there. In that connection, it was asked whether information was available concerning the arrest and arraignment of such individuals or their extradition to non-Commonwealth countries. 270. With reference to articles 8 and 9 of the Convention, members of the Committee wished to have further assurance that the rules governing their implementation in the dependent territories were applied to all States parties to the Convention, whether or not they had signed an extradition treaty or a treaty on mutual judicial assistance with the United Kingdom. Additional information on the scope of mutual judicial assistance was also requested and it was recalled that such assistance should, according to the Convention, extend beyond the process of extradition. 271. With regard to article 10 of the Convention, members of the Committee wished to know how education and information on the question of torture were imparted to police officers and prison staff in the dependent territories. It was stressed that postgraduate training for doctors and other health professionals, with emphasis on diagnosis and rehabilitation, and training for border police in the identification of victims of torture, were particularly important. 272. In connection with articles 12 and 13 of the Convention, it was asked whether there had been any recent cases of torture in any of the dependent territories, and whether bodies analogous to Gibraltar’s Police Complaints Board existed in any of the other dependent territories. 273. Referring to article 14 of the Convention, members of the Committee wished to know whether there were criminal injuries compensation schemes in the dependent territories and whether the principle of vicarious liability of the State applied with regard to compensation. 274. In connection with article 15 of the Convention, it was noted that, according to the part of the report on the Cayman Islands, answers to questions by the police "may be inadmissible in evidence" if the Judges’ Rules were disobeyed. It was observed that those Rules provided that answers to questions must be obtained voluntarily and not under duress and therefore a more categorical statement of inadmissibility seemed to be necessary. 275. With regard to article 16 of the Convention, it was asked whether corporal punishment was resorted to under any circumstances, either as part of a sentence or as a disciplinary measure. 276. In his reply, the representative of the State party, referring to article 2 of the Convention, indicated that in the United Kingdom dependent territories a person could be arrested and detained only if he was legitimately suspected of having committed a criminal offence or for purposes of extradition. Detention incommunicado was authorized only in very special circumstances and for a very limited time. The time that elapsed between a person’s arrest and his being brought before a court varied, but in practice the maximum time was in general 48 hours. In certain territories prison regulations required the separation of pre-trial detainees from those who had been sentenced, whereas in others, the smaller ones, separation was not possible because of size limitations. Equally, the Constitutions of certain territories provided that anyone who was charged with an offence could have himself represented by a lawyer at State expense, but even in the absence of a provision of that kind, the defence of the accused was paid for by the State in the event of a serious offence. As for the power granted to the military, he explained that most of the territories did not have any armed forces. Where armed forces were maintained they had no police powers -46-