d -, + ? 2 ; 7 work s the Covw is m 232. With reference to that issue, members of the Committee wished to know what the status of the Covenant was in relation to the Moroccan Constitution; whether the provision6 of the Covenant were directly enfOrCe6ble; whether the Covenant had become an integral part of Morocco's domestic legislation that could be invoked in the courts: whether Morocco accepted the principle of the precedence of international law over domestic law in the event of IP conflict between the two: whether recourse could be had to the Moroccan court6 in respect of violations of rights not recognised in domestic law but guaranteed by the Covenant: whether the authorities were giving any thought to amending the Constitution to take account of such rights; whether the courts had the power to abrogate legislation not in conformity with the Constitution or the Covenant: whether there had been any actual ca6e6 where court decisions had been based on the Covenant; whether a law had ever been disregardad by a Court on the ground that it was contrary to the Covenant: what were the composition and functie?s of the Moroccan League for the Defence of Human Rights, the Moroccan Human Rights Association and the Moroccan HumanRight6 Organisation; if any, had affected the implementation of the what factors and difficulties, Covenant: and what activities were undertaken relating to the promotion of greater public awareness of the provisions of the Covenant. 233. In addition, members of the Committee wished to know whether judges could be dismissed from office: whether everyone had access to the courts: what had been the purpose of establishing communal or district COurt6: what facilities were provided by the Government to help human right6 organisations discharge their taskst what were the composition and power6 of the Royal Consultative Council, what were the results of it6 fact-finding operations, and whether citieens and other person6 under Moroccan jurisdiction could have recour6e to the Council; and whether the Moroccan Government intended to rati'fy the Optional Protocol. Regarding the constitutional position of the King, members of the Committee asked whether the King wa6 accountable for his acts to any State body and whether the coustitutiouality of the laws promulgated by the King could be challenged. They also wondered how the independence of the judiciary was guaranteed when, according to article 33 of the Constitution, the King presided over the Supreme Council of the Sudiciary and appointed the member6 of the judiciary by decree. 234. Members also wished to know what wa6 the precise competence of the constitutional chamber of the Supreme Court8 why discrimination on the ground6 of political opinion had not been mentioned in the Constitutionr what were the rights of aliens compared to those of citieensi and what control the judicial authority exerted over the actions of the police and local authorities. Finally, in view of the statements in paragraphs 36 and 37 of the report regarding the applicability of the Covenant, they requested the delegation to comment on the statement in the National Charter on Ruman Rights that was signed by various human rights and jurists organizations indicating that there was an absence of effective protection of human rights in Morocco and that their implementation was still limited. 235. In his reply, the representative stated that civil and political right6 guaranteed in the Covenant were granted under the Constitution to all Moroccan citizens without distinction as to membership of any race, ethnic, linguistic, religious or political group, or sex. In every subject area there w&6 a code -57-