requested information concerning or refuting reports of ill-treatment of prisoners and allegations of torture which had not been the sUbject of an official inquiry in Cameroon. In that connection, it was also noted that information received from Amnesty International indicated that the authorities had blocked civil actions for damages and that some persons had not been granted court hearings despite their complaints. 252. Noting that there were no specific measures incorporating the provisions of the Convention into Cameroonian domestic law, particularly in respect of the specific prohibition of the use of torture by officials, such as members of the judiciary, the police, prison staff or members of the armed forces, members of the Committee expressed the hope that torture, as defined in the Convention, would be made a specific offence under the new Penal Code now being drafted. 253. Concerning article 2, paragraph 1, of the Convention, members of the Committee wished to know whether there was an intention to make provision, under the new Penal Code, for access by detainees to a lawyer, to regulate the periods between interrogations and to require that the duration of interrogations should be recorded in a register; whether medical examinations of detainees were to be carried out by an independent physician; what the period would be within which a detained person had to be brought before a judge; and what the practice would be concerning the extension of periods of custody. It was noted, in that connection, that no mention had been made in the report of administrative detention. Moreover, it was asked what kind of contacts were permitted during the 20-day period of detention incommunicado and whether, in addition to the Obligation under the Code of Criminal Procedure for the Public Prosecutor to make visi.ts to persons held in police custody, there was also an obligation to visit prison cells. With reference to the statement in the report that persons carrying out arrests were prohibited from using force except when defending themselves against assault, clarification was sought as to what was meant by the term "defence against assault" and whether the principle of proportionality applied. 254. With regard to article 2, paragraph 2, of the Convention, members of the Committee noted that under state of emergency powers custody could be ordered, inter alia, by a minister for two months and extended for a further two months, and wished to know what guarantees were provided for persons held for such long periods in custody in respect of access to their doctor, lawyer and family. Clarification was also sought as to whether persons in custody could be held in private houses, and when held in premises other than police premises, whether such persons could be held incommunicado. 255. With regard to article 3 of the Convention, members of the Committee were interested in receiving information on specific examples of persons returned or expelled who had been able to choose their country of destination. They observed that a person could risk torture on return to his country even when his life or freedom was not threatened for any of the reasons listed in the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, and that the Convention would be contravened if foreigners who did not meet the conditions of entry into Cameroon were returned to a country where torture was practised. Finally, in noting that extradition was ordered by decree of the President, it was asked whether such a decree would take account of the requirements of article 3 of the Convention. . -49Digitized by Dag Hammarskjöld Library