328. With regard to articles 1 and 4 of the Convention, the representative recalled that torture was not dealt with as a specific offence in Italy's legal system. The use of torture was contrary both to the fundamental principles of Italian law and to those recognized by various international instruments such as the Convention, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, whose provisions had been introduced into the Italian legal system. Moreover, the principle whereby every individual deprived of his freedom must be treated humanely was included in article 27 of the Italian Constitution and Italian legislation already made sufficient provision for cases that could be assimilated to the concept of torture in its broadest sense. The Convention had been ratified by a special Act of Parliament in order to fill the gaps in the Penal Code and to take account of the definition of torture in the Convention. Determining whether mental torture had occurred was up to the courts. 329. Regarding article 2, paragraph 3, of the Convention, the representative said that, according to article 51 of the Penal Code, acts undertaken on behalf of a public authority, if unlawful, were punishable. 330. Referring to articles 5 to 7 of the Convention, the representative emphasized that in Italian law the principle aut dedere aut judicare prevailed and was applicable in cases of extradition. It was, however, up to the political authorities to determine whether an extradition order should be carried out. Such an order would not be deemed acceptable if the accused person might be subject to the death penalty in the country of jurisdiction or if the offence was of a political nature. 331. With reference to article 10 of the Convention, the representative said that particular attention was being given to ensuring that those responsible for enforcing the law were familiar with human rights priorities. A textbook had thus been prepared with a view to promoting greater awareness in police academies of the relevant aspects of constitutional and criminal law. The Police Department was responsible for recruitment and training, including programmes to inform law enforcement agents about human rights. 332. Referring to articles 11 and 14 of the Convention, the representative explained that preliminary investigations should not normally exceed 18 months. In certain very serious or complex cases, such as those involving terrorism or foreign jurisdiction, the Office of the Public Prosecutor was entitled to request a period of investigation in excess of the statutory 18 months. After the expiry of the maximum period for preliminary inquiries, the examining magistrate set a period of 10 days for submission of the final report, failing which the case was closed. Responsibility for ensuring that human rights were guaranteed in places of detention lay with magistrates. Furthermore, although there was no system for compensating persons claiming that they had been ill-treated while in detention, there was an advisory board to investigate conditions of custody, which was authorized to initiate special inspections. Detention in isolation was permitted only for health reasons and normally involved exclusion from communal activities for a period of up to two weeks. As for incommunicado detention, a time-limit of 24 hours was imposed. 333. Any person held in custody. had to be duly informed of his rights, including the right to a defence counsel, and his family had to be informed -61- Digitized by Dag Hammarskjöld Library