I i I I 1 state Governments had initiated action to apply the recommendations of the Royal Commission and the reforms being implemented were likely to be applied to all, and not just to aboriginal detainees. Police custody rules varied according to each state, the maximum duration of detention being six hours. That limit could be extended for medical reasons, to allow time to enter into contact with a lawyer or if the judge lived far away. Any statement made by a person in police custody after the expiry of the maximum period of detention was inadmissible. Thus, pre-trial detention was unusual in Australia. There was no federal prison and any person found guilty of a violation of federal law served his sentence in a state prison. Concerning the internment of mentally ill patients, no one in Australia could be detained other than by a court order. Federal rules required that a decision concerning a mentally ill person's release from an institution or the continuation of his treatment had to be taken by at least two doctors. In addition, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission was carrying out a broad study on the rights of mentally ill persons. 210. With regard to articles 12 and 13 of the Convention, the representative indicated that although the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission could deal with complaints for offences within the scope of the Convention, it had never had before it an allegation of conduct amounting to a violation of the Convention. The Convention against Torture did not seem to have been invoked in Australia and, therefore, there were no statistics on cases of torture. On the other hand, all complaints against the police in 1989-1990 had been investigated and, in many cases, the court's conclusions had been in favour of the complainants. 211. With reference to artiCle 14 of the Convention, the representative stated that he was not in a position to provide statistics concerning people who were in rehabilitation centres, but three grants had been made in 1989 for a treatment and rehabilitation programme for victims of torture and trauma in which doctors, dentists, occupational therapists, psychiatrists and voluntary associations were taking part. Financing for that programme was continuing. Moreover, a professor of medicine had been requested to draw up a report to determine the psychological and other problems that affected refugees and other victims and to define the services and assistance to be provided to such persons. In reply to concerns raised on the matter of compensation to victims of ill-treatment or torture, the representative stated that in addition to the compensation provided by law, the victim could bring an action against the person responsible and even, as appropriate, against the Government. There was also the possibility of ex gratia compensation, especially in cases of abusive sentencing. 212. Referring to issues raised under article 15 of the Convention, the representative said that, although legal systems and structures varied from one state to another, legislation on the gathering of evidence had not in any way amended the common law rule which prohibited the use of evidence obtained other than by lawful means. Not only were confessions or admissions obtained by torture inadmissible as evidence before the courts but so was all evidence obtained under similar conditions, including expert reports and statements. 213. In relation to article 16 of the Convention, the representative stated that corporal punishment was prohibited in most if not all public educational institutions. For those private schools which had reserved the right to apply -41Digitized by Dag Hammarskjöld Library