167. With regard to articles I and 4 of the Convention, members of the Committee indicated that the provisions of the Penal Code did not appear to fully cover the definition of torture nor sufficiently penalize those committing the crime of torture. They observed, in that connection, that a clear definition of torture should be incorporated into Uruguay's domestic legislation. 17: rej pol thE oll mOl WOll 168. In connection with article 2 of the Convention, members of the Committee expressed concern that Uruguayan legislation appeared to allow for the suspension of guarantees relating to the security of the person in special circumstances, which was contrary to article 2, paragraph 2, of the Convention, and requested clarification of the role of parliament and the Permanent Commission in any such suspension as well as of the special circumstances under which the Constitution could be suspended. Concern was also expressed over legislative provisions relating to the exoneration from criminal liability and punishment of persons who committed acts of torture on the order of a superior officer, which appeared to be contrary to article 2, paragraph 3, of the Convention. Members wondered how the Convention would supersede the domestic provisions on that matter in actual practice and whether, in view of the past experience in Uruguay, the formal abrogation of those domestic provisions would not be advisable. 169. In respect of article 3 of the Convention, further information on the matter of expulsion was requested. In addition, it was asked whether there had been any cases in which Uruguay had refused to expel or to return a person who was in danger of being subjected to torture, or any cases in which persons had been expelled or returned to a country that provided sufficient guarantees for their security, rather than to their country of origin. 170. With regard to articles 5 to 9 of the Convention, members of the Committee asked how the principle of aut dedere aut jUdicare was being implemented, whether it was possible for a foreigner who had committed an act of torture against another foreigner on foreign territory to be tried for his act in Uruguay and whether there was any mutual judicial assistance with countries with which Uruguay had no treaty relations. 171. In connection with article 10 of the Convention, members of the Committee observed that the failure to provide education and information for medical personnel regarding the prohibition against torture was a serious shortcoming, especially because, according to the Uruguayan Medical Association, some 600 doctors had been involved in acts of torture in Uruguay during the previous regime. 172. With regard to article 11 of the Convention, members of the Committee wished to know what rules governed the pre-indictment period and which authority was empowered to order arrests and to indict persons. On the matter of detention, information was sought as to whether persons could be detained incommunicado, who could order such detention, what was the maximum period of incommunicado detention or custody and whether a medical examination during custody was systematic and compulsory. In addition, members of the Committee wished to know what were the powers of the police to detain persons for inquiries into their background, how long such detention could last, and how such powers were monitored, and requested details concerning the right of detainees to a lawyer and as to the periodicity of interrogation during custody and judicial control. -34Digitized by Dag Hammarskjöld Library to whe tak Pro sup 174 whe sta tak, subl evi~ 175 the refE acc\ 176. to t Gove next 177. the of a him repr aske, rule, its 178. deta: infol its j 179. Urugt ConvE numbe regul refer custo treat