concerned, universal jurisdiction should be clearly established in domestic legislation. TurkeJ 87. The Committee considered the initial report of Turkey (CAT/C/7/Add.6) at its 51st and 6Znd meetings, held on 14 November 1990 (CAT/e/SR.5l a~d 62). 88. In his introduction, the representative of the State party noted that the Turkish Constitution contained provisions relating to the protection of the physical and mental integrity of the individual as well as to the prohibition of torture. Inte~national instruments to which Turkey was a party became part of national legislation and could be applied directly by the courts and other authorities. No appeal could be made to the Constitutional Court with regard to internation~l agreements on the ground that they were unconstitutional. Turkey was a paLty to the European Convention on Human Rights and recognized the competence of the European Commission on Human Rights ~nd the European Court of Human Rights with regard to individual recourse pro~6dures. As a party to the European Convention for the Prevention of 70rturs and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the United NatioQs Convention against Torture a'ld Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Turkey had accepted the competence of all monitoring mechanisms established under those Conventions. 89. ThJ Government of Turkey gave primary importance to preventive measures ie combating torture. Those measures included the teachidg of human rights in pollce schools, the organl.atlon of courses for secu~ity and other public officials, and several legislative provisions cr.ncerninq the preswmption uf innocence, the right to legal counsel, the prompt notificution of a per~on'B detention to his relBtives, the right not to answer questioDs, testimony froe from any kind of pressure and medical ezamination by independent forensic doctors of all detainees before and ef.ter detention and interrogation. 90. Other improvements had also been adopted recently to Turkey's legislation concerning conditions of imprisonment and detention. Public prose~utors were required 11 officio to investigate any allegations or reports of torture. Turkish citizens could avail themselves of recourse procedures both at the national and the international level and the Turkish State was directly responsible for any abuses c~mmitted by public officials. Constitutional and uther legal provisions provided for compensation to persons who had been unlawfully arrested, detained or subjected to torture, or who had suffered any damage caused by an abuse of State power. 91. In addition, the rep~e8entative informat: the Committee thp.t the Turkish Penal Code was under review and that, accordin~ to the first set of draft amendments, sentences for torturv were to be dOUbled, the period of pre-trial detention considerably reduced and provision made for compulsory 1e7al counsel, if necBssary at State elpense. A pro~osal had also Leen submitted concerning the establishment of a parliamentary commission on human rights which woald have broad powers. 92. Members of the Committee thanked the Government of whir.h they considered informative. They noted that the comprehensive review of the Turkish judicial system and -18- (or its report rep~l't gave a ~he formal safeguards ~urkey