have explanations concerning fivo execution6 that were to be carried out in the current year on the basis of sentences by the martial law courts. In this respect, they observed that the Government of Jordan, in its desire to move forward on human rights, might wish to review tile jmplications of such actions. They also observed that the Penal Code provided for the death penalty for a large group of offences and asked whether the abrogation of martial law had any effect on reducing the number of offences carrying the death penalty , 586. The representative of the reporting State pointed out that the marti cases could be referred law directives had been abrogated, and no further the martial law courts. He said that while he personally favoured aboliti the checks and controls which surrounded its imposit of the death penalty, in Jordan were comparable to those in other countries where it had not bee abolished. The possibility of petitioning the King for a special pardon existed for all those sentenced to death, except when their crime had endangered the security of the State. The five death sentences had been imposed on persons who had committed specific crimes for which death was t punishment under the Penal Code. 507. The representative explained that Public Order Act No. 33 of 1965 provided that where arms were used improperly in cases involving security agents, the offender6 were tried by special police tribunalt that the deat penalty was never applied in respect of pregnant women but was commuted ta that the premeditated murder of a relative was regar hard labour for life; as a particularly heinous capital crime; and that no penalties whatsoever imposed for the holding of political beliefs. bibertv and securitv of the werson 508. In connection with that issue, member6 of the Committee wished to km what the maximum period of pre-trial detention was in law and practice; in what cases, apart from espionage, a person could be kept in solitary confinement and whether this excluded visits from the detainee’s lawyerr a what the criteria were for declaring that a person was suffering from a me disorder that might induce him to disturb public order, what authority was responsible for making such a declaration, and what remedies were availabl They also asked whether the denial of the possibility of appeal against th lawfulness of the arrest of person6 accused of certain crimes, such aa mur was in conformity with article 9, paragraph 4, of the Covenant; how the enforceable right to compensation provided for in article 9, paragraph 5, the Covenant was ensured: and how soon after arrest a person could contact lawyer and how quickly after arrest a person’s family was informed. 509. In addition, members wished to know what guarantees the law offered against abuses of the state of emergency regulations relating to the arres persons suffering from mental disorders ; whether any form of legal aid was available to persons placed in institutions; whether legal or medical supervision was exercised in cases of such detention: and whether there wa any possibility of appeal against certification. Members also wished to h more information concerning administial ive detention iii Jordan and, in particular, on the new legislation that was being prepared on that subject They also wished to know whether detainees or prisoners had the right to -144-