to order persons detained in connection with terrorist activities for only three months, but such orders Could be renewed, and the total length of detention could reach 18 months. Remedies for wrongful detention were available through a s procedure, a fundamental rights application A person’s family was informed of or an application to the Advisory Board. Access to a detainee after his arrest might his arrest as soon as possible. be denied during the initial investigation for a maximum period of approximately two weeks, but the reasons for and the duration of such denial could be challenged in a court of law. Persons could be imprisoned under maximum security conditions or in detention camps under less rigorous conditions. A person who was likely to commit a crime or had a criminal record might be kept in preventive detention for a limited period. 473. Responding to additional questions raised by members of the Committee, the representative said that the Sri Lankan judicial system was controlled by the principles of administrative law. No ministerial order made without jurisdiction, or made unreasonably, or expressed too broadly, would be considered valid. The notion of an “accessory after the fact” as a person criminally liable did not exist and any statement made as a result of inducement, threat or promise would be considered irrelevant. A confession implicating a co-accused could not normally be used against that co-accused, but given the nature of terrorist activity, a law had been enacted admitting such testimony. Such statements could be used for the purpose of establishing an offence but were given only minimal evidential weight. Lawyers receiving threats had their allegations investigated and were provided with police protection if necessary, to a fair trW 474. In connection with that issue, members of the Committee wished to know what guarantees there were for the independence and impartiality of the judiciary, particularly in respect of legal and administrative provisions governing tenure, dismissal and disciplining of members; whether there was any free legal aid and advisory scheme and, if 60~ how it operated; how the Bar in Sri Lanka was organieed; and whether the possible conflict relating to the retroactivity of laws between articles 15 (1) and 13 (6) of the Constitution had been referred to the Law Commission and, if so, with what results. 475. In reply to questions relating to the independence of the judiciary, the representative said that the Constitution fixed salaries and tenure, and insulated appointments and tenure from interference by the executive branch. Disciplinary control was exercised by an independent Judicial Service Commission. The judiciary wa6 controlled by the superior courts, and interfering with its independence was an offence. The legal aid scheme in Sri Lanka was administered by the Bar Association and funded by the State, the Asia Foundation and other foreign donors, Counsel was assigned at the State’s expense to criminal defendants and appellants requiring assistance. The Bar Association was an independent body of attorneys at law. It maintained a dialogue with the Ministry of Justice on the administration of justice and expressed its views on legal issues of national importance, Members of the Bar had intervened in the majority of the fundamental rights and meas corpl~a cases. Retroactivity of laws was applied only with extreme caution and only where an act would have been considered criminal under the laws of civilised nations. -120-