In addition, members of the Committee wished to know whether legal or other measures had been adopted to remedy the specific violations of the rights of individuals on which the Committee had cotnmentadr what was the position of the Covenant in relation to domestic legislation in aase of a conflictt what legal remedy could be sought for alleged violations of articles of the Covenant which had not been incorporated into domestic law: how remedies were coordinated in practice and whether all remedies were equally available to aliens and nationals: what was the legal difference between a decree as opposed to a law ; whether the review of legislation before the ratification of the European Convention on Human Rights had included consideration of the situation of people deprived of their freedom; how the independence of the judges in the Provincial Administrative Courts was guaranteedr whether any changes had been considered to chapter II of the Constitution inasmuch as the enumerated rights appeared to be applicable to Finnish citizens only; whether there were any plans to make the Committee on International HumanRights Issues an interministerial bodyj what attitude was taken by that Committee and the Government regarding the use of development aid to promote human rightst and what activities were undertaken by Finnish non-governmental organizations in promoting human rights. 106. 107. In his reply, the representative said that since its establishment, the Committee on International HumanRights Issues had held about 10 meetings annually for the effective monitorirg of developments relating primarily to the international dimension of human rights; all the national aspects had simultaneously been given critical consideration. There were four main areas of interest which the Committee kept under scrutiny: the activities, respectively, of the United Rations, the Council of Europe and the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE), and the relationship between development aid and human rights. It had held a seminar on the last topic and planned to publish a new Finnish version of a compilation of international human rights instruments and to o’ganize research on human rights questions once the necessary financial resources had been allocated. The Committee’ had also given its opinion on Finnish draft reports to various United Nations bodies, such as the present report, and had proved to be an expert body whose opinions had been most valuable for the work of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. It was not considered necessary to create a new interministerial committee, and cooperation between the Ministries of Justice and Foreign Affairs was considered adequate. 108. In reply to the question concerning the application of the Covenant in a domestic court of law, the representative explained that the 1988 decision of the Supreme Administrative Court had concerned the cancellation of a passport, a matter which at that time had been regulated by government; decree only, not by law, The court had argued that there was no conflict of norms in the case because the restrictions set forth in article 12 of the Covenant were applicable. The basic attitude of the judiciary and the courts of law was becoming increasingly ftlvourable to making the Covenant directly applicable, but the question was still under discussion. Referring to the question on the Parliamentary Ombudsman,he stated that the Ombudsmandid not normally refer to international human rights standard6 if there was an equivalent provision in Finnish law. He did occasionally cite international instruments in order to promote grsater awareness of their provisions. For example, the Qnbudsman had in the past made references to the rights of non-citizens and of persons deprived of their liberty as well as to the independence of judges, as contained in various articles of the Covenant. No suits had been filed under -27- I