.... 81. Municipal authorities took decisions on the constitutional aspects of habeas corpus when power to order a detainee's release could not be entrusted to other authorities, perhaps owing to communication difficulties in Ecuador. Mayors and chairmen of municipal councils were not, however, authorized to take any decision on the lawfulness of a warrant for arrest. Any official who refused to obey an order from such municipal authorities for the release of a detainee would be liable to instant dismissal. Amparo was a remedy for which application w~s made to the judicial authority immediately above the court which had ordered imprisonment. 82. The Constitution made contempt an offence and it would be necessary to bring the Penal Code into line with it. Officials were obliged to abide by the decisions of the Court of Constitutional Guarantees and the Court could dismiss or deprive of his civil rights any official who failed to do so. 83. With regard to the jurisdiction of various courts, particularly military and police courts, the representative indicated that the matter had assumed greater importance with the trial of the persons involved in the Restrepo brothers case which, according to the court, came within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the ordinary law system. A draft code of penal procedure was under preparation and it would define more clearly the offences that came under the ordinary law system and those that were subject to the jurisdiction of the police court. With regard to article 1 of the Convention, the representative stated that while domestic legislation did not always use the same vocabulary as the Convention, it was broad enough to enable jUdges to apply the latter's provisions. 84. Referring to article 2 of the Convention, the representative pointed out that there were certain circumstances, such as self-defence, which might justify human rights violations. The declaration of the Supreme Court of Justice in favour of amending article 214 of the Penal Code was intended precisely to bring domestic provisions in line with those of the Convention. 85. With regard to article 3 of the Convention, the representative informed the Committee that a decision to extradite could only be taken by the Supreme Court. Decisions on expulsion were made by the Secretary-General of the police of the province concerned, who was not a police official but a magistrate. His decision was final except where expulsion was provisional. Expulsion could not be ordered to a country where the expelled person might be submitted to torture. 86. In connection with article 4 of the Convention, the representative referred to questions relating to penalties imposed for specific cases of torture and pointed out that one of the failings of the Ecuadorian judicial system was the slowness of proceedings. A large percentage of detainees had to wait months if not years before appearing before a court and it was not unusual for the period spent in pre-trial detention to be longer than the actual prison sentence. Efforts had been made to remedy that situation, including a project, undertaken in cooperation with the United Nations Latin American Institute for the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Delinquency, to improve the administration of justice by the Supreme Court. 87. -18Digitized by Dag Hammarskjöld Library 88 Eel cor 89. the don COIl tal< I per def sue exi spe res. peni pre: rehi 90. that indi ser\l guar for 91. with imprl medic that part: takel note( offic nece~ elimi down legi~ 92. not 5 Penal artic only rehab 93. Great meeti