= to prosecute for an offence committed outside Australia under the Crimes (Torture) Act of 1988. 192. With regard to article 6 of the Convention, it was asked whether, under the provision of paragraph 1 of that article concerning extradition for offences involving acts of torture, the principle of universal jurisdiction was applied by Australia. 193. With reference to article 8 of the Convention, it was asked whether the Convention was regarded by Australia as providing a sufficient legal basis for granting extradition to a country which had requested it. 194. With respect to article 9 of the Convention, it was asked what the scope was of the provision in Australian law whereby persons could be compelled to give evidence in relation to the prosecution of crimes in another country and whether the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act, referred to in the report, was part of federal legislation. 195. With regard to article 10 of the Convention, members of the Committee wished to know what special educational opportunities were available for medical professionals working in police stations, prisons and mental health institutions to ensure that they were made aware of their obligations to avoid ill-treatment of detainees, prisoners and patients. Information was also requested concerning training for the prevention of torture provided to police and prison officers in all states and territories of Australia. In that connection, it was observed that the staff of rehabilitation centres referred to in the report might be well qualified to provide training for medical and other professionals in connection with torture. 196. Concerning article 11 of the Convention, members of the Committee sought clarification as to how the internal review of rules and practices relating to the custody and treatment of persons in detention was carried out in practice. They also wished to know what authority was competent to decide on detention; what authority in each state was responsible for monitoring measures of detention and conditions and accommodation in prisons; whether systematic reviews of the treatment of detainees involved unannounced visits by judges to places of detention; and what federal authority was ultimately responsible for prison institutions. In addition, members of the Committee asked whether an accused person could be held incommunicado in Australia and, if so, for how long; whether an accused person had the right to communicate with his lawyer or to undergo a medical examination; within what period of time a detainee was to be brought before a judge; whether e1ectro-convu1sive therapy was part of the ordinary medical treatment given in mental health institutions; what provision was made for the review of cases of persons held involuntarily or even voluntarily in such institutions; and what protection such persons had with regard to the duration and nature of their treatment. 197. With reference to articles 12 and 13 of the Convention, members of the Committee wished to receive statistics and details of any reported cases of torture. In that connection, information was also sought on any cases of such complaints dealt with by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. 198. In respect of article 14 of the Convention, members of the Committee wished to know, in view of the large numbers of refugees received by -38Digitized by Dag Hammarskjöld Library Au re by be fo of an hi fo 19 po co: kil th~ COl as 20< st: pe! de~ pe! tre ser 20J jur and in law con leg ens obl 202 lin: and fill the the whet that tho! not whic COlM autl: A pE seVE