--_._---- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---------- 198. In his reply, the representative of Finland clarified that in his country only certain provieions of the Convention could be invoked directly, and it was for the judicial auth~rities to decide on their scope in each case. However, the fact that the Convention might either be invoked directly or for intsrpretative purposes in connection with the application of the relevant provisions of national legislation made little difference in its effects. 199. With reference to article 1 of the Convention, the representative indicated that the question concerning the inclusion of a precise definition of torture in the Dew Penal Code currently under preparation would be considere6 by Parliament in due course. 200. Referring to issues raised in connection with article 2 of the Convention, the repreAentative explained that the powers of the Chancellor of Justice and the Parliamentary Ombudsman overlapped to a considerable e.tent in order to give aggrieved citizens a choice as to the authority to which they would submit their complaints. The Bl11 referred to in the report was primarily a technical measure designed to ensure a better distribution of resources and to avoid duplication, bearing in mind the formidable number of complaints lodged. Neither the Parliamentary Ombudsman nor the Chancellor of Justice had the capacity to impose their views, but both were respected authorities who played a guiding and advisory role in the Finnish legal system. 201. Police custody in Finland could not exceed four days. A person so remanded was entitled to the assistance of counsel during questioring unless the authorities responsible for the investigation found him untrustworthy or considered that the case called for a special procedure. The Pre-Trial Investigation Act regulated the right of a person in police custody to communicate with his family or to be examined by a doctor. Persons in pre-trial detention constituted 10 per cent of the prison population which amounted to 4,000 persons out of a total Finnish population of 4.9 million. Persons in preventive detention could appeal to a special court which could grant them parole. 202. Referring to articles 4 and 5 of the Convention, the representative provided information on penalties lai~ down in the Penal Code for various offences noting, in partiCUlar, that _hile assault that was actually perpetrated was a punishable offence, attempted assault was not. There was no provision of the Penal Code specifically establishing universal jurisdiction. 203. With regard to article 10 of the Convention, the represantative stated that Finland was applying provisions prohibiting doctors from any form of complicity in torture. Prison officials were given special training courses at a special training centre run by specialists in international human rights law. 204. With reference to articles 12 and 13 of the Convention, the representative indicated that the great ma;ority of complaints lodged against members of the police concerned abuse of authority, although sometimes the alleged uffences involv£~ inhuman treatment under the Convention. CUlprits were severely censured and were given a warning or reprimand by the Parliamentary ombudsman or the Chancellor of Justice. -31-