Canadian law prior to the Convention’s ratification so as to ensure its compliance with specific provisions of the Convention. The representative also provided information and explanations with regard to the division of legislative powers under the federal structure of Canada. He stated that collection of statistical information on matters related to the Convention was complicated by the division of powers in Canada. Consultations with relevant government departments responsible for collecting such data would be held and more information of that nature would be included in the next report. Furthermore, with regard to the alleged ill-treatment of two persons in Vancouver, the representative indicated that the Committee would be provided with an updated report on the findings of the independent commission appointed by the Province of British Columbia to inquire into municipal policing. He also informed the Committee that the independent Public Complaints Commission had already carried out an investigation and that the two persons in question had apparently instituted proceedings against the officers concerned. In connection with the allegations of ill-treatment of Mohawk Indians by Quebec police forces in 1990, the representative stated that four of the cases had been raised before 1 September 1990 and had thus been considered under the former system through submission to the Complaints Committee of Quebec’s Department of Public Security, which had rejected the cases on various grounds. However, the Committee’s decisions were subject to appeal. Under the new provisions on police conduct in Quebec all complaints would be considered in the first instance by the Commissioner for Police Ethics. This had happened in one case which had occurred after 1 September 1990 and, as a result of the inquiry by the Commissioner, certain police officers had been brought before the Comité de déontologie policière, which would decide on the matter in the autumn of 1993. 300. Regarding article 2 of the Convention, the representative explained that the Criminal Code contained not only the offence of torture but also war crimes and crimes against humanity and that, while crimes against humanity could well include torture, such crimes also demanded that other conditions be met, for example, that the offending act had been committed against a civilian population or identifiable group of persons. Where an accused was charged with conduct which fulfilled the definition of both sections, the accused could be convicted of only one offence. Moreover, the defence of obedience to de facto authority was not available to an individual charged with a war crime or a crime against humanity. 301. With regard to article 3 of the Convention, the representative told the Committee that Canada’s refugee determination system fully complied with the Convention’s requirements relating to torture allegations. In this connection, he described the training given to immigration officers, which had been developed with the assistance of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), and the various provisions and procedures available to individuals to make a claim for refugee status. He also indicated that the success rate for refugee claimants in Canada had been recognized by UNHCR as the highest in the world and that the refugee determination system would be kept under continuous review to maintain its high standards. With regard to the concern raised that a person might be extradited to face the death penalty the representative referred to various debates on the issue in the Human Rights Committee and in the Supreme Court of Canada. 302. In connection with article 5 of the Convention, the representative explained that, in the Canadian Criminal Code, the offence of torture was subject to universal jurisdiction. Thus, any judge, whether provincial or federal, who had the authority to hear criminal trials could rely on the universal jurisdiction of that Code. -50-