173. Concerning article 12 of the Convention, members of the Committee referred to information alleging that ill-treatment was bring practised in police stations and that persons had died during custody. In that connection, they asked whether any investigations had been conducted into such cases and other complaints or ill-treatment and whether there was a police authority to monitor police activities and to ensure that complaints against the police would be examined impartially. In addition, further details were requested as to the responsibilities and powers of the Public Prosecutor's Office and as to whether that Office could arrest and indict persons and challenge decisions taken by courts. Information was also sought as to the experience of the Prosecutor's Office since the beginning of 1991 in ensuring more effective supervision of police activities. 174. With regard to article 15 of the Convention, information was sought as to whether there had been any cases in which it had been established that a statement had been made as a result of torture and what decisions had been taken by the courts. Moreover, it was asked what the rules were governing the submission of evidence and whether involuntary confessions were admissible as evidence before civil, criminal or military courts. 175. In connection with article 16 of the Convention, a brief description of the texts governing the treatment of prisoners was requested with particular reference to the separation of minors from adults, women from men and the accused from convicted persons. 175. The representative of Uruguay stated that he was as yet unable to reply to the many detailed questions raised by the Committee and requested that his Government be allowed to submit its replies in writing to the Committee at its next session. 177. In that regard, the members of the Committee drew attention to rule 66 of the rules of procedure of the Committee, according to which a representative of a reporting State should be able to answer questions which may be put to him by the Committee. They also recalled that answers were generally given by representatives of reporting States on the same day that the questions were asked. However, the members of the Committee decided, as an exception to its rules and normal practice, to request the Government of Uruguay to transmit its replies in writing to the Secretariat within one week. Concluding observations 178. The Committee commended the Government of Uruguay for having submitted detailed written replies to its questions by the appointed time-limit. The information supplied clearly demonstrated Uruguay's firm intention to respect its international commitments and to enforce the rule of law in the country. 179. The Committee noted, however, that there were still some problems in Uruguay with regard to the full implementation of the provisions of the Convention. In that connection, it observed that the country seemed to have a number of laws which were inconsistent with the Constitution and a number of regulations which were inconsistent with the laws. As examples, the Committee referred to Decree No. 690/980 which enabled the police to hold a suspect in custody in order to obtain information, and Decree-Law No. 14470 governing treatment in detention. The Committee expressed the hope that the authorities -35- Digitized by Dag Hammarskjöld Library