149. Replying to questions raised by members of the Committee, the representative of the reporting State explained that judges of the High Court and Court of Appeal were appointed by the Governor General. Under New Zealand law, the distinction between serious and less serious crimes depended on the court before which a case was brought; in any event, torture was a crime that would be judged by a High Court. The Court of Appeal was a permanent body consisting of six members, three of whom heard each case, and it was competent to interpret points of law or hear appeals against sentence. Jury trials were compulsory for torture offences. The representative also stated that he had no figures on the number of deaths in prison but noted that the number of suicides in prison had declined considerably from 1985 to 1991, apparently because of improved conditions for prisoners in difficulty. There had been five deaths by suicide in 1991. In addition, he indicated that the Human Rights Commission of New Zealand actively promoted human rights. 150. With regard to article 3 of the Convention, the representative considered that there was no contradiction between article 3 of the Convention and New Zealand’s national security regulations. He stated, in particular, that provisional regulations had been introduced between 16 January and 30 April 1991 owing to the Gulf War. During that period two persons had been sentenced to expulsion but detained pending a review of their case. In addition, he indicated that the legal basis for the non-refoulement of persons likely to be tortured if sent back to their country was contained in section 10 of the Crimes of Torture Act and that information booklets on that requirement had been prepared for the use of frontier control officials. 151. Concerning article 4 of the Convention, the representative explained that the purpose of requiring the Attorney General’s consent before proceedings could be brought under the Crimes of Torture Act was to prevent abuses but that, in the case of torture, proceedings under that Act were mandatory. He also explained that the Police Complaints Authority consisted of a lawyer appointed by the Governor General and supporting staff. At present the Authority comprised a retired High Court judge, a High Court judge and three investigators. The Authority was empowered to receive complaints and could take action on its own initiative if it considered that a death or serious injury involving a police officer should be investigated. With respect to the number of cases dealt with by the Authority, he indicated that 462 investigations had been conducted over a period of two years, that two police officers had been brought to trial and one had been convicted. He also indicated that 52 other complaints had been upheld but no proceedings initiated and that other sanctions could be imposed, such as psychological assistance for police officers and reprimands. 152. Referring to article 5 of the Convention, the representative indicated that it would be contrary to New Zealand’s established legal practice to establish jurisdiction to deal with offences on the basis of the nationality of the victim. 153. In respect of article 6, the representative informed the Committee of safeguards to which arrests were subject. He also stated that in practice any person arrested was brought before a court within 24 hours, that the police received appropriate training and respected the law on the declaration of rights and that the practice of holding persons incommunicado did not exist in New Zealand. 154. Referring to questions raised in connection with article 8 of the Convention, he explained, inter alia, that the Crimes of Torture Act provided for the competence of New Zealand authorities to bring proceedings against -27-