... 312. The members of the Committee welcomed the report of Italy and stressed that the presence of a high-level delegation demonstrated the importance attached by the Italian Government to the struggle against torture in all its forms. 313. With regard to the constitutional and legal framework for the application of the Convention. members of the Committee requested additional information on the place of the Convention in the Italian legal order and the way in which Italian internal law had been adapted to the obligations deriving from the Convention by the ratifying instrument. Act No. 498 of 3 November 1988. They asked how possible conflicts between the provisions of the Convention and those of subsequent legislative texts were resolved; whether individuals frequently invoked the Convention in the courts; whether reference was made to the provisions of the Convention in jUdgements of the Italian courts; whether there was an ombudsman in Italy; and whether there were military courts or a state security court. Additional information was also requested on the provisions of the new Code of Penal Procedure adopted in 1989; the competence and recent activities of the Interministerial Committee for Human Rights; the role of the "citizens' advocates" recently introduced; the circumstances in which a state of emergency could be declared and the rights which might be subject to derogation during such periods; and the conditions for the appointment and dismissal of judges. Further information was also requested on the jurisdiction. composition and activities of the Freedom Court. 32 as au 31 wh pa pr 31 ar of rei reJ an COl as] de, asl ye. 32( re~ 314. With regard to article 1 read in conjunction with article 4 of the Convention. members of the Committee expressed regret that there was no definition of torture in Italian criminal law. The direct applicability of the Convention in internal law was not a sufficient guarantee. since the Convention did not specify the offence or applicable penalties. In addition. domestic legislation did not seem fully to cover the relevant provisions of the Convention. particularly in regard to mental or psychological torture. In that connection. it was asked whether the offences mentioned in paragraphs 36 to 38 of the report were prosecuted ex officio and what penalties were incurred. Clarifications were requested on a bill currently under consideration whereby. in order for an act to be punishable. it must have been committed by a pUblic official and on the arrangements governing ex officio prosecution within the framework of disciplinary prcceedings. 315. With regard to article 2. paragraph I. and a~tic1e 11 of the Convention taken together. members of the Committee referred to a number of reports from non-governmental sources mentioning cases in which provisions of the Convention had allegedly been violated. It was asked what had been the result of the inquiries conducted following the incidents said to have occurred in the Sollicciano prison in Florence and the Fuorni prison in Sa1erno. Similarly. it was asked whether the circumstances of the death of Alessandro Ruver in the Regina Coeli prison in Rome and the violence allegedly inflicted on Daud Addawe on Rome police premises had been elucidated. Information was also requested on incidents in which immigrants had apparently clashed with law enforcement officers. 316. Members of the Committee asked how Italy implemented article 2. paragraph 3. of the Convention, under which an order from a superior officer or a pUblic authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture. -58Digitized by Dag Hammarskjöld Library mec tra Sta Mea 321 req int con of ' pos. COITU intl a p: con' SUP! unal spec be 1 pril 322, COllUl of t suc} susI cone pos~ tort exan on t