provision according to which the procurator haa to decide on the lawfulness of detention was compatible with article 9, paragraph 4 , of tlm Covenant8 whether damage caused to a citieen a6 a result of unlawful arrest or detention ‘entailed automatic reparation by the State; whether it wa6 still possible for a person to be compelled to undergo psychiatric treatment without any authority being informed; and whether the system of forced and compulsory labour in the Ukrainian SSR wa6 compatible with article 8 of the Covenant. 205. In his reply, the representative of the State party pointed out that, under the Ukrainian Criminal Code, prisoners could be placed in solitary confinement for up to a year, depending on the type of establishment where they were serving their sentences. Decisions on such matter6 were strictly regulated by law and were taken by the prison administration in agreement with the procurator. In general, offenders were subjected to different prison regimes depending on their personality and the gravity of the offence they haa committed. The Standard Minimum Rule6 for the Treatment of Prisoners were generally complied with, but they were not Observed everywhere because many persons working in penal institution6 did not know about them. The fact that procurators had the power to order pre-trial detention did not necessarily involve violations of the Covenant. The Supreme Soviet had decided in 1959 to set the maximum period of pre-trial detention ordered by a procurator at 18 months. Abuses committed by an organ of inquiry were punishable and the responsibility of the State or of the person involved was engaged in that ca6e. 206. Responding to other questions, the representative said that the legislation of the Ukrainian SSR clid not contain any provision similar to that of article 9, paragraph 3, of the Covenant. Alternative form6 of aetention set out in the new article 160 of the Criminal Code included fines and extra work at the convicted person’s usual place of work. Compulsory labour was imposed as a replacement for a CU6tOdf61 sentence and was, therefore, in no Confessions obtained by physical or way inconsistent with the Covenant. psychological coercion could not be accepted by the court of first instance but, in practice, some persons had been convicted on the basis of such confessions. The Procurator’s Office and the Ministry of the Interior had, however, instituted proceeding6 against the official6 who had emerted pressure to obtain confessions. 207. Referring to the possibility of the assistance of counsel af:er arrest, the representative said that there were a number of problem6 in that area, notably owing to the shortage of lawyers. Consideration wa6 being given to methods for providing legal assistance and the new Code of Criminal Procedure would contain provisions in that regard, In 1989, the authorities had adoptea provisions relating explicitly to psychiatric help * eetting out guarantees for those confined and stressing that individual6 who were not mentally ill should not be confined in psychiatric hospitals. Biaht to a fair Q.&d 208. With regard to that issue , members of the Committee wished to know what qualifications were necessary for appointment as a judge and what were the grounds for dismissing a judge: what the procedure6 were for recalling or dismissing a judge before the expiry of his term: what guarantees there were for ensuring that the terms and conditions of service and other emoluments and privileges of judges were not altered to their detriment during their terms of -5o-