71. Clarification was also requested on specific legal measures taken by Norway to implement fully articles 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the Convention. 72. In connection with article 10 of the Convention, members of the Committee recalled that training programmes were necessary not only for doctors, but also for other health personnel at all levels who had a key role to play in combating torture. It was also asked whether law faculties offered special courses which dealt with torture as a global phenomenon and approached it from the standpoint of international and domestic legislation. 73. Turning to article 11 of the Convention, members of the Committee congratulated Norway on its rules and practices with regard to the custody of persons in detention and the treatment of prisoners and requested further information on the provisions contained in the Prosecution Instructions. 74. In connection with article 12 of the Convention, members of the Committee asked for additional information on the nature of the cases referred to the "special investigative bodies" which were independent of the police and the prosecuting authority. They also asked how the special investigative bodies were set up, by whom, what their prerogatives were, why they were needed and what the role of the public prosecutors was. Members of the Committee noted that only 20 cases relating to the use of force by the police had been subjected to special investigation in Norway during the period 1988-1990 and asked for additional information in that regard. They wished to know, in particular, whether there were districts where such incidents were more common than elsewhere and whether foreigners were involved to any significant extent. With regard to the investigation of alleged police brutality in Bergen in May 1989, which had resulted in the indictment of 15 persons for having made false accusations against the police, members of the Committee wished to know whether it had been proved beyond any reasonable doubt that the persons prosecuted had intended to discredit members of the police force and what penalties had been imposed on those found guilty. Clarification was also requested on the position of the Norwegian authorities with regard to the views of Amnesty International in this matter. 75. With regard to article 14 of the Convention, members of the Committee noted that Norwegian legislation provided for financial compensation only, and in a limited amount, to victims of violence and that compensation was not granted for injury of a non-economic nature. They observed that those provisions did not meet all the requirements for compensation of victims of torture established by the Convention. 76. In connection with article 15 of the Convention, clarification was requested on whether testimonies obtained unlawfully could be admitted as evidence. 77. In his reply, the representative of the State party provided detailed information about the dualistic system in force in his country, according to which a special act was required before an international instrument became applicable in Norway. He also informed the Committee about different legal approaches recently developed by Norwegian jurists with regard to the application of international human rights instruments in domestic law. The Committee set up in 1989 to study this question had not yet submitted its report. It appeared, however, that it would propose that a number of human rights instruments should be incorporated into Norwegian law and that a high rank should be given to them in the hierarchy of legal provisions. The representative also pointed out that some provisions of the Penal Code were fully applicable to the acts referred to in article 1 of the Convention. -15-