184. In connection with article 2 of the Convention, members of the Committee raised several questions to clarify what rights a detained person had, especially during the critical period immediately after he had been taken in charge by the police. They wished to know, in particular, whether a person could be held incommunicado, whether he was entitled to medical examination, and when and how the accused was able to obtain the assistance of a defence counsel. It was observed that the information provided in the report with regard to police custody and interrogation of an arrested person was somewhat confusing and required clarification. It was asked, in this connection, how preventive detention was defined in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, what the legal time-limits were and when it was applied. 185. Turning to article 3 of the Convention, members of the Committee wished to know whether the provisions of that article were being applied directly in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, whether the non-extradition of any person who would be in danger of torture was effectively guaranteed under the law and, in this connection, what the difference was between the acts of a freedom fighter and a terrorist act and what criteria were used to decide to which category an act belonged. 186. With regard to article 4 of the Convention, clarification was sought about the types of penalties provided by the Libyan Penal Code for persons guilty of torture and the sentences handed down by the criminal courts in cases of acts of torture, particularly when those acts had resulted in the death of the victim. Members of the Committee also asked for clarification on the scope of the term "torture", as used in article 435 of the Penal Code, on whether it covered both physical and mental or moral suffering and on how mental torture was punished under Libyan law. Furthermore, it was noted that, under article 167 of the Civil Code, a person would be held responsible for his unlawful acts committed at a time when he was able to distinguish between right and wrong and it was asked what criteria were applied in law to distinguish between right and wrong. 187. Concerning article 8 of the Convention, it was asked whether, if the Libyan authorities learned of the presence in the country’s territory of a person who was a national of a country with which the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya had no extradition treaty and who was accused of torture in a country with which no extradition treaty existed either, jurisdiction existed under domestic law so that the person concerned might be arrested and brought to trial. 188. With regard to article 9 of the Convention, it was asked what arrangements had been made by the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya in respect of mutual judicial assistance and whether relevant treaties had been signed with other States parties to the Convention. 189. Referring to article 10 of the Convention, members of the Committee wished to know how special education in matters relating to torture for border police, doctors and members of the health profession was provided in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and whether the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Convention were included in the training programmes. 190. It was noted that the report contained no reference to article 11 of the Convention and information was requested on the implementation of its provisions. It was asked, in particular, whether prison inspections by representatives of non-governmental organizations were permitted. 191. In connection with article 12 of the Convention, reference was made to a particular case included in the report of the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on questions relating to torture (E/CN.4/1992/17) and -33-