290. In respect of article 3 of the Convention, members of the Committee asked whether a deci,sion on expulsion could be taken only by the Minister of Justi.ce and what guarantees existed to ensure that a person would not be expelled to a State where the risk of his or her being tortured existed. 291. In connection with article 6 of the Convention, it was asked what provision was made for a person in custody to be assisted in communicating immediately with the nearest appropriate representative of the State of which he or she was a national or a resident. 292. With regard to article 7 of the Convention, members of the Committee wished to know whether the State party was fully in compliance with the article, especially in respect of dealing with torture-related offences in Luxembourg even when the alleged offender was not a national of Luxembourg or had committed the offence outside Luxembourg. In that regard, details of the domestic legislation providing for such proceedings were requested. 293. In connection with article 9 of the Convention, it was asked how mutual judicial assistance was carried out in the absence of bilateral treaties. 294. With reference to article 10 of the Convention; further information was requested as to whether medical personnel and others were educated or informed about torture-related issues. 295. With regard to article 11 of the Convention, members of the Committee wished to know what measures were available for monitoring the conditions of persons under detention; whether detention could be prolonged beyond the 24-hour limit and, if so, by whose authority; whether detainees could contact both a family member and a lawyer and could be examined by a doctor of their own choosing; who took the decision to place a person in isolation and how such a decision could be reviewed; whether a person kept in isolation could contact his lawyer and could benefit from an hour of exercise out of doors per day and what medical services were available to him. 296. With regard to articles 12 and 13 of the Convention, members of the Committee asked whether the police had the right to conduct an inquiry into any allegation of ill-treatment and, if so, how such an inquiry differed from that ordered by an examining magistrate. Members also observed that the report did not contain sufficient information about the implementation of those articles. 297. Concerning article 14 of the Convention, members of the Committee wished to know whether a victim of torture could seek redress or compensation from the State party and whether a victim in such cases could also claim compensation for loss of earnings. 298. With refer.ence to article 15 of the Convention, members of the Committee sought clarification as to the meaning of the concept of "evidence gained by wrongful and unfair means". 299. Concerning article 16 of the Convention, members of the Committee asked whether women were separated from men in prisons and whether minors were also held in prisons. -55Digitized by Dag Hammarskjöld Library