or service performed pursuant to a sentence handed down as part of the judicial process. Regarding the possible incompatibility of article 33 of the Constitution with article 9 (1) of the Covenant, the situations envisaged were very specific and applied only to exceptional circumstances. He could recall no cases where those constitutional and subsidiary legal norms had been enforced. During the past 14 months no one had been detained for reasons other than crimes, except for those detained under Act No. 112 for administrative infractions, but that Act would probably be repealed shortly. No distinction was made between remand in custody and detention pending trial. Pre-trial detention applied only to offences carrying prison sentences and could last throughout the investigation and trial process. Detention in other cases would normally last between two and four months, but in view of the large number of cases and the shortage of resources, the judicial process was often not completed within that period. The Government had enacted a iaw aimed at relieving prison overcrowding and dealing with the long periods of detention by providing alternatives to incarceration. All persons placed under arrest now had the right to legal counsel in all police and judicial proceedings and could be visited by family members from the moment of arrest. The Penal Code required the State to pay civil damages where the defendant succeeded in obtaining the general dismissal of proceedings after having undergone more than one year of pre-trial detention. The State incurred civil responsibility only when a special agent had been involved, but prosecutors, judges or other officials unlawfully detaining an individual were not considered to be special agents. Right to a fairL.&al 438. With regard to that issue, members of the Committee asked for a clarification of article 43 of the Constitution allowing for laws to have retroactive effect, titer & for reasons of “public order or social interest”. They also wished t; know what were the terms of Cabinet Decree No. 17 of 24 January 1990 reforming and repealing provisions suspending the legal profession: what measures had been taken to safeguard the independence of the judiciary and the Public Prosecutor’s Office and how extensive the reform6 affecting the criminal. investigation department and the Public Prosecutor’s Office were; what developments had occurred with regard to the bill dealing with reform of the prison system; how effective constitutional and legal guarantees were in respect of the independence of magistrates and judges in the exercise of their functionst and how the Bar was organized and functioned. 439. In addition, members of the Committee wished to know why article 9 (5) of the Covenant could not be invoked directly in cases not covered by article 129 of the Penal Code or precluded by other legislation and whether that article had ever been invoked in fact and, if so, with what result: what were the consequences of the Supreme Court’s declaring a law unconstitutional; what types of provisions could be repealed and replaced by the Supreme Court: whether the judgements of the Supreme Court and its Chambers could be challenged through a writ of unconstitutionality; what were the conditions prescribed by law relating to the discharge or suspension of magistrate6 and judges and were they of such nature as to remove any reluctance by judges to act independently; what steps were envisaged to strengthen the independence of the judiciary: how many political prisoners were currently being held: whether the decree governing demonstrations could be repealed on grounds of -llO-