personnel, how conditions in prisons were reviewed, and whether the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners were applied. 103. With regard to articles 12 and 13 of the Convention, members of the Committee wished to know whether the Turkish Goverament planned to establish an independent authority to examine allegations ol~ torture, how many co!nplaints had been received by the authorities about unlawful action by officials, how many persons had died in detention, whether the cir(~stances of their deaths had been investigated, and what the difference was in jurisdiction between minor courls and courts of first instance as far as allegations of torture were concerned. 104. In connection with article 14 of the Convention, it was asked whether the concept of Stat& responsibility applied in cases where it was impossible to identify the persons responsible for acts of torture, whether the authorities could be held responsible on the grounds of omission, how victims of torture could obtain compensation, whether an amount to be paid was envisaged, whether Turkey had made any provisions comparable to those of the criminal injury compensation schemes adopted by other States, and whether there were any rehabilitation p!ogrammes for victims of torture. 105. Finally, members of the Committee wished to know how Turkey ensured that confessions obtained by coercion were not accepted by the State Security Courts or other court' , whether there was any plan to enact relevant legislation, for how long a person could be kept in detention while the circumstances in which his confeRs ion had been obtained were bRing determined, whether there was any remedy in that regard, and how article 15 of the Convention had been incorporated into Turkish legislation and applied by the judiciary. 106. In his reply, tho representative of the ~tate party stated that military courts tried only military personnel and were competent to try civilians only when they had committed military offences during their military service and had not been tried during that period. Thti courts martial had jurisdiction only during a state of emergency or to try cases that had subsequently remained pending. The State Security Court was a court of special jurisdiction which tried only cases involving security problems. The Council of State was the supreme administrative court which established the responsibility of the Sta~e and, where necessary, ordered compensation to be paid to victims. The judges and prosecutors of all courts were appointed by the Higher Council of the Judiciary and they were responsible to it. All judges were independent and could not be removed. Proserutors had no special status. The functions of judges and prosecutors were set forth in articles 138 to 140 of the Turkish Constitution. The representative also pointed out that, so fac, 13 individuals had availed themselves of their right to submit applications to the Court of H~an Rights under the European Convention on Human Rights, and that, since July 1987, the state of emergency applied to 10 provinces of Turkey and concerned app~oximately 4.5 million inhabitants out of a total population of some 60 million. 101. With reference to article 1 of the Convention, the representative said that the definition of torture contained therein was recognized in Turkish law and reflected in articles 243 and 245 of the Penal Code. -21-