such punishment, certain requirements had to be met for this right to be applied in practice. Replying to the concern expressed over the severity of penalties which could be incurred for offences of rape, the representative explained that the sentences given as examples in the report were the maximum penalty. In each case sentencing was left to the discretion of the jUdiciary and the sentence imposed would also depend on the circumstances of the offence. p~ cc Concluging o~servations st tt 214. The Committee thanked the representatives of Australia for their precise and clear replies, as well as for their close cooperation with the Committee. It expressed the view that Australia was in the forefront of countries defending human rights and commended Australia particularly on the rehabilitation services offered to victims of torture. 22 Co of to BUlgaria Ad Su 215. The Committee considered the initial report of BUlgaria (CAT/C/S/Add.28) at its 97th, 98th and 99th meetings, held on 18 and 19 November 1991 (CAT/C/SR.97-99). 216. The report was introduced by the representative of the State party, who stated that the new Constitution of the Republic of BUlgaria, which had entered into force on 13 July 1991, embodied the principle of separation of powers and guaranteed the separate functioning, independence and equality of the jUdiciary. Moreover, the courts had been brought under the sole authority of the Supreme Judicial Council, which was competent to deal with all matters concerning the appointment, promotion, demotion and reassignment or dismissal and remuneration of jUdges, prosecutors and examining magistrates. ch ex an Be Co co: lel 22: rej in Bu: thl thl Si~ 217. The representative further stated that the Constitution codified the principles of various international standards, including article 16, paragraph 1, of the Convention against Torture. He also indicated that although no special legislation existed in BUlgaria to regulate all aspects of protection against torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, the Constitution provided for many ways of dealing with that problem for which new penal and other laws would have to be adopted. Article 29, paragraph 1, of the Constitution, for example, stipulated that no person should be subjected to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment and article 30, paragraphs 2 and 3, of the Constitution provided for protection against unlawful detention of citizens and restrictions of their liberties. Extensions of the time-limit for preliminary investigations during pre-trial detention were still being allowed but questions, were being raised about the legal responsibility of the Prosecutor's Office in that regard. 222 218. With respect to the inadmissibility of inhuman or degrading treatment, the representative noted that article 30, paragraph 4, of the Constitution provided that everyone was entitled to legal counsel from the time he was detained or charged; article 31, paragraph 2, stated that no defendant could be convicted solely by virtue of a confession; and article 31, paragraph 4, provided that the rights of a defendant could not be restricted beyond what was necessary for the purposes of a fair trial. Com res and tor Con sou' tri, Peni le~ re~ det em~ pri wis COrl mea reg cus rep fOri -42Digitized by Dag Hammarskjöld Library