detained under conditions of maximum security, but without prejudice to their human riClJhts. 230. With reference to article 8 of the Convention, the representative stated that extradition was qoverned by the provisions of Act No. 5 of 16 June 1970. Articles 2508 (XII) and 2510 (IV) of the Code of Criminal Procedure specified that extradition might be refused whe~e the request was contrary to the provisions of tho law or of any treaty to which Panama was a party. If a country having no relations with Panama wished to extradite one ?f its citizens, under article 2502 of tho Code of Criminal Procedure, it could submit the request via a friendly country, as ~rovided for in the Convention. In su~h cases, the person concerned had the riClJht to appeal within 30 days to the Supreme Court of Justice which would then study the objections and, where they were deemed to be well founded, refuse the request for extradition. 231. In connection with article 10 of the Convention, the representative of the reporting State informed the Committee that the new democratic Government, although in office for only a short time, had or9anized 96 three-month tralnin~ courses in 1990 for almost half the national police force. The priorities of those courses had been human rights, police procedures, community relations, police ethics and first aid. He said that his Government was fUlly aware uf the importance of traininq for members of the staff of detention centres and in 1990 had sent warders, inspectors and supervi10rs to the prison training school at the Reform Centre i~ San Jose, Costa Rica. 232. With regard to urticle 11 of the Convention, the representative said that one day was set aside each month for visits to prisons by circuit jUdqes, 9xamining ma~istrates and municipal judClJes. Judges were requested to visit detention rentres and report on the progress of each prisoner's case. Where the jUdqe found evidence that a prisoner had been ill-treated, the case would be referred to the ~nstitute for Forensic Medicine and the prison director would be requJ red to submit a report. 233. With xespect to article 13 of the Convention, the representative, referring to the situation elisting in Panama before 1989, utressed that it was clear that military dictatorship did not respect human riqhts. Persons who had made allegations of torture had disappeared and judqes who had heard the complaints had bee~ transferred elsewhere. Where en amnesty or pardon was granted, qenerally to political prisoners, detainees were not exempt from civil liability. There was no question of an amnesty or pardon for those guilty of human riqhts violations. 234. Turning to article 14 of the Convention, the reptelentative poInted out that under the Penal Code a judge could determine civil liability in the course of crimina~ proceedin98 in order to compensate a person subjected to torture or to make restitution to his family. Such a remedy did not, however, rule out the possibi~ity of an application for compensation under civil law. 235. As Cor the application oC article 15 of the r.onvention, the representative noted that confessiorlti obtained by torture could not be invoked as evidence in any proceedinqs and that evidence obtained by means of torture must be disregarded in hearings during criminal proceedings. -43 -