219. The representative also noted that some discrepancies existed between the new Constitution and the penal legislation in force. For example, Bulgaria had no specific provisions relating to the prohibition of and criminal responsibility for mental and psychological SUffering. It was expected that the modernization of the penal legislation would take account of mental and psychological forms of violence and degrading treatment. Where legislative conflicts arose, the Constitution contained transitional provisions stipulating that the provisions of existing legislation were applicable unless they were contrary to the Constitution. 220. Other recent institutional changes included the establishment of the Constitutional Court on 3 October 1991 which could rule on the compatibility of the Constitution and international instruments concluded by Bulgaria prior to their ratification by parliament and the adoption of the Acts on the Supreme Judicial Council and on Local Self-Government and Local Administration. The system of courts and tribunals was also undergoing changes. A new penal code, code of criminal procedure and an act on the execution of sentences were in the process of being drafted. There was also an urgent need for new legislation to replace the Juveniles Antisocial Behaviour Act. In accordance with article 5, paragraph 4, of the new Constitution, international instruments ratified by Bulgaria under the constitutionally established procedure were to be considered domestic legislation and would supersede any conflicting domestic legislation. 221. Members of the Committee commended the Government of Bulgaria on its report and thanked its representative for the additional information provided in his oral introduction. They noted with satisfaction that the Government of Bulgaria was considering the possibility of withdrawing its reservations to the Convention. They were also interested in having details of cases, if there were any, in which a court invoked the Convention in its decisions. Similarly, members of the Committee wished to receive an outline of the future legal system in Bulgaria and, in particular, of the body which would be responsible for the enforcement of sentences and for monitoring conditions of detention. Clarification was also requested as to the role of authorities empowered to investigate crimes and of examining magistrates and as to whether prisons came under the responsibility of the public prosecutor. Members wished to receive further information relating to the monitoring of the constitutionality of laws and the organization of the jUdiciary and concerning medical measures of constraint that were enforced by the courts. They also requested clarification of the number of persons who were being held in police custody at present and wished to know whether the Government intended to repeal the death penalty. 222. In relation to articles 1 and 4 of the Convention, members of the Committee noted the shortcomings in existing Bulgarian legislation with respect to the definition, prohibition and punishment of all forms of torture and recalled that States parties were obliged to ensure that all acts of torture were offences under criminal law and were properly punished. Concerning article 4 of the Convention, in particular, further information was sought as to types of torture-related offences for which a person could be tried as well as concerning the penalties prescribed by article 287 of the Penal Code for officials charged with offences involving torture or other forms of cruel, inhuman or humiliating punishment. -43Digitized by Dag Hammarskjöld Library