decriminalization. The principle of "non-imprisonment" took three forms, the first of which was postponement of the enforcement of the sentence, the second a suspended sentence and the third conditional release, detailed descriptions of each were given. The Panamanian authorities were also concerned to avoid pre-trial detention, and it was with that purpose in mind that, in early 1991, Act No. J had been adopted providing, in particular, tor the use of measures other than pre-trial detention for persons under a sentence of less than two years in prison who had no criminal record and had not attempted to elude Panamanian justice, as well as for persons over 65 years of age and pregnant women. 212. With regard to the prison system, he informed the Committee that Panama had a programme for implementing the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners and that funds were earmarked, in particular, for the construction of new prisons with the physical structure needed to ensure humane and rational treatment for prisoners. The prison syste~, which was governed by article 28 of the Constitution, was based on tbe principles of security, rehabilitation and social protection. All acts injurious to prisoners' physical or mental integrity were pr.obibited and prisoners were provided with training to holp them re-enter society. However, the education of prisoners and work as a means of rehabilitation were still not very common in Panamanian prisons. Noting that the prison system was governed by several different laws not yet included in a single code on the enforcement of sentences and having described those laws as well as other aspects of the operation of the prison system, he said that significant improvements had been made in 1990. He cited some examples and gave a summary of the major activities planned for 1991 in that field. In conclusion, he said that the philosophy underlying Panama's prison policy was based on the principle of humanizing prisons; respect for human rights should become the customary practice in all prisons in the country. 213. The members of the Committee, noting that Panama's report was too brief, thanked the Panamanian representative for a statement particularly rich in information. They requested further information of a general nature, in particular on the ranking of legal instruments in Panama, the possibility that the Convention might be contradicted by a law enacted subsequent to the Convention's entry into force; the procedure adopted to give ef~ect to the Convention's provisions; and the organization and powers of the police force in Panama. 214. Referring to articles 1 and 2 of the Convention, members of the Committee asked whether Panamanian internal law contained a definition of torture and whether a definition of an act of torture within the meaning of tbe Convention had be6n introduced into its internal legislation. Clarifications were also requested concerning the date when the obligations laid down in the Convention had been incorporated into internal law. 215. Concerning the implementation of a~ticle 3 of the Convention, some members oC the Committee asked Cor clarification of the meaning of article 24 oC the Constitution oC Panama and wished to know whether torture W8S treated on the same basis as "political offences" which could not be invoked as grounds for extradition. Some members of the Committee noted that the report contained no information on the question of expulsion or refoulement and requested further inr~rmation in that regard. -39-