.rr to disciplinary measures applicable to public officials found guilty of ill-treatment as well as to educational measures that sought to ensure that prison officials and staff were made aware of their obligations. 2' tJ C( 01 237. With respect to article 4 of the Convention, he indicated that the draft penal code and the draft code of criminal procedure, which were expected to be adopted in the first half of 1992, established penalties in keeping with the gravity of offences. Several state officials or members of the police who had committed acts prohibited by the Convention or who had committed abuses of power had been prosecuted and punished during 1990 and 1991 according to the penal provisions in force. Article 287 of the Penal Code, which related solely to crimes committed by judicial officials, was one of the provisions of Bulgarian legislation that was not expressly in conformity with the Convention. 238. Regarding articles 8 and 9 of the Convention and the measures being taken to improve their implementation, the representative stressed that no new legislative text was needed since the Convention was now directly applicable in BUlgaria. In addition, Bulgaria was about to accede to the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and would also review agreements concluded with other countries. Mutual judicial assistance had already been practised on a very wide scale with a number of other European countries even where no formal extradition treaties existed. 239. With respect to article 10 of the Convention and the training of medical personnel about the prohibition of torture, the representative indicated that the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Justice and the Prosecutor's Office had requested assistance from the Council of Europe and the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture to develop an appropriate progrmmne. The involvement of the Committee against Torture in such a programme was also seen as desirable. There were several other planned initiatives, some of which had received United Nations assistance, to improve the training of prosecutors, i.nvestigators, and military and prison personnel. 240. Conoerning article 11 of the Convention, the representative said that Bulgarian legislation did not provide for a preliminary medical examination of detainees but, since the Convention was now applicable nationally, that situation could only improve. Not only the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners but also the European Rules, which were even stricter, were in force in Bulgaria. A delegation of the Council of Europe that visited two Bulgarian prisons in the spring of 1990 had found no breach of such rules. However, in the past, there had been acts of brutality in Bulgarian prisons. Two prison guards had been put on trial for such offences and four others had been dismissed. The maximum period provided for in the Code of Criminal Procedure for the duration of custody was 10 days but under article 30, paragraph 3, of the new Constitution it was only 24 hours. The latter provision obviously took precedence. 241. In connection with article 13 of the Convention, the representative stated that no case of torture or ill-treatment had been reported in Bulgaria since 1989. The cases referred to by Amnesty International dated back to an earlier period and the persons concerned, who were Bulgarians belonging to the Turkish minority, had been released at the end of 1990. -46Digitized by Dag Hammarskjöld Library 24 fr ra co be su al re di, 241 Co~ (CJ 24~ rec JUll tre any the the corn tra, wor: the 246, fin fir! seri offE COUI oveI No. Sine mili were prim trie 247. guar, jUdg4 Althl behal