Convention, a bilateral treaty derogating from those articles would represent a derogation from the Convention. was tortl 344. On article 6 of the Convention, it was observed that the provision of the Romanian Code of Penal Procedure to the effect that it was for the prosecutor to notify the detention order to the diplomatic mission of the person charged did not seem to be consistent with article 6, paragraph 3, of the Convention. Clarification was also sought concerning the measure whereby a person suspected of an ordinary offence could be compelled to remain in his locality of usual residence. Details were also requested concerning the procedures for extending the limit on police custody of 24 hours. 351. asks! Romal was I obta: what 352. requE 345. Referring to article 8 of the Convention, members of the Committee asked whether the provisions of that article were directly applicable in Romania. 346. In connection with article 9 of the Convention, information was requested on the specific procedures for mutual judicial assistance. It was asked whether Romania had concluded extradition treaties with countries to which it was not bound by an international convention. 347. With regard to article 10 of the Convention, stress was laid on the particular importance of that article in the light of the situation in Romania, where education and training represented means of changing attitudes impregnated with the after-effects of the old regime and spreading a genuine human rights culture to all levels. Members of the Committee asked whether there were training programmes for medical personnel. 348. On article 11 of the Convention, information was requested on interrogation procedures and whether incommunicado detention was authorized. Details were requested on the procedures for supervision of acts in criminal proceedings. Questions were asked about the role and respective spheres of competence of the prison administration and the Office of the Public Prosecutor in the conduct of periodic inspections to ascertain whether prison establishments conformed to legal provisions. 349. With regard to artiCles 12 and 13 of the Convention, details were requested about the status and functions of the prosecutor and the means at his disposal to take action against abuses by prison service personnel. Details were also requested about the procedures for lodging complaints in the event of torture. It was asked whether the police had ever been called upon to take action in the case of a complaint of torture. A question was asked about the number of proceedings initiated against police officers and the sentences handed down. It was noted that Romanian legislation did not provide for special measures to ensure the protection of complainants or witnesses against ill-treatment. 350. In connection with article 14 of the Convention, clarification was requested concerning the compensation and rehabilitation offered to torture victims. Clarification was also sought concerning the direct responsibility of the State in cases of torture perpetrated by its agents. Questions were asked about the possibility for a criminal court to rule on a civil action, and it was asked whether the victim could appeal to the court if the prosecutor decided not to initiate proceedings for lack of evidence. Emphasis 353. repre orgar: insta Presi compe perso curre bill, Supre with Accor irrem admin given exaroi: court: decrel inter polit: Concel taken been t 75 pel deputi been i jUdici being and th Servic People citize were a 354. W out th his le on the 355. I that a -64Digitized by Dag Hammarskjöld Library