custody before being charged and for how long and by whom; whether such custody could be in the form of incommunicado detention; and what was the length of the period of detention which was provided for in the Libyan Penal Code in the case of acts of torture. 156. With regard to article 1 of the Covention, members of the Committee asked whether the definition of torture had been incorporated into Libyan legislation. In the context of article 2, they wished to know whether domestic legislation provided that exceptional circumstances could not be invoked as a justification of torture and whether a superior officer or official who ordered acts of torture was liable to prosecution. In connection with article 3 of the Convention, members noted that no mention had been made in the report of refoulement and requested information on relevant legislation and on the officials who were responsible for handling such matters, as well as relevant statistics. Regarding article 4 of the Convention, clarification was requested as to the penalties provided by article 431 of the Libyan Penal Code in respect of acts of violence by a public official. In connection with articles 6 and 7 of the Convention, it was asked what legal regime existed in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya to deal with a foreigner suspected of having committed torture in another country and whether the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya had universal jurisdiction to try in its territory torturers who might have committed crimes elsewhere and could not be extradited or returned. 157. In connection with article 9 of the Convention, members wishod to know whether the Libyan Arab .ramahiriya had mutual jUdicial assistance arrangements with other countries, and if so, whether such assistance extended to the crime of torture and cruel and inhuman treatment. In the context of article 10 of the Convention, clarification was requested as to whether education and information on the prohibition against torture were offered to all categories of persons mentioned in that article. With reference to articles 11 and 16 of the Convention, members of the Committee wished to know what were the current rules and methods of interrogation and the proposed amendments to the relevant legislation, and how the penitentiary system operated. C 2 a F a t w r C ~ ConclUding observations ~ 158. The Committee was generally of the op1n10n that further information was necessary to assess the implementation of the Convention in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, particularly in respect of articles 5, 9, 13, 14 and 15. It therefore requested the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya to submit an additional report by February 1992, in accordance with rule 67, paragraph 2, of the Committee's rules of procedure, so that the Committee could discuss it at its April 1992 session. The report should be consistent with the Committee's guidelines and should contain a general section on policy, referring to the Convention article by article and indicating how it was applied in legislation and in practice. It should also state whether there had been any cases of torture and, if so, under what circumstances and how often, and what the response of the authorities had been. It would also be useful if the main legislative provisions referred to in the introductory statement of the representative of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya would be included. The Committee recalled, in the foregoing connection, that assistance in the preparation of the additional report could be requested from the Centre for Human Rights. -32Digitized by Dag Hammarskjöld Library 11 hI Ul Cc oj Wc Wc tt Pt 16 es ~ pr be pr it