examination without his consent; the restriction of personal freedom was subject to stringent conditions laid down by law; persons in custody were entitled to request a judicial review or examination of their detention or arrest; citizens were entitled to seek compensation before the courts for any material or physical damage; they also had the right to legal assistance paid out of State funds. 233. The representative stated that the Republic of Belarus recognized the primacy of international law. If any legislation of Belarus conflicted with the provisions of an international agreement to which Belarus was a party, the agreement took precedence. Courts were therefore free to apply international instruments, for instance the Convention against Torture, directly. 234. Members of the Committee stated that the oral introduction by the Belarus delegation had helped clarify a number of queries that they had about the supplementary report, which was somewhat short and had not provided all the answers the Committee had hoped for. Having welcomed the changes in legislation aimed at improving the legal system and combating torture, they requested the delegation to provide information on whether individual cases of torture existed in Belarus and statistics and information on the specific measures taken to combat torture and other treatment or punishment which was incompatible with respect for human dignity. Members of the Committee also wanted to know what the current situation was with regard to the death penalty and what the legal provisions were for carrying out the death penalty. They sought further clarification on the actual procedure followed when there was a conflict between domestic law and an article of the Convention. 235. Members of the Committee were interested to know how the country was coping with difficulties caused by the weight of the past; how the judicial bodies, the police and the administration were proceeding with current changes; whether a parliamentary commission dealing with human rights existed in Belarus; whether Belarus intended to accede to the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights aiming at the abolition of the death penalty; whether Belarus would make the declaration under articles 21 and 22 of the Convention against Torture and whether it would consider recognizing the competence of the Committee under article 20. 236. With respect to article 3 of the Convention, members of the Committee asked what was being done to implement that article and whether new provisions were being planned to that effect. 237. In connection with article 6 of the Convention, members of the Committee, having noted that detention in Belarus could extend to up to six months from the date of the arrest, drew the attention of the delegation to the statement made at the time of the consideration of the initial report of Belarus, according to which custody could not last more than three days, and requested clarification on that discrepancy. They wished to know exactly what the maximum period of detention was and whether pre-trial detention meant that a person was detained until sentencing. 238. Concerning article 7 of the Convention, members of the Committee sought further information on the rights of the defence and in particular asked how that complex problem was covered in the new draft code of criminal procedure; whether there were cases in which no defence counsel was present and whether the presence of a lawyer was compulsory in cases concerning torture. 239. Regarding article 8 of the Convention, members of the Committee noted that no information had been given about the question of extradition and asked whether legislation was in line with the relevant provisions of the Convention. -41-