of terrorist suspects were being followed and, more generally. that the arrangements for the detention of suspects were satisfactory. 98. Members of the Committee thanked the Government of the United Kingdom for its very full report, especially with regard to the treatment of children and persons detained under mental health legislation, and also expressed appreciation to the Government's representative for the additional information he had provided. Noting that there was a marked-difference between the regime applied in England, Scotland and Wales and that applied in Northern Ireland, members of the Committee raised various concerns and questions. particularly with regard to the implementation of articles 2 and 11 of the Convention in Northern Ireland. 99. With reference to article 2 of the Convention, members of the Committee recalled that derogations from certain provisions of the Convention were not allowed even in times of emergency and wished to know, in that light. how certain provisions relating to the detention of suspected terrorists were applied. They noted in that regard that under the Prevention of Terrorism Act a person might be held by police for an initial period of 48 hours, which could be extended for a further five days. without the right to obtain independent medical advice or to have access to legal counsel during the first 48 hours, and observed that such provisions created conditions which might lead to abuses of authority by agents of the State. 100. With reference to paragraph 1 of article 2. in conjunction with article 11 of the Convention. and recalling the differences which existed in legal protection of persons charged with or suspected of offences of terrorism in Northern Ireland compared to that enjoyed by citizens in the rest of the United Kingdom. members made reference to information received from non-governmental sources which indicated that 90 per cent of cases brought before the Diplock courts. in which a judge alone conducted the trial, relied solely or mainly on confessions as evidence. That situation could put pressure on interrogators to obtain confessions and create an opportunity for conduct which could contravene the provisions of the Convention. Amnesty International had provided information on a large number of allegations of ill-treatment of persons under interrogation, particularly at Castlereagh Holding Centre, which investigations apparently did not substantiate. In that context. information was requested concerning the Independent Commission for Police Complaints, which had reviewed those completed investigations. Members of the Committee also drew attention to the prima facie case of ill-treatment of Mr. Brian Gillen during interrogation at Castlereagh and asked whether any legal or disciplinary actions had been taken against the alleged perpetrators and whether compensation had been provided to persons who had been ill-treated by interrogating officers. particularly at Castlereagh. In addition, it was noted that police authorities were reluctant to make video recordings of interrogations. perhaps out of fear that they would provide evidence of ill-treatment. 101. Members of the Committee expressed regret that the text of section 134 of the Criminal Justice Act had not been reproduced in the report, given its significance in assisting the Committee to understand the implementation of articles 1 and 4 of the Convention within the United Kingdom. In that connection. members of the Committee wished to know whether the definition of torture as contained in that Act was couched in terms identical to that of the -21Digitized by Dag Hammarskjöld Library