against torture in Turkey, but dealt with substantive issues rather briefly. They observed, in this connection, that a large number of allegations of torture concerning Turkey had been received by various international bodies and that the Turkish Government itself had acknowledged that torture had not yet been eradicated in the country. They therefore regretted that the report did not clearly explain that situation. 93. Members of the Committee also welcomed the fact that Turkey was a party to virtually all the international human rights inltruments aimed against torture, but expressed regret that the provisions of the Convention had not yet been fully incorporatbd into domestic legislation. N~ting that Turkey had recognized the competence of the European Commission on Hum~n Rights to receive petitions from any person, non-governmental orqaniz~tions or groups of individuals, members wished to know how that decision was implemented in prbctice. Clarification was also requested of the ibterim decision taken by a military court, referred to in the report, with regard to the legal status of tho Convention. In connection with the general framework in which the Convention was implemented in Turkey, members of the Committee wished to know what quarantees ensured the independence of the judiciary and requested more information on the law enforcement system in the country. They asked, in particular, what functions were performed by the State Security Courts and how they were composed, what "ere the status and the role of prosecutors, whether the judges in the Prosecutor's Office were removable and how often, and in what part of the country emergency legislation had been in force in the last two years. In addition, detailed information was requested on the separate organization of the ordinary courts as well as on the application in practice of the jurisdiction of military courts in so far as it extended to civilians. It was asked, in particul~r, what procedures and 9uarantees applied in s~ch cases. 94. 95. Referring to article 1 of the Convention. members of the Committee asked whether there was any specific definition of torture under Turkish law and, if not, whether the definition contained in the Convention had been incorporated directly into internal law and whet punishment was provided for torture. 96. With regard to preventive measures under article Z of the Convention, members of the Committee wished to know what effective guarantees exi.ted in Turkey in respect of article 19 of the Constitution, which defined the conditions in which individuals suspected of having committed an offence could be arrested. Expre_sing concern at the fact that tbe period of pre-trial detention could be extended to 15 days in tbe case of collective cri~es, which was an unusually long pellod, members of the Committee wished lo know wbether such extension was subject to review, whether it required approval of tbe courts or could be decided by the Public Prosecutor himself, and what time-limits were applied under emergency legislation. They also wished to receive clarification as to the cases where a person's arrest or detention wa. not communicated to the family of the detainee and as to the authority that was responsible in the matter. They asked, in particular. what the time-limit was for solitary confinement in such cases. whether the detainee was denied access to counsel and at what moment that restriction was lifted. While welcoming the provision. Turkey had adopted w~th regard to medical examination. of detainees. members of the Committee obl.rved that there wal a discrepancy between the comprehensive nature of those provlF.ioDs and the -19-