the Penal Code, was applied in practice, whether the period of pre-trial detention, which was limited to 24 hours, was counted from the time of the detainee's arrest, whether the detainee was entitled to remain silent until he had seen a lawyer; and whether there was any provision for regular visits to persons held in custody by independent magistrates. In addition, information was requested concerning the resignation of certain prison officials in January 1990. 75. With reference to article 13 of the Convention, it was asked whether persons who lodged accusations of torture with a court or submitted a complaint to the Court of Constitutional Guarantees or to the special commissions of the Congress were provided with any form of protection by the Government. 76. Regarding article 14 of the Convention, members of the Committee requested details of the provisions made by the reporting State for the complete rehabilitation of the victims of torture and whether there had been any actual cases where compensation had been awarded to victims of torture. It was asked, in particular. whether compensation was paid directly by the State or whether victims had to file a claim against their torturers. 77. Concerning article 15 of the Convention, members of the Committee wished to receive more information on penal provisions which established that any statement extracted through the use of torture would be void and disregarded in a court of law in cases of any kindl including cases involving drugs. 78. With regard to article 15 of the Convention l further information was sought as to the conditions of detention in Ecuador and concerning relevant rules for the prohibition of acts of cruel. inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. 79. In reply to the various questions raised by members of the Committee. the representative of the State party said that the Constitution of Ecuador took precedence over all other instruments of domestic or international law and that international instruments had to be approved by the National Congress to have the force of law. Police commissioners ,and officers could institute proceedings to establish that an offence had been committed, charge the alleged offender and order pre-trial detention. but only the examining magistrate was authorized to take a decision on whether an offence had been committed. The legal reform at present under consideration was designed to ensure that any criminal proceedings were brought before the competent courts from the time an inquiry had started until a ruling had been handed down. Until September 1991. the National Police had the power to institute proceedings. In the future this power would be the responsibility of the Judicial Police under the supervision of the judicial authorities. For the present, however, a transitional provision had made the National Police Command responsible for organizing such proceedings. 80. Judges of the Supreme Court were appointed by the National Congress while judges of lower courts were appointed by bodies at a higher level in the judicial hierarchy. ~ debate was currently in progress on depoliticizing the higher ranks of the jUdiciary. Former members of the SIC had for the most part been reassigned to other departments of the police force not concerned with investigations. -17Digitized by Dag Hammarskjöld Library