~5~. In connection with article 1 of the Convention, the re~resentative said that the concept of torture was defined in the Criminal Code, which dated from 1875. 253. Turning to the implementation of article 2 of the Convention, the representative explained that the state of exception had b~en lifted. With regard to superior orders invoked as a justification of torture, the representative stated that according to the Chilean Military Code of Justice a subordinate was not held responsible for an act of torture if he had queried the order and a superior officer had confirmed the order. As a result of the withdrawal of the reservation concerning article 2 (3) of the Convention, a subordinate was henceforth responsible for acts of torture carried out under orders from a superior. It was noted, however, that this provision was not retroactive. The representative further notod that the rule of babeas corpus was long established in Chilean law but that it had been suspended during the period of rule by the military junta. 254. Referring to the withdra\lal of the regervation concernir.g article 3 of the Convention, the representative said that no special legislation was necessary to establish the principle of non-refoulement in Chilean law, since the Convention itself had the full force of domestic law. 255. With regard to article 4 of the Convention, the representative stated that all acts of torture were considered as offences under criminal law by virtue of the incorporation of the COhvention in domestic law. It was accepted that injuries resultin~ from torture could be both physical and mental in character. The punishment for torture under the Criminal Code of 1875 was a prison sentence of up to five years, depending on whether or not it resulted in injury or death. He explained that a physician who connived at acts of torture bore a criminal responsibility for that connivance. In addition, professionals such as physicians and lawyers were also answerable to the'r professional associations. However, there had been little success in the campaign to prosecute physicians who had connived at acts of torture. With regard to the matter of amnesty, the representative drew attention to Decree Law No. 1978 promulgated by the junta with the aim of procuring an amntety for its own human rights offenders. In this connection, he explained that the political situation in Chile was such that there was insufficient political will to bring about the repeal of that Decree Law. 256. In connection with articles 6, 7 and 8 of the Convention, ~he representative said that the Chilean authorities would not detain or extradite an alleged torturer unless they had received a request from the State where the torture was alleged to have tak~n place. If Chile refusod the extradition request for any reason it would try the alleged offender in its own courts. Acts of torture were considered extraditable offences for the purposes of extradition treaties with other Stales. 257. In his reply concerning article 10 of the Convention, the representative stated that he did not have detAiled information regarding the training given to the armed forces and the ~o~~blneLQ5. However, there were plans to improve the training of members or the Police Department. Medical schools provided ~rAining in medical ethics, inclUding the subject of torture. furthermore, physicians taking part in the questioning of suspects were now attached to the Police Department and shared in the human rights training of that service. -41-