Australia, wh~ther the special rehabilitation centres referred to in the report offered social as well as medical services; whether they were financed by the state and federal authorities or privately; and how many persons benefited from such services. With reference to the matter of compensation for victims of torture, members of the Committee wished to know whether offences committed by a public official always entailed state responsibility and observed that the maximum amounts awarded as compensation were not very high and that the children of victims were not entitled to any compensation for grief. 199. With regard to article 15 of the Convention, members of the Committee pointed out that the report referred only to the non-admissibility of confessions and admissions obtained by force and not to statements of all kinds, which included evidence and expert reports, and wished to know whether there were specific arrangements made within each jurisdiction to ensure that confessions or admissions obtained by coercion would not be admissible or used as evidence in Australian courts. 200. Concerning article 16 of the Convention, it was asked whether Australia still allowed corporal punishment in schools and wnat legal and administrative penalties were applicable to public officials who inflicted cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In addition, it was pointed out that the penalty of life sentences in cases of rape could be characterized as cruel treatment and clarification was sought as to how Australia could justify such sentences. 201. In his reply, the representative of Australia referred to the division of jurisdiction between the Federation and the states existing in his country, and explained that federal areas of jurisdiction were specifically enunciated in the Constitution; all others belonged to the states. Generally, criminal law was a matter for the jurisdiction of the states. Thus, offences which constituted a violation of the Convention were punished according to the legislation of the state concerned. On the other hand, the federal Government ensured that the legislation of each state was in conformity with the obligations resulting from international commitments. 202. With regard to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and its links with the states, the representative explained that it worked in liaison and in cooperation with related bodies in the states. If a complaint was filed with the Commission, it conducted an investigation. If the nature of the offence justified proceedings, the Commission transmitted the results of the investigation to the police of the state concerned, which determined whether the act was a violation of the legislation of that state. The fact that the Commission was a federal body guaranteed that, if necessary, all those responsible for an offence could be charged and that complaints would not go unheard. The Human Rights Commissioner was responsible for offences which were within the scope of the Convention. Each state and the Commonwealth had either an ombudsman or a body with the same powers which was authorized to hear complaints concerning both state and federal legislation. A person who was a victim of a human rights violation could therefore apply to several bodies. -39- Digitized by Dag Hammarskjöld Library