paragraphs 11 and 12 of the report still applied. They also wished to know whether the Government regarded self-determination in its domestic dimensions as requiring a continuing system of parliamentary rule; what was the position of Panama on the principle of non-interference: when the next national to ensure that in those elections were due: and what measures were envisaged elections there was a proper choice between political parties. 423. In reply, the representative said that diplomatic relations with South Africa had been suspended in 1955 and that the Government was considering the imposition of measures to punish violations of economic sanctions against South Africa, including measures against Panamanian-registered ships. Panama maintained diplomatic relations both with Arab States and with Israel. Its position on their conflict was that Israel should withdraw from the occupied territories and that there should be a recognition of and security for Israel as part of an overall Middle East peace settlement. Answering other questions, the representative stated that the Government had a binding rule that precluded recognition of any Government that came into power as a result The next national elections of a military coup or through electoral fraud. were due to be held in May.1994, and a new electoral code would be needed to ensure that they would be democratic. 424. With reference to the state of emergency, members of the Committee wished to know whether there had been any proclamation of a state of emergency since the consideration of the initial report in 1994 and, if so, what rights had been suspended; whether the Secretary-General of the United Nation6 had received a formal notification of the states of emergency proclaimed8 whether any decree had been enacted suspending constitutional rights during and after the invasion by United States forces; whether the guarantee against confiscation of property was among the constitutional guarantees that could be suspended: whether any persons had been deprived of their property since the last reportt and what was the meaning of Decree No. 50 of February 1990, which repealed the article placing restrictions on the judicial remedy of m, 425. In reply, the representative stated that states of emergency had been declared in 1997 and 1999J on both occasions the Government had suspended arl guarantees subject to suspension under the Constitution and had notified the Secretary-General. The guarantee of private property acquired in accordance with the law could be suspended, whereas the guarantee against confiscation of property could not be suspended in a state of emergency. Formerly, the Judicial Code had prohibited the enercise of the remedy of m against decision6 by judicial officials, but Decree No. 50 of February 1990 now made The Government considered that the suspension of this pO66ibl6, constitutional guarantees after the invasion by the United States would have increased the danger of human rights violations, *. . and N.iu-dhaamuaatron of the uum 426. With reference to that issue, member6 of the Committee wished to be provided with information concerning measures taken, since the consideration of the initial report, to improve the StatUS of women, particularly in rural areas. It was also asked in which respects, other than in the exercise of -X06-