242. With reference to article 14 of the Convention, the representative stated that the Bulgarian Government had allocated 120 million leva for the compensation of victims of the previous regime and referred to a series of other measures adopted for the rehabilitation of such victims. Concluding observations 243. The Committee thanked the representative of Bulgaria for his full and frank answers to the questions that had been raised. It also took note of the radical reforms and far-reaching changes taking place in the country. In that connection, the Committee recommended that the process of legislative reforms be accelerated and that relevant information should be included in the first supplementary report to be submitted at the end of June 1992. The Committee also expressed the hope that the first supplementary report of Bulgaria would reflect the fact that the comments and suggestions made by it during the dialogue with the State party had been taken into account. Cameroon 244. The additional report of Cameroon (CAT/C/S/Add.26) was considered by the Committee at its 101st and 102nd meetings, held on 20 November 1991 (CAT/C/SR.101 and 102). 245. The report was introduced by the representative of the State party, who recalled that Cameroon had ratified the Convention against Torture in June 1987 without reservations. According to article 2 of the Penal Code, treaties and agreements who had been duly ratified by Cameroon prevailed over any provision of the criminal law as soon as they had been promulgated, and there was no need, therefore, to incorporate them into domestic law before they could be applied. Cameroonian law was the result of constant efforts to combine the English and French systems inherited from the colonial past with traditional values. In the past year considerable changes had taken place and work was being carried out to bring the country's legislation into line with the deep-seated aspirations of the Cameroonian people. 246. The judiciary was based on a system of traditional courts, courts of first instance, courts of major jurisdiction and military courts. Courts of first instance were competent in penal matters to try all offences except serious crimes, while courts of major jurisdiction tried crimes and related offences. In all, there were 49 courts of major jurisdiction and some 150 courts of first instance. Military courts had jurisdiction to try persons over the age of 18 for offences laid down in the new article 5 of Order No. 72/5 of 26 August 1972, as amended by Act No. 90/048 of 19 December 1990. Since 1990 a number of offences had been removed from the jurisdiction of the military courts either because they were no longer offences or because they were to be tried by ordinary courts. Traditional courts were competent primarily in civil matters and defendants had to agree that cases should be tried by them; otherwise, the ordinary courts had jurisdiction. 247. The jUdiciary was an authority in its own right and its independence was guaranteed by the President, who had the power to appoint, transfer and punish jUdges, with the advice and assistance of the Supreme JUdicial Council. Although torture was not specifically defined in the Penal Code, most types of behaviour constituting acts of torture were covered by that Code. Its -47Digitized by Dag Hammarskjöld Library