existed: and to what extent individuals, especially poor people, had access to the courts and to legal assistance. They also asked what the Government’s policy was with regard to the treatment of those who had been associated with the past repression and whether the Government of Panama would indeed have full sovereignty over the Panama Canal by the year 2000. 420. In his reply, the representative said that the Covenant had constitutional status and that no subsequent law could derogate from it, The covenant could be invoked directly before the administrative authorities and courts in Panama, which had been done particularly during the last three or four years of the dictatorship. Many bbeas COTJ)U~:actions had invoked the Covenant as well as domestic legislation, but the Supreme Court had never in its rulings taken into account the provisions of the Covenant. Reforms under Act No. 33 of 1974 had been beneficial to individuals since it had speeded up administrative procedures and provided new administrative remedies. Act No. 2 of 1984 had established mandatory teaching of human rights in all schools, but had never been put into effect. However, the Ministry of Education was now working, with the assistance of non-governmental organieations, to promote the teaching of human rights at all levels of education. The Government had also requested technical assistance and advice from the United Nations Centre for HumanRights, especially with regard to the administration of justice in Panama. 421. Replying to other questions, the representative stated that his Government’s chief concern was for the consolidation of democracy. That required a reconciliation of the conflicting elements within the country and was reflected in the manner in which former officials were being prosecuted. Many people had been detained by United States focces and subsequently turned over to the Government, and those against whom there were no charges had been released. Those still under detention had been charged with offences, were not ill-treated and were represented by legal counsel. There was a great ignorance of penal law in the country because the law had fallen into neglect. As a consequence of the reorganixation of the judiciary and the Prosecutor’s Office, 40,000 criminal cases had been turned over to the courts. Provis!.ons for access to free legal aid had been made in legislation enacted in 1983, but practical arrangements still had to be worked out. Access to the courts and to legal assistance, especially by the poorest members of society, was a complicated problem linked to the legacy of military dictatorship. The Government had recently introduced a new Legal Code and had begun working on regulations to ensure the independence of the judiciary. Ili=&asm and @nparo were both intended as guarantees of human rights, but the former was the specific remedy guaranteeing individual freedom and the only one for which detained persons could apply. The Government had proposed to abolish the 1974 law establishing an office to investigate administrative errors and was working on a series of regulations to ensure proper conduct by the police, especially in the use of firearms. The provisions of the Panama Canal Treaty would be respected and complied with. Bight of self -.determm* .’ 422. In connection with that issue , members of the Committee asked whether any measures had been taken to prevent public and private support for the apartheid regime of South Africa; what was Panama’6 position with regard to the rights of the Palestinian people: and whether the policy outlined in -105-