& 66. With regard to specific articles of the Convention, members of the Committee asked whether, in the absence of an explicit legislative definition of torture and bearing in mind the requirement in article 4 of the Convention that acts of torture had to be made specific offences under criminal law if they were to be punishable, the provisions of the Penal Code covered all the situations of torture referred to in article 1 of the Convention. 67. With regard to article 2 of the Convention, members of the Committee pointed to the incompatibility of article 214 of the Penal Code, concerning the exemption from criminal liability of a subor.dinate for illegal acts under certain circumstances, with article 2, paragraph 3, of the Convention. Noting that the Supreme Court had issued an opinion in favour of amending article 214, they wished to know what steps were being taken by the Government or the National Congress to do so. In relation to article 3 of the Convention, members wished to know how that article was given effect in Ecuadorian legislation and whether there had been any actual cases in which refQulement, expulsion or extradition had been refused on the grounds that the person concerned was in danger of being sUbjected to torture in his own country. 68. 69. With regard to article 4, information was sought as to the number of cases of persons convicted of torture, the penalties they had been given, whether any members of the SIC had been prosecuted or were currently facing charges, and whether it was necessary to try members of the police and the armed forces by special courts also in the case of offences of torture. Concerning article 5 of the Convention, members of the Committee sought further clarification as to the application of its provisions, including details of any offences committed abroad where both the perpetrator and the victim had been foreigners. 70. With regard to article 6 of the Convention, it was stated that from the information provided it appeared that the legislation of Ecuador did not fully comply with the article's requirements. 71. 72. Concerning article 9 of the Convention, it was noted tht Contracting States to the Bustamante Code of Private International Law had an option to agree or accept certain forms of communication on criminal matters whereas, under the Convention, States parties were obliged to assist one another in connection with criminal proceedings. 73. With respect to article 10 of the Convention, members of the Committee noted that the various educational measures regarding the prohibition against torture did not seem to apply to medical personnel and suggested that the number of training and education programmes should be increased. They recalled, in this regard, that assistance could be sought from the Centre for Human Rights for that purpose. In connection with article 11, further details were requested as to the rules governing interrogations, in particular those relating to access of the arrested person to a physician and a lawyer, and detention in solitary confinement. It was also asked how the right of a person held incommunicado to communicate with his lawyer, provided for in article 130, paragraph 2, of 74. -16Digitized by Dag Hammarskjöld Library "I.~ .;. '.' <-.I l' ~ c e G 7 r c a I S' 7' tc si b 7E se ru pu 79 re pr th ha pr al ma, COl en fr! Un' pr! JUl prl COl 80, juc juc hi~ pal wit