allowed the establishment of state jurisdiction. Under article 4 of the Romanian Extradition Law, the extradition of Romanian citizens, or of non-Romanian citizens domiciled in that country, was not permitted. Therefore, Romanian courts were competent to deal with the offences concerned. 356. In his reply concerning article 6 of the Convention, the representative explained that the requirement for a suspect not to leave the area was a purely preventive one, intended to ensure the suspect's presence during investigations, and applicable for a maximum period of 30 days. Such measure did not involve house arrest or surveillance. 351. In respect of article 8 of the Convention, the representative indicated that its provisions were directly applicable in Romanian law. He added that the bilateral extradition conventions in existence prior to Romania's adhesion to the Convention normally provided for extradition to be granted in cases involvi.ng a penalty of at least one or two years' imprisonment, and that torture was covered in such provisions. 36: the vie the Stc 362 tha Any evi und 363 tha con of min~ 358. With regard to article 10 of the Convention, the representative agreed that much needed to be achieved in that regard and that Romania must strive to overcome its shortcomings where application of that article was concerned. 359. Referring to article 11 of the Convention, the representative acknowledged that Romania still faced great difficulties in funding improvements in many spheres, including penitentiary institutions. Some 42,000 detainees were held in premises whose total capacity was 30,000. However, efforts were being made to improve conditions, and the administration of prisons had been transferred in 1991 from the Ministry of the Interior to the Ministry of Justice. A new law on sentencing was being drafted, which would conform to relevant international provisions. Regarding the supervision of criminal proceedings, the representative provided information on the tasks of the prosecutor as laid down in the Code of Penal Procedure. He referred to the several types of prosecutors, each with his special field of supervisory expertise. The Code of Penal Procedure set forth rules for the administration of evidence during criminal proceedings, but contained no detailed rules regarding interrogation tactics. Monitoring of prisons or police premises used for preventive detention usually took place on a monthly basis. In addition, supervision was carried out by the prison authorities and by jUdges. 360. Concerning articles 12 and 13 of the Convention, the representative explained that the military court was competent to deal with complaints against police and other officers. The prison administration was required to inform the prosecutor immediately in the event of a detainee lodging a complaint. There were no specific regulations to protect complainants or witnesses but the provisions of the Code of Penal Procedure regarding threats and ill-treatment were applicable in such cases. Furthermore, new legislation was envisaged in that regard. As to the role of the police concerning criminal proceedings in cases of torture, the representative said that the police never conducted criminal proceedings in such serious cases, since the prosecutor himself was entrusted with investigation. He added that many non-governmental organizations submitted reports containing allegations of abuses. The Ministry involved monitored the cases, tried to resolve them and replied to the non-governmental organizations. Some 15 cases of official misconduct were currently under investigation. -66Digitized by Dag Hammarskjöld Library 364, the as E suce notE coml: thal1 COJ'l\Ill its to t cond