service; whether there were any changes envisaged in the Organisation of advocates and lawyers; whether membership of a political party was a necessary condition for being elected or appointed as a judge; under what circumstances a trial could be held in secret; whether it was envisaged, pursuant to article 3 of the Declaration of State Sovereignty, to separate the judicial from the executive powers of the Procurator’s Office1 and whether any organs other than the courts were authorised to impose administrative detention. Pa addition, it was inquired whether the Procurator’s Office still exercised direct control over the way the courts applied the law and, if so, whether the judiciary could then be considered as being independent. Observing that the executive power retained the right to rule on the constitutionality of a given law, members wished to know what the precise role of the Constitutional Court was and whether it could challenge decisions by the Supreme Soviet. 209. In his reply, the representative of the State party underscored that it had been proposed, under the current judicial reform, to appoint judges on the recommendation of a qualified panel of judges for a period of 10 years. Judges could not be dismissed unless they had committed a serious offence, Judges’ emoluments were such dismissal being decided by the Supreme Soviet. still quite low. Candidates for appointment as judges had to have very thorough legal training, be at least 25 years of age, and have practised as a lawyer. Bar associations existed thus far only at the rngional level, for specific districts, but there were plans to set up a bar council and other professional organieations which would defend the interests of all officials and court officers. Although a trial could be held in secret if a state secret had to be protected or if it involved details of the accused’s private life or information involving minors, the verdict was always handed down in public. said that the reform of 210. Replying to other questions, the representative the judiciary now in process was intended to strengthen its independence to make it a genuine instrument for the defence of the law and of citizens’ interests. The Supreme Soviet had also decided to depoliticise the judiciary. The Procurator’s Office was not an organ of executive power and the Supreme Soviet could override an appeal petition or a protest from the Procurator’s Office. The courts could impose administrative detention only when questions relating to administrative offences were brought before them directly. The Supreme Court did not have the right to rule on the The most recent constitutional constitutionality of given legislation. amendments provided for the establishment of a constitutional court with responsibility for the application of the law and for guaranteeing the constitutionality of the texts adopted. Freedom of alfens 211. With reference to that issue, members of the Committee wished to know whether any consideration was given, in the context of the current reform movement in the field of civil and political rights, to the situation of the Crimean Tartars who had not yet been able to return to their earlier homes in the Ukrainian SSR; what the prospects were of early enactment by the Supreme Soviet of the USSR of the new draft law on entry into and departure from the USSR; whether the decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR on “Measures for preventing infection with the AIDS virus”, adopted on 25 August 1987, had been applied in practice; and under what circumstances aliens were required to undergo medical examinations. -5l-