the need to keep preventive detention proportionate to the likely penalty for the alleged offence; the State Prosecutor could require fingerprints to be taken of a detainee or a search to be undertaken for dangerous objects, if necessary, but a detainee was equally entitled to request an independent examination hy a doctor of his or her own choosing if allegations of ill-treatment were raised. Even under a strict regime of detention, detainees could participate in some communal activities and had a permanent right of access to their legal representatives. Complaints concerning the conditions of detention could be referred to the Director of Puhlic Prosecutions. The representative also said that further information on those matters would be provided to the Committee in the future. 308. With regard to article 16 of the Convention, the representative of the reporting State informed the Committee that men and women were kept in separate quarters and minors were not kept in custody. Concluding observations 309. The Committee thanked the Government of Luxemhourg for its report and the replies offered by its delegation. It was noted that according to the representatives'of Luxembourg and the information contained in the report, torture did not exist in Luxembourg. It observed, however, that the report was not fully comprehensive and that Luxembourg legislation was not in conformity with all of the provisions of the Convention. Accordingly, the Committee requested that more detailed answers to certain questions he provided in the first supplementary report, to be submitted by Luxemhourg hy the end of Octoher 1992. In that connection, special reference was made to the following matters: the need for a legal definition of torture (article 1 of the Convention); the need for further clarification as to the applicability of article 3 of the Convention under domestic legislation; measures required to close any possible loopholes in domestic legislation (articles 4 to 8 of the Convention); and measures taken to prevent torture, investigate alleged complaints of torture or ill-treatment and ensure redress to victims of such violations (articles 10 to 14 of the Convention). 310. The Committee considered the initial report of Italy (CAT/C/9/Add.9) at its 109th and 110th meetings, held on 30 April 1992 (CAT/C/SR.109 and SR.ll0/Add.l). 311. The report was introduced hy the representative of the State party, who emphasized that torture was not specified as an offence hy the Italian Penal Code. In recent years, sporadic and isolated episodes of violence heing used hy law enforcement officials had been reported and had given rise to legal proceedings involving particularly severe sentences and disciplinary measures against the culprits. Italy was also discharging its obligations in the matter of action to combat torture within the European framework and was about to publish the report prepared by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture following its recent visit to Italy. Lastly, Italy made a substantial annual contribution to the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture. -57- Digitized by Dag Hammarskjöld Library