324. In connection with article 11 of the Convention, members of the Committee wished to receive further information on the implementation of the article, particularly regarding the length of pre-trial detention, the rules and regulations governing preventive detention and the right of an individual to legal assistance from the moment of his arrest. 325. Regarding article 13 of the Convention, clarification was sought as to the authority competent to conduct inquiries into complaints against the police. 326. With regard to article 14 of the Convention, clarification was requested as to the rights of victims to bring a criminal action against a person alleged to have committed a violation of human rights and the rights of victims to rehabilitation and compensation. In particular, members of the Committee asked whether medical centres for the rehabilitation of torture victims existed in Panama and whether or not the State assumed responsibility for compensating a victim of torture whenever a police officer had committed such an act. 327. Concerning article 16 of the Convention, members of the Committee requested further information on the treatment and institutionalization of mentally ill persons, particularly whether specialized psychiatric hospitals existed and whether political prisoners had ever been detained there. 328. Replying to questions raised by members of the Committee, the representative of the reporting State said that the Convention against Torture had been fully integrated into Panamanian legislation and that the Constitution of Panama contained a full definition of torture. Derogations from the Convention were not admissible unless the Convention itself was denounced. The Supreme Court of Justice was concerned with ensuring respect for the Constitution and adherence to the provisions of the Convention. The function of the Attorney General’s office was to defend the interests of the State, to ensure compliance with legislation and to monitor the conduct of public officials. The Attorney General was authorized to initiate any proceedings against any official. Panama had a professional civil police force which was subordinate to the Public Prosecutor’s Department. It also had a national police force which was subordinate to the Ministry of Justice, which was itself responsible to the President. With regard to the issue of decriminalization and recourse to forms of punishment other than imprisonment, the representative informed the Committee that such measures were favoured when dealing with first offenders charged with crimes customarily punishable by less than three years’ imprisonment. The results of those measures had been positive and a failure rate of only 1 per cent had been noted. The representative also indicated that until 21 December 1992 there had been no cases of political prisoners, but that four such cases had recently come before the courts, for which information would be provided in the next report. In addition, he indicated that there were 3,400 persons currently in prison for various types of offences. Non-governmental organizations were allowed access to prisons and other detention establishments and they could make recommendations concerning conditions of detention. Under article 22 of the Constitution any such recommendations must be transmitted to the relevant authorities. 329. Concerning the various questions raised with regard to article 2 of the Convention, the representative informed the Committee that although the possibility existed for administrative decisions to be overturned should they violate human rights, no such cases had been recorded. He also stated that no exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or internal conflict, could be invoked in Panama for justification of torture. In addition, he explained that article 34 of the Constitution did not exempt a person from liability for a manifest violation of a constitutional or legal provision to the detriment of another person on the grounds that he acted under orders from a -54-