88. Referring to article 5 of the Convention, the representative stated that Ecuadorian law could also apply to Ecuadorian nationals or aliens who committed acts of torture abroad but who had been arrested in Ecuador. 89. Concerning article 11 of the Convention, the representative explained that the contradictions regarding the duration of incommunicado detention in domestic law had been partly resolved by a jUdgement of the Court of Constitutional Guarantees holding that the provisions of the Constitution must take precedence and that such detention must not last longer than 24 hours. A person held incommunicado could have contact with his lawyer, as the right of defence was guaranteed by the Constitution, but no machinery to facilitate such contacts had been expressly provided for by law. Practical measures existed to assist detainees in their social rehabilitation even though specialized personnel was insufficient in that respect. Prison officials who resigned in 1990 had done so because they were dissatisfied with Ecuador's penal system. Their reports had been made known to the public through the press and had led to reform efforts, especially concerning the social rehabilitation centres. 90. Referring to article 14 of the Convention, the representative explained that although the State was required, under the Constitution, to compensate individuals for any damage suffered as a result of the operation of public services or acts performed by pUblic officials, as yet there was no law guaranteeing either moral and financial reparation or medical rehabilitation for victims of torture. Concluding observations 91. In concluding the consideration of the report, the Committee took note with satisfaction of the efforts the Government of Ecuador was making to improve the judicial system and to provide training for law enforcement and medical personnel in order to combat torture. However, the Committee stated that there were certain areas in which further efforts were needed, particularly to ensure that measures involving deprivation of liberty were taken by judges and not by administrative officials. In this regard it was noted that "examining magistrates" had no judicial function and were in fact officials of the Ministry of the Interior. Additionally, it would be necessary to adapt and modify a number of provisions of domestic law; to eliminate the disparity between article 141 of the Constitution, which laid down the powers of the Court of Constitutional Guarantees, and Ecuador's penal legislation; and to reform the special legal regime. . 92. The Committee was also of the view that article 25 of the Penal Code did not sufficiently ensure conformity with article 4 of the Convention; that the Penal Code should be brought into line with article 2, paragraph 3, and article 3 of the Convention; and that the law should be further developed not only regarding compensation but also in respect of providing full rehabilitation for victims of torture. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 93. The Committee considered the initial report of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (CAT/C/9/Add.6) at its 9Ist and 92nd meetings, held on 13 November 1992 (CAT/C/SR.9l and 92). -19Digitized by Dag Hammarskjöld Library