merit of Drisoners and other dew 434. With reference to that issue, members of the Committee asked what controls had been instituted to ensure that persons arrested or detained were not subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and what arrangements existed for the supervision of places of detention by the Department of Correction or the Office of the Attorney-General; whether the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners were complied with; whether those provisions had been made known to the police, armed forces, prison personnel and other persons responsible for holding interrogations: whether the relevant regulations and directives were known and accessible to prisoners: whether the Government had taken steps to ensure that the police would now treat prisoners differently: whether any prison deaths had been due to shortages of food and medical attention; and whether there was any problem of overcrowding in prisons, and, if so, what measures were being taken in response. 435. In his reply, the representative said that torture had been almost the exclusive preserve of the military authorities. The Government had begun a series of seminars and courses to improve the treatment of prisoners held in penal institutions, in addition to ending control of prison establishments by the military. Copies of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules had been provided to the relevant officials and the Goverltiient had sought from the outset to ensure that judicial officials, members of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, the police and all prison personnel were familiar with them. However, much remained to be done and the Government hoped to carry out training seminars on the subject. Detainees were sometimes interviewed by the press, and now that they were aware of their rights, prisoner6 were attempting to stage prison uprisings or demanding better conditions. wtv and securitv of the person 436. In connection with that issue, members of the Committee wished to know whether the planned legislative amendments with regard to administratively imposed compulsory labour had been enacted: whether the Committee’s concerns regarding the apparent incompatibility of article 33 of the Constitution with articIe 9 (1) of the Covenant had been taken into consideration by the Panamanian authorities1 what were the reasons for detention in non-criminal cases; what the maximum period was of remand in custody and detention pending trial; how quickly after arrest a person’s family was informed and how soon after arrest a person could contact a lawyer: whether the conditions of payment of damages envisaged in article 129 of the Penal Code were deemed compatible with article 9 (5) of the Covenant; and whether there had been any cases where the State had been required to pay civil damages to detainees. Members of the Committee also wished to know about the situation of reported asylum seekers in various diplomatic missions, and what the Government’s grounds were for not granting safe conduct pursuant to the Inter-American Convention on Asylum. 431. Replying to questions put forward by members of the Committee, the representative noted that the Administrative Code related only to minor offences f,Jr which the term of imprisonment was one year or less. Since sentences were no longer being applied, that Code had fallen into disuse. Convention No. 29 (Forced Labour), to which Panama was a party, excluded -109- such IL0 work