and pointed out that they were all inhabited by democratic communities which had a very large measure of local autonomy and very similar legal systems based on the English system. 263. He stated that all the dependent territories except the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Pitcairn and Saint Helena had human rights provisions in their Constitutions, in each case modelled on and derived from the European Convention on Human Rights; and each contained a provision explicitly prohibiting torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In all cases, the constitutional provisions also included an enforcement provision giving anyone who claimed to have been subjected to or threatened with torture or inhuman treatment the right to have access to the Supreme Court and giving the Supreme Court the power to grant whatever redress the circumstances of the case required. 264. In addition, the dependent territories had legislative and administrative measures which laid down in great detail the procedure that the police must follow in dealing with detained persons, in particular with regard to their treatment, interrogation, the admissibility in evidence of confessions etc. In the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) and Saint Helena those measures corresponded almost exactly to the United Kingdom Police and Criminal Evidence Act of 1984 and the various codes of practice promulgated under it. In the other territories, those measures had been elaborated by the Judges’ Rules, a set of administrative rules drawn up originally in 1913 and revised from time to time by the judges and brought up to date, as necessary. 265. The representative also pointed out that the discretion to refuse to extradite, accorded to the Home Secretary in the United Kingdom and to the governors in the dependent territories, would be used in the sense of non-extradition in cases where there were substantial grounds for believing there to be a danger of torture. On the other hand, adequate powers were available in all circumstances for the extradition of alleged torturers in accordance with the provisions of articles 7 and 8 of the Convention. 266. Members of the Committee expressed general satisfaction at the way in which the Convention was being implemented in the United Kingdom dependent territories and focused their attention on certain points which needed clarification. 267. With reference to article 2 of the Convention, information was requested on procedures concerning custody and preventive detention and, in particular, their legal duration, especially in Gibraltar where there was a heavy inflow of immigrants and economic refugees. It was also asked whether the dependent territories had any military forces and, if so, whether the rules relating to power of arrest, interrogation and bringing before a court that applied to the civilian police forces also applied to military forces. In addition, it was asked how soon after being taken into custody a person was brought before the judge, whether legal aid was available, whether a person could be held incommunicado and whether persons on remand were segregated from convicted prisoners. 268. With reference to article 3 of the Convention, it was asked how the extradition laws of the United Kingdom came into play in connection with expulsion or return (refoulement). 269. In connection with article 7 of the Convention, some clarifications were requested about the text of provisions relevant to its implementation which were contained in section 134 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. It was also observed that some of the dependent territories were relatively close to places where torture was known to be practised and that it was likely that torturers fled -45-