With regard to this issue, members of the Committee asked whether the administrative regulations promulgated under the state of emergency were in conformity with article 4, paragrapb 2, of the Covenant; what the maximum period was for which the state of emergency could be declared and what machinery there was for extending it or placing limitations on it; and what consideration was being given to complying with article 4, paragraph 3, of the Covenant relating to the notification by States parties of a state of 576. emergency. 577. Members of the Committee pointed out that the announcement of the suspension of the state of emergency was very good news and also asked what remedies were available to Jordanian citisens in the courts when the state of emergency was in forcej what the specific rights were the exercise of which had been restricted by the state of emergency and how the enjoyment of rights specifically recognised by the Covenant had been affected: and what distinction was made in Jordanian legislation between the state of emergency and martial law. In that connection, they pointed out that only martial law, which had been in force since December 1989, had been lifted in practice, by decree, and that the emergency legislation was actually Gtill being applied, with the result that the Jordanian Government continued to derogate from certain provisions of the Covenant. 578. In reply to the questions asked, the representative of the State part: Y said that the state of emergency had been proclaimed in 1967 during the wa: between Israel and the Arab countries. In those circumstances, the Jordan, la* Government had had to promulgate the state of emergency with martial law. He recalled that martial law had been suspended (“Erosen”) since 1989 pending promulgation of the order for its abrogation , which had subsequently been adopted by the second Royal Decree of 7 July 1991. He explained the difference between martial law and the Defence Act, noting in particular tl the latter had been adopted as a result of the various stages of the ordin constitutional procedure and that it was in no way an emergency law. The persons who were still in detention after the State of emergency had been lifted were persons who had been found guilty of ordinary crimes. At pres no one was in detention because of his membership in a particular party or political organisation. With regard to notification, he said that the Secretary-General and the United Nations as a whole were aware of the situation, as demonstrated by the adoption by the Security Council of resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973). . .a Nt&u.mhsrlmlnat ion and eaualztv of the sex~R 579. In this connection, members of the Committee asked for examples of anI laws or regulations specifically prohibiting discrimination and providing appropriate penalties} for comments on whether special difficulties were bf encountered in ensuring respect for equality between men and women; for information on whether any specific remedies were available to a woman who claimed to have baen a victim of discrimination and, in that connection, or whether there had been any cases where relief had been sought and, if so, * what results, and for clarifications concerning the basis for the different treatment under Jordanian law of men and women. They also requested curref data on the number of women in public office, the liberal professions, Seni -142-