300. In reply, the representative of the State party informed the Committee that it was up to the Conseil d'Etat to determine whether existing legislation was compatible with both the Constitution and the Convention and that in the event of conflict the provisions of the Convention would prevail. He also indicated that a plaintiff could invoke the terms of the Convention in a domestic court and that further details of domestic judicial decisions relevant to the implementation of the Convention would be included in the next report. 301. In addition, he informed the Committee that the death penalty had been abolished in 1979 and that there was only one prison in Luxembourg. He also stated that the references in article 438 of the Penal Code to "hard labour" derived basically from the Code N~oleQn and as such should be regarded as a survival from earlier times. tl t1: ta ne ell 11 eo ae of re pr 302. The representative indicated that a written reply would be given to the various questions of a general nature raised about the judicial system in Luxembourg. He also informed the Committee that the principle of habeas corpus was enshrined in the provisions which safeguarded individual freedoms. There was no state security police in Luxembourg and the entire police force was administered by the Ministry of Justice. reI reI 303. With regard to article 1 of the Convention, the representative of the was reporting State informed the Committee that neither the Constitution nor the Penal Code provided for a definition of torture. Luxembourg law did not differentiate between torture and ill-treatment but there clearly was scope for a more systematic interpretation which would distinguish between ill-treatment and physical or mental torture. 304. Concerning article 5 of the Convention, the representative stated that some exceptions were allowed in Luxembourg to the principle of territoriality in criminal law. Provision was also made for the apprehension in another territory of a person who had committed an offence against Luxembourg law. However, it was unfortunate that no arrangements had been established for cases in which a Luxembourg citizen sought by the authorities of another State for an offence relating to torture might face penalties more severe than those provided under the law of Luxembourg itself. 305. With reference to article 9 of the Convention, the representative of the reporting State said that Luxembourg could make appropriate arrangements with other States in regard to the supply of evidence and other assistance if the political, legal and penitentiary regimes in the country concerned were acceptable and the country had no known record of systematic' violations of human rights. 306. In connection with article 10 of the Convention, the representative said that he believed the training of medical personnel would conform to the provisions of the Convention but that the matter would be checked into further. 307. With regard to articles 11, 12, 13 and 15 of the Convention, the representative of the reporting State said that new provisions on detention in custody had been introduced in 1989 pursuant to which the period of custody could not exceed 24 hours; the criteria relating to preventive detention involved such factors as the likelihood of flight by an alleged offender and -56Digitized by Dag Hammarskjöld Library 30~ tOI COJl Corn pro the the of of to the com] vio: I 310. its SR. J 311. empl: Code by 1 proc agai matt to p Tort annu Tort