the representative said that there were 8 469, In reply to other questions, few camps and places other than regular prisons that had been designated as places where detainees could be held, and judges and magistrates had the right to visit them. The Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act provided that any person is respect of whom any detention order or restriction order had been made should be informed of the unlawful activity in connection with which such order had been made. The Act also provided that such person or #y other person on his behalf might make representations tv the Advisory Board, which took the place of the judicial authority where persons were normally brought to trial. A detention order was issued if the Minister had reason to believe that a person was connected with or concerned in any ulawful activity constituting an offence as defined under the Act. The aggregate period of such detention could not exceed 18 months and a detained person could lodge a complaint with an Advisory Board or challenge the validity of the detention order in a court of law. If he was found to be the victim of an unlawful arrest, the court had th8 power to award compensativa. 470. With reference to that issue, members of the Committee asked for a clarification of the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Act of 20 July 1979 and of allegations that the safeguards included in that Act had not been strictly observed, particularly in relation to arrests of terrorist suspects. They also wished to know under what circumstances and for what periods persons might be held in preventive detention without being charged with a criminal offences what authorities had the power to order such detention; what remedies were available to persons (and their relatives) who believed themselves to be detained wrongfully and how effective auoh remedies weref how quickly after arrest a person's family was informed and how soon after arrest a person could contact his lawyer; and what the law and practice ‘were regarding detention in institutions other than prisons and for re8sons other than crimes. 471, In addition, members of the Committee wished to know whether under the Prevention of Terrorism Act a magistrate could himself decide whether or not to release a person from custodyr what the evidential value was of statements elicited through threats or torture : what weight was accorded to statements given in the absence of cross-examination) whether the provisions of section 18 (1) of the Act applied to the 8CCUSedbimself when he gave evidence a6 a witness or only to other witnessear what measures had been taken to ensure that lawyers could carry out their professional responsibilities without interference; whether there had been any complaints of Unauthorised arrests by members of the security forces) whether there were adequate 6afeguards against the unjustified extension of detention orderar whether the habeas cow rule applied in cases of preventive detention and how the lawfulness of such detention wa5 monitoredr and whether the provisions of section 14 (2) (a) (ii) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act had led to the suppression of information concerning abuses by the security forces. 472. In his reply, the representative said that under the Prevention of procedure had been instituted whereby the period within which a detained person must be brought before a magistrate had been extended from 24 hour6 to 72 hours. The safeguards set forth in the Act could be enforced through fundamental rights applications or through Wess w aPPlfcations to the Supreme Court. The Ministry of Defence had the authority Terrorism Act, a special ,