216. In re1~tion to the implementation of ftrticle 4 of the Convention. some members of the Committee asked whether "an attempt to commit torture". as referred to in that article, was also an off,nce under Panamanian criminal law and whether penalties applied in case. of bttacks on physical integrity were also applied in cases of attacks on pyscho:ogical integrity. They also wished to know what penalties were laid down for failure to observe disc1plinary rul~s in prisons and, in particular. whether they inclllded corporal punishment and deprivation of foodl and which criminal penalties we~e laid down for the offence of torture and whether Panama took into account its grave nature, in a~cordance with article 4, paragraph 2, of the Conveation. 217. Ir connection with article 7 of the Convention. members of th~ Committee point'3 out that, although article 10 of the Penal Code might be sufficient to meet the requirements of article 5 of the Convention, the same could not be said for the provisions of article 7 of the Convention to the extent that there appeared to be restrictions on the right to try a person whose extrudition was refused on one of the grounds 1.1d down in article 2508. paragraphs 5 t~ 11, of the Judicial Code. They also asked whether a person could be held incommunicado and, if so, for how longl whether that decisl~n was taken by the examining magistrate or by the police1 whether the detainee had the right to be assisted by counsel at the time of arrest or only at a subsequent stage of the ~rocoedingsl whether the detainee way obligated to make a statement before being allowed to meet with his counsell whether a detainee had the right to choose his l~wyer or whethar the lawyer was appointed by the court, whether there was a body of experts in furensic medicine in Panama and what their powers were, especially with regard to drawing up reports. They also requested further informati~n on the pewers of tha police and on the time-limits for bringing a person arrested by the police before the judicial authorities. Some members of the Committee also asked whether the treatment of political prisoners was the same as or different from that of other prisoners and what the conditions of detention were for drug traffickers under the new prison system. 2l8. Regarding the implemantation of article 8 of the Convention. it was asked whether extradi:ion were p~ssible to B State with which Panama hed r.ot concluded an extradition agreement. 219. With regard to the tlfiect given to article 10 or. the Convention. members of the Committee took no~e with satisfaction of the various measures referred to in the report and of the plans discussed by the members of the Panamanian delegation and requested more details on the training of medical personnel. in view of the fact that doctors sometimes took part in the practice of torture. and on the training of judicial and military personnel. 220. Concerning article 11 of the Convention, mambers of the Committee requested clarifications~ how inspection visits were conducted and. in particular, on whether detainees were systematically given a mediCAl examination at tdat time. They also asked whether detainees had other means of SUbmitting complaints to the authorities. 221. As to the implementation oC article 13 of the Convention, 6ume members of the Committee, not~ng that the report contained no information on that subject, requested ezplanations in that regard, as well as on the general -40-