61. With reference to article 1 of the Convention, the question was raised as to whether the term "torture" and the terms "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" were specifically defined under Spanish law. 6~. Turning to article 2 of the Convention, members of the Committee noted that article 55, paragraph 2, of the Spanish Constitution authorized the suspension of the constitutional provisions, establishing the maximum period of 72 hours for pre-trial detention in the case of offences committed by armed terrorist bands. They wished to know how the Constitutional Court had interpreted the possibility of extending the period beyond the 72 hours; whether the right to be assisted by a lawyer, which was guaranteed by the Constitution, also operated in the case of terrorism and whether persons held under anti-terrorist laws enjoyed the same right as other detainees to inform their families of their detention. Members of the Committee also asked what measures had been taken itl. Spain to ensure that a detainee could in practice avail himself of the right to be examined by a forensic surgeon. Members requested the te4t of the order concerning medical assistance for detainees issued by the Ministry of the Interior on 11 June 1981. In addition, they wished to know what the basic rules were in conducting interrogations, whether forensic surgeons yere independent, whether they were answerable to prison governors or to the Ministries of Justice or Health, by whom they were appointed and whether detainees were able to obtain a second opinion from their own doctor. Noting that, according to information provided by non-governmental organizations such as Amnesty International, a person in pre-trial detention was unable to choose his own lawyer, did not have his family informed of his detention and could not consult a latryer of his choice until the end of the period of pre-trial detention, members requested clarification. 63. In connection with article 3 of the Convention, it was asked whether the provisions concerning the refusal to expel or return ("refoulement") were reflected in Spanish law in all their aspects. 64. With reference to article 4 of the Convention, it was inquired whether the Spanish Criminal Code contained a specific definition of torture and Whether there had been any prosecutions for torture and, if so, how many and with what results. Members of the Committee observed that, in order to be classified as torture under Spanish law, it appeared from the report that offences had to be committed for the purpose of obtaining a confession. If that was so, members asked whether and how acts of torture committed in order to intimidate or punish were punished by Spanish criminal law, as required by the Convention. 65. Referring to article 5 of the Convention, members of the Committee sought clarification as to the application of the principle of universal jurisdiction under Spanish law. Tbey wished to know, in particular, whether the jurisdiction of Spanish courts concerning offences under the Convention was automatic by virtue of the self-executing nature of the Convention in the Spanish legal system or whether some types of jurisdiction, such as territorial jurisdiction, had to be established by internal law. 66. With reference to article 8 of the Convention, it was asked whether Spain considered that the Convention afforded a legal basis for e.tradition in cases involving States with which it had not signed a treaty on extradition. -14-