Gm Convention and what the penalties were for torture or ill-treatment. They also requested clarification as to what was meant by the offence of "assault", especially under Scottish law. 102. With reference to article 3 of the C()Dvention, members of the Committee recalled that States parties had a formal obligation not to return any person to a State where the person would be in danger of torture. In this connection, they expressed concern as to whether the grounds for refusal to extradite ~nd return a person, referred to in the report, were sufficient to meet all the obligations the United Kingdom had assumed under this article of the Convention. They also referred to information received from non-governmental organizations expressing concern at the way decisions on refugee status were taken in the United Kingdom. Two particular cases were mentioned, involving nationals of Sri Lanka and Zaire, who had been returned to their country of origin when there had been a real threat that they might be sUbjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or even torture. Accordingly, further information was requested as to how reviews relating to qualification for refugee status were actually carried out and as to whether the Government was making any real attempt to ensure that immigration officers were made aware of the United Kingdom's obligations under the Convention. In addition, members of the Committee requested clarification as to the exact jurisdiction of the Secretary of State and the courts with regard to decisions taken under the terms of the Extradition Act 1989. They also wished to know what was meant by the term "possible use of exceptional leave", as it related to the assessment of claims of likely torture on return to another country. 103. In respect of articles 5 to 7 of the Convention, members of the Committee requested further information, especially with regard to the application of provisions relating to the non-extradition of a person who had co~nitted an act of torture and the trial of such a person within the country and wished to know, in particular, what the specific provisions were in section 134 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 concerning the jurisdiction of the courts over the crime of torture. 104. With regard to article 10 of the Convention, members of the Committee expressed concern over information received from the Howard League of Penal Reform which pointed to the absence of formal instruction for law enforcement personnel in respect of their international obligations as to the custody, questioning or treatment of arrested persons. They also expressed concern at the fact that the Government did not consider it necessary to provide training in the prohibition of torture to health care professionals. 105. With regard to article 11 of the Convention, members of the Committee asked whether prison warders were armed and what procedure was followed in the event of a serious incident, such as a prison riot. They also wished to know how the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners were implemented in the United Kingdom and what other standards were applied to persons who were in custody or who had been convicted. In addition, members requested clarification of the indication in the report that the Government was considering extending the regime operating in Northern Ireland, where there was in effect no right of silence for accused persons, to the rest ot the United Kingdom. With regard to a reported 100 per cent increase from 1980 to 1990 in suicides among persons in detention, it was asked whether such statistics were accurate and whether they were a source of concern to the -22Digitized by Dag Hammarskjöld Library sui whE mer I 10f reg pra and Uni pol corn on sue 107 corn for corn: 108 notl cou, Oppl coni conJ scol a1s( 109, eorl 110. auU Prev spri 111. Irel powe The case exis said ever the tele' signl each offil to al SUSpl addi1 day.