questions were asked about prerequisites for arrest and pre-trial investigations and the rights of detainees. Further information was also requested regarding the conditions of indeterminate preventive detention and the possibility of appeal, the duration of police interrogation, pre-trial detention and the conditions governing police custody and solitary confinement, and whether there had been in Finland any specific cases in which the provision stating that an order by a superior could not be construed to justify torture had been invoked. 191. Referring to the Finnish Extradition Act, members of the Committee observed that its provisions were restrictive by comparison with those ef article 3 of the Convention. They expressed the hope that some shortcomings of the Act, especially in respect of the principle of non-refou1ement where the threat of torture was concerned, would be remedied by the enactment of additional human rights legislation. 192. Members of the Committee referred to a prov1s10n of the Finnish Penal Code whereby certain acts constituted crimes only once they had been accomplished and observerd that such a provision did not seem to be in conformity with article 4 of the Convention. They also asked what penalty applied when a victim of aggravated assault and battery had died. 193. with regard to article 9 of the Convention, members of the Committee were of the view that Finnish legislation on mutual assistance was restrictive because it appeared to require a specific treaty on the subject and asked whether the Convention would qualify as the basis for such assistance. 194. In relation to article 10 of the Convention, information was requested specifically about the inclusion of education regarding the prohibition of torture in the training of medical personnel and prison staff. 195. In connection with articles 12 and 13 of the Convention, it was asked whether the allegations against the police referred to in the report concerned mild ill-treatment or grave misconduct, what the outcome of the investigations had been and what sentences, if any, had been handed down. It was asked also what action had been taken on the proposal to establish an independent investigatory body, whether the victim's right to initiate legal proceedings even in the event that the Public Prosecutor decided not to press charges had been exercised in practice and which legislative provision guaranteed it. 196. As for article 14 of the Convention, it was inquired whether there were in Finland any specific provisions on medical rehabilitation as distinct from merely financial rehabilitation, and how victims were compensated for mental injury. 197. With reference to article 15 of the Convention, and noting that minors in Finland could never be interrogated without the presence of a witness, members of the Committee asked how the witness in question was chosen. They also pointed out that, if article 15 was not directly applicable, legislation should be enacted to guarantee that evidence obtained as a result of torture could not be invoked in legal proceedings. -36-