203. With regard to article 1 of the Convention, the representative informed the Committee that the offence of torture was not specifically defined in the Australian Constitution and Commonwealth legislation. 204. In relation to article 2 of the Convention, the representative stated that the principle that an order of a superior or public authority could not be invoked as a justification of torture was a common law principle, although it was also embodied in some legislative texts. 205. With reference to concerns raised under article 3 of the Convention, the representative explained that any application for asylum made by a person who could not claim refugee status as defined in the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, but who might be subjected to torture if he returned to his country of origin, was communicated to the Minister for Immigration, who could grant an entry permit for humanitarian reasons. Equally, extradition could not be granted in Australia if it involved a breach of the obligations assumed by the country under international treaties. 206. In reply to the question on the applicability of article 4, paragraph 2, of the Convention, the representative informed the Committee that the Australian legal system was a discretionary one in which the judge had the power to determine the nature of the offence and to decide the appropriate penalty in the light of the seriousness of the offence. The system also authorized the Attorney General to appeal against a penalty which was obviously inadequate. He also pointed out that current practice tended towards uniformity of sentences and that under Australian law the offence of assault included mental and psychological suffering. 207. With reference to the concerns raised in connection with articles 5 to 9 of the Convention, the representative stated that Australia had fulfilled its obligations under article 5 of the Convention to the greatest extent possible as federal law had explicitly provided that there was no legitimate excuse for acts of torture and that such acts were unacceptable whatever the circumstances. Concerning the matter of the universal jurisdiction of Australian justice, the representative indicated that any person who had committed an offence outside Australian territory was liable to the penalties provided for by Australian criminal law. The request of a foreign national who had committed a criminal offence and who had applied to stay in Australia although he would be examined in accordance with the obligations established by the Convention and the Crimes (Torture) Act 1988. 208. In connection with article 10, the representative informed the Committee, ~r alia, that the training of police officers could vary from state to state, but all states had established intensive and regular programmes in which police officers received information about their statutory obligations. The federal police also had a similar programme. Equally, a service of the Ministry of Immigration provided its officials with training which enabled them to recognize victims of torture or serious injury. 209. With regard to article 11 of the Convention, the representative indicated that there were adequate guarantees for the systematic review of all provisions relating to interrogation since the conduct of a trial was totally independent of the police investigation and complaints would be made either to the ombudsman or to members of Parliament and the press. The federal and -40Digitized by Dag Hammarskjöld Library st Ro to ac Th co pe wa, wa: la1 mel C01 pel to °PI mer 21C inc COll hac the inv tor had fav 211 tha in trei whil aSSl Mort detl otht perl of j cornl per~ was abu~ 212. rept one way othe by t obta 213. that inst