In addition, under the provisions on remand custody, arrest warrants had to meet certain requirements, confinement could be reviewed at any time and it was more difficult for remand custody to be extended beyond six months. Prisoners in remand custody or sentenced in connection with terrorist offences were treated in the same way as other prisoners. 163. Legal remedies in Germany were not restricted to the domestic level. Article 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms was directly applicable in Germany and citizens could file applications with the European Commission on Human Rights. Germany had also recognized the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights in accordance with article 46 of the European Convention. According to the statistics of the European Court, there had been no instance where Germany had been deemed to have violated the prohibition against torture contained in article 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. One case was, however, pending. 164. Furthermore, the representative referred to training and instructions given to State employees and public officials to ensure that torture was not practised. With regard to the manifestations of violence directed against foreigners which had recently taken place in the country, he stated that both the Federal Government and the Länder were taking great pains to put an end to such acts. He also referred to sections 51 (1) and 53 (1) of the Aliens Act, which contained provisions implementing article 3 of the Convention. 165. Members of the Committee generally wished to know why the German Penal Code did not contain specific provisions for combating torture, which was an offence specifically mentioned in international human rights instruments and defined by the Convention against Torture, whether German legislation was directly applicable in the five new Länder, whether the current State assumed jurisdiction for acts of cruel or inhuman punishment committed by officials of the former State, with regard in particular to prisoners and detainees, and whether compensation was being paid to the victims of the former regime. Information was also requested on the workings of the German judiciary and on measures concerning legal aid. It was particularly asked whether the Convention took precedence over the German Constitution. 166. In connection with article 2 of the Convention, members of the Committee sought clarification on the concept of "remand custody" in Germany and on the use of force by the police in accordance with the law. They also wished to know whether there was any circumstance that allowed the police to hold a person incommunicado and for how long, and how long a judge could keep a person in custody. 167. With regard to article 4 of the Convention, members of the Committee wondered whether, in the absence of specific provisions on torture, some gaps existed in German legislation in respect of prohibiting certain aspects of torture, such as psychological pressure, threats and intimidation. They also wished to know what other persons in office, apart from teachers, had been convicted by German courts for assault and battery and what the maximum sentence was for serious cases of bodily harm caused by a public official. 168. With reference to articles 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the Convention, clarification was requested on the full implementation of their provisions by German legislation. It was wondered, in particular whether the principle of discretionary prosecution was not in conflict with certain obligations under the Convention. -29-