159. The representative of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya assured the Committee that his Government would comply with its request. Uruguay 160. The Committee considered the initial report of Uruguay (CAT/C/5/Add.27 and 30) at its 95th and 103rd meetings, held on 15 and 21 November 1991, and its 105th meeting, held on 28 April 1992 (CAT/C/SR.95, 103 and 105). 161. The report was introduced by the representative of the State party. 162. Members of the Committee welcomed the submission of the report which contained comprehensive information, and noted with satisfaction that Uruguay had accepted the optional procedures provided for under articles 20, 21 and 22 of the Convention. 163. Members sought additional information on various matters of a general nature relevant to the implementation of the Convention asking, in particular, what reasons had led Uruguay to adopt the Immunity from Prosecution Act; what effect that Act had had on public opinion; and whether the present Government had taken any steps to dismiss persons who had been involved in acts of torture under the previous regime. 164. Members of the Committee also requested details concerning the public demonstrations held in 1990 protesting the death of two young men and the action the Government had taken in response to those demonstrations. They also wished to know the outcome of the Supreme Court's inspection of Libertad Prison in November 1990; whether there were any political prisoners in Uruguay and, if 50, how many such prisoners there were and who had jurisdiction over them; whether the independence of the jUdiciary was guaranteed; how judges were appointed, whether they could be removed and what the compulsory retirement age was; how many courts of appeal there were and whether a case could be brought before any court of appeal. In addition, concern was expressed at reported suicides at Migueletes Prison, about which members requested clarification. 165. Members of the Committee also requested a more detailed explanation of how the remedies of habeas corpus and amparo were actually applied in Uruguay. In that regard reference was made to information received by the Committee concerning, inter alia, a judgement of the Third Rota Criminal Court of Appeal rejecting an application for amparo on the grounds that the court was not the appropriate channel for challenging a general provision. Mention was also made of a ruling that a jUdge had no power to put an end to unfair treatment whereas, according to articles 316 and 317 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a judge was authorized to monitor prison conditions. 166. It was noted, in the foregoing connection, that the judgement appeared to establish that amparo could not be a remedy against an unconstitutional law, whereas in most countries the reverse was true, and that most of the provisions affording protection against torture had been in force in Uruguay before 1985 but had proved inadequate. Members asked what changes in those provisions had been made since 1985 to remedy their shortcomings and whether it was intended to correct various legislative shortcomings. -33Digitized by Dag Hammarskjöld Library