• delayed beyond 48 hours upon the authorization of an officer of at least superintendent rank and the reasons for the delay had to be submitted to the detainee in writing. 112. With regard to the concern expressed over the law on the right to silence as provided for in the Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order, the representative stated that this Order was merely a limited measure which removed an advantage enjoyed by a person who refused to answer any questions and sought to bring a police investigation to a halt. A research programme was being carried- out to determine the effects of the Order in relation to terrorist crimes and the Government would consider the results of that research. Referring to the concern expressed about trial without jury in the Diplock courts, the representative indicated that his Government accepted that that solution was not ideal but considered that in such trials appropriate safeguards were provided to defendants, such as the automatic right to appeal to a three-judge court. He also stated that a significant majority of defendants in Diplock courts pleaded guilty. 113. With reference to the allegations of ill-treatment reported by Amnesty International in November 1991, the representative informed the Committee that the allegations would be investigated and disciplinary measures would be taken, as appropriate, against the guilty parties. On the matter of the conduct of investigations into complaints of ill-treatment and the safeguard of the right to redress, the representative provided a description of the powers of the Independent Commission for Police Complaints in Northern Ireland. He indicated that the Commission's primary task was to ensure that complaints about police behaviour were thoroughly investigated and that appropriate disciplinary action was taken. Compensation might be awarded to a victim even where no disciplinary proceedings had taken place or in the absence of a finding of guilt, because the standards of proof which applied in disciplinary and civil proceedings were different. Mr. Brian Gillen had accepted the sum of 7,500 pounds sterling as compensation. With regard to the use of video recordings of interrogations, the representative stated that his Government did not have a closed mind on that point but was not yet convinced that in the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland the introduction of such recordings would not jeopardize the interview procedure. 114. With reference to articles 1 and 4 of the Convention, the representative provided the Committee with the text of section 134 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. He also explained that the content of section 134 was very close in substance and form to article 1, paragraph 1, of the Convention and that to secure a conviction in proceedings in the United Kingdom it was enough for a person to have inflicted severe physical or mental sUffering. Th~ penalty for a person found guilty of torture was life imprisonment. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland the Attorney General's consent was required for proceedings for an offence under section 134. The Criminal Justice Act applied in Scotland where, in addition, persons guilty of torture could be prosecuted for a number of other offences under Scottish Law. Equally, in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, persons guilty of torture could also be prosecuted for- one of the offences under the Offences against the Person Act 1861. The offence of assault was a common law offence. 115. With respect to article 3 of the Convention, the representative indicated that the Secretary of State was empowered to refuse extradition for reasons -24Digitized by Dag Hammarskjöld Library othe When to 1 the rema pers 116. irnmi acce Seer, 117. that extri Kingc who 1 warr. tortl 118. exp12 of nE care. the t that be SE adeqt ConvE 119. Commi seric in. were and s Ringe excel: raise repre Engla measu propo 120. heaH disco recog conce estab avail might the f