victims of torture under the previous regime and whether there were any specialized institutions or measures available to ensure the full rehabilitation of torture victims. 231. With respect to article 15 of the Convention. members of the Committee noted that domestic legislation did not seem to provide that statements made as a result of torture could be used against a person accused of torture. and sought clarification. r I 232. Replying to questions of a general nature, the representative of the State party referred in detail to the role of the Constitutional Court, established in Bulgaria in October 1991. The court was competent to take decisions on the constitutionality of the laws. Its role was also essential in relation to international instruments to which BUlgaria was a party as well as all those instruments to which Bulgaria wished to become a party since such instruments had to be submitted for review to the Constitutional Court before being submitted to parliament for ratification. The representative stressed that the provisions of the Convention against Torture had become an integral part of domestic legislation and could be directly invoked. 233. Concerning the organization of the judiciary, the representative explained that the new Constitution had established a Supreme Court of Cassation, a Supreme Administrative Tribunal. courts of appeal, regional courts, military courts and district courts. The Supreme Court of Cassation played a role in coordinating and harmonizing jurisprudence and its decisions were binding on all other courts and members of the Government. 234. With respect to the matter of compUlsory medical measures for persons who were not legally responsible. the representative stated that they were applied only on the basis of a decision by the Prosecutor's Office or the jUdge. The Prosecutor's Office was also responsible for monitoring the enforcement of jUdicial decisions and ensuring that conditions of detention were in conformity with the law. The sole responsibility for preliminary investigations lay with judges but there were no examining magistrates as such. only "investigators". Preliminary investigations were carried out by the Department of Public Prosecutions, but once a case had been brought it would be in the hands of the courts and ultimately of the Supreme Court. The state security service had been dissolved in early 1991 and since then no security official could open an investigation. 235. The Department of Public Prosecutions also played a role in supervising the way in which the law was enforced in the prisons but prisons were administratively under the control of the Ministry of Justice. Investigators no longer came under the Ministry of the Interior but belonged to a separate administrative department. The relationship between prosecutors and investigators was governed by law. It was the prosecutor's duty to ensure that the activities of investigators were in conformity with the law. Parliament had adopted a moratorium on capital punishment since 1989 but that did not mean that such a sentence could not be handed down. 236. In connection with article 2 of the Convention. the representative stated that the Constitution and Bulgarian criminal law were categorical about the right of a subordinate not to carry out an unlawful order. With regard to administrative measures taken to ensure that torture was not used, he referred -45Digitized by Dag Hammarskjöld Library If' "