of the State party ~ould make the legislative system more consistent and repeal laws that were incompatible with higher-ranking legal provisions and with the Convention. l8! del orl in1 180. The Committee also considered that the Government of Uruguay should im energetically prosecute persons guilty of torture. which continued to be practised in some cases. as well as individuals who had been guilty of committing torture under the dictatorship. It asked that detailed information on that sUbject and on the medical rehabilitation of torture victims should be included in Uruguay's first supplementary report. scheduled for June 1992. That report might also indicate the measures taken to resolve problems connected with the prison system which. in the absence of judicial supervision. enabled maltreatment to occur in the prisons. pr! pr. COil to Rill: TOI SeE mall Tor Aystralia 186 181. The Committee considered the initial report of Australia (CAT/C/9/Add.8) at its 95th and 96th meetings, held on IS November 1991 (CAT/C/SR.9S and 96). 182. The report was introduced by the representative of the State party. who stated that it was his Government's policy to ensure. before ratifying a convention, that Australia was in a position to comply with the international obligations it would assume under it. In the case of the Convention against Torture. existing domestic law was in most respects adequate for compliance, although new legislation would be needed to ensure that the Convention was fully implemented. Acts amounting to torture would generally be covered by offences under criminal law. Victims of torture could seek compensation under various criminal injuries compensation schemes or a common law action in tort and damages could be sought for both physical injury and nervous shock. The Crimes (Torture) Act 1988 fulfilled Australia's obligations under the Convention in relation to acts of torture committed outside the jurisdiction of state and territory criminal law. exc leg Inf oth aut: Dpp, tar: ombl Conu 187, wisl tort forl1 COVE 188. 183. There were special procedures in all jurisdictions to ensure competent investigation of allegations of torture by police or prison officers. Complaints about police conduct were generally dealt with first by an internal investigation body and later reviewed or monitored by an external body. Moreover, several jurisdictions had created specific legislative schemes for investigating complaints about the police. In others. a state ombudsman had been given wide powers to investigate such complaints. Complaints of mistreatment in prisons could be made to official prison visitors or inspectors and in most states, the ombudsman also had authority to deal with such complaints. On the federal level. complaints could be made to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. 184. Military personnel were subject to the law of the land. Even in very exceptional circumstances. when the armed forces were required to pr~tect constitutional processes, they would be involved only after the government of a state had made a request to the Governor-General, who would then take the necessary legal measures in accordance with procedures agreed by Parliament. Military personnel held in detention were protected under the Defence Force Instructions. which gave them the right to make complaints to the officer in charge. Such complaints had to be investigated without delay. -36- Digitized by Dag Hammarskjöld Library legi coul all 189. to k wher migh that reful othe of RI 190. exprl suffE variE 191. askec