.... 185. Australia's security and intelligence agencies had no powers of arrest or detention and members of those agencies were not in any way exempt from ordinary criminal and civil law. The Royal Commission appointed to investigate aboriginal deaths in custody had not found that any of the deaths investigated were the result of unlawful violence or brutality by police or prison officers but had made several recommendations relating to custodial practices, sentencing and training for police and custodial personnel. The Commission had also recommended that the Government should consider acceding to the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and making the declaration under article 22 of the Convention against Torture. As recommended by the Commission, Australia had acceded in September 1991 to the Optional Protocol to the Covenant and the possibility of making the declaration provided for under article 22 of the Convention against Torture was currently under discussion. 186. Members of the Committee commended the Government of Australia on its excellent and detailed report but requested clarification as to how legislation was actually applied in the Australian federal system. Information was also requested concerning the jurisdiction of federal and other courts and the division of legislative power between the central authority and the states; the mandate and powers of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Cownission and its relationship with the different states and territories; and as to the number of posts of ombudsman, the functions of the ombudsman, and the relationship existing between the Australian and Commonwealth ombudsman. 187. With regard to article 1 of the Convention, members of the Committee wished to receive clarification about the incorporation of the definition of torture in Australian legislation. They asked, in particUlar, whether all forms of torture and their sequelae as referred to in the Convention were covered by Australian legislation, especially the Crimes (Torture) Act 1988. 188. With reference to article 2 of the Convention, it was asked which legislative act contained the provision that an order from a superior officer could not be invoked as a justification of torture and whether it was valid in all states and territories. 189. Concerning article 3 of the Convention, members of the Committee wished to know whether the extradition laws referred specifically to the situation where a person might be extradited to a country where there was a risk that he might be tortured. It was also pointed out that Australia's obligations under that article were not confined to persons covered by the definition of refugee, but extended to persons with well-founded fears of ill-treatment on other grounds than those listed in the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. 190. In relation to article 4 of the Convention, members of the Committee expressed concern that a person who had committed torture or inflicted suffering might be subject to legislation which provided for penalties that varied in harshness depending on the state or territory concerned. 191. With reference to article 5 of the Convention, members of the Committee asked, in particular, whether an Australian state would have the jurisdiction -37- , !I Digitized by Dag Hammarskjöld Library I\i'i ' :;---