish the penalty of preventive detention and to introduce, on an experimental basis, sentences that would take the form or commuafty service. The fall in the number of prison sentences being served was due to frequent recourse to penalties other than imprisonment and the fact that the sentences imposed were shorter. The period in which an appeal could be made against a decision to confine a person forcibly in a psychiatric hospital was to be AIDS and HIV infection were not shortened in order to speed up the procedure. classified as contagious diseases dangerous to public health because the Contagious Diseases Act, which was strictly interpreted, covered only diseases whose spread could be prevented by measures directed at a person having, or suspected of having, the disease, 124. With regard to that issue , members of the Committee asked for clarification as to whether the amendments to the Cost Free Proceedings Act, discussed in paragraph 84 of the report, had actually resulted in the withdrawal of Finland’s reservation to article 14 (3) (d) of the Covenant, and what consideration was currently being given to the withdrawal of the Finnish reservation to article 14 (7) of the Covenant. They also wished to receive further information concerning the application in practice of the Publicity of Court Proceedings Act (No. 945 of 21 December 1964). 125. In his reply, the representative stated that the reservation by Finland in respect of article 14 (3) (d) had become unnecessary and had been withdrawn on 1 August 1990. The Government did not intend to withdraw the reservation to article 14 (7) of the Covenant since the paragraph in question did not appear to be in conformity with the spirit of Nordic law, and the present legislation was not contrary to the principle of ne on which article 14 (7) of the Covenant was based. The application of the Publicity of Court Proceedings Act had presented few problems and there were very few public hearings at the appellant level. Nevertheless, a committee had recently been appointed to revise the procedures of the courts of appeal and other courts with a view to enhancing the public nature of the proceedings, of- and -ion , of sl.rens 126, With reference to that issue, members of the Conunittee wished to be provided with information concerning procedures for appeal against adverse decisions taken under the Passport Act and Passport Decree, which entered into force on 10 October 1967. With regard to the grounds for refusing a passport under the new Passport Act, members of the Committee noted that these grounds could give rise to abuses by the authorities and seemed to be incompatible with article 12 of the Covenant. They also wished to know what remedies were available in case an alien’s work or residence permit was withdrawn, which appeared to have the effect of an expulsion decree. -31-