332. There was no requirement that a person appearing in court swear an Oath to tell the truth, and a confession was not sufficient to justify a Verdict against an accused person. It was for the courts themselves to determine the truth and to decide what kind of evidenae was to be presented and whether the evidence submitted was germane. Since statements to the police might not have been made freely, or a defendant who had told the police the truth might subsequently decide tbat that would not serve him well in court, it was natural that a court should ask a defandant to explain if his testimony in court differed from what he had told the police. 333. The reservation to article 14, paragraph 7 , of the Covenant was intenaea to cover cases in which evidence had come to light, after a defendant had been convicted, indicating that he was in fact innocent, or in which subsequent evidence made it clear that a defendant had been wrongfully acquitted of a Tbe credibility of the judicial system was not the only issue serious charge. at stake. Rather, it was thought that the public might be alarmed to learn that guilty persons were at large. Freedom of nlwakmt an8on . . of allena 334. With reference to that issue, members of the Committee requested information concerning the findings and proposals of the National Council of Crime Prevention based on its review of how legislation concerning restraining orders had been implemented. They also wished to know whether any new measures designed to make that legislation more effective had been adopted; whether the review by the Parliamentary Committee of the provisions of section 3 of the Act on Terrorists had been completed; what appeals procedure against expulsion orders was available in cases of refusal of entry or of expulsion on the grounds of an expired residency permit; and whether absence of any possibility of appeal in case of expulsion on grounds of national security and presumed terrorist activities was compatible with article 13 of the Covenant. Concerning the specifia situation of several Turkish citizbns of Kurdish descent, clarification was sought as to the length of time before their arrest could be challenged; why the normal rules governing telephone-tapping and searches had not been applied; and whether the non-reviewable designation by the Government of a person as a potential terrorist affected only those aliens who would otherwise be subject to expulsion. 335. In his reply, the representative of the State party explained that restraining orders served as one means of protecting individuals who had already been victims of crime or who were being pursued and harassed by others. Under the amendment to the Act on Restraining Orders adopted in April 1990, a person who failed to abide by the prohibition against visiting or contacting another individual could be sentenced to one year’s imprisonmest~ 336. Concerning the matter of expulsions, the representative stated that a balance had to be struck in any legislation governing expulsion on grounds of national security and presumed terrorist activities between ensuring the effectiveness of measures and guaranteeing the individuals involved the best Possible safeguards. The proposed new legislation in that area would give ‘.he courts a more prominent role, although not the right to make a decision. Tha Proposed expulsion of a presumed terrorist could be submitted to a court for an opinion as to whether the evidence was sufficient and the criteria for -82-