E/CN.4/1993/26 page 131 before being interrogated in order to make it impossible for them to identify their interrogators, that they have been held incommunicado for a considerable period, that they had no access to their lawyers and to doctors of their own choice, that their relatives were kept uninformed about their whereabouts, that courts admitted and accepted statements and confessions in spite of the fact that during trial the suspect claimed that these had been obtained under torture, that complaints have to be lodged with the same authority which allegedly has tolerated or encouraged the torture practices, that complaints are not investigated by an independent body and that, consequently, those who are responsible for the prohibited acts go unpunished and those who are the victims of these acts are left without an effective remedy and without appropriate redress. 590. It is no exception that this chain of situations, which are all extremely conducive to the practice of torture, is in clear violation of the prevalent rules. Laxity and inertia on the part of the highest executive authorities and of the judiciary in many cases are responsible for the flourishing of torture. 591. Governments should be aware that they cannot go on condemning the evil of torture on the international level while condoning it on the national level. The judiciary in each and every country should bear in mind that they have sworn to apply the law and to do justice and that it is within their competence, even when the law is not in conformity with international standards, to bring the law nearer to these standards through the interpretation process. The judiciary should be aware that there is no place for impartiality if basic human rights are violated because, by virtue of their oath, they can only choose the side of the downtrodden. It is within their competence to order the release of detainees who have been held under conditions which are in flagrant violation of the rules; it is within their competence to refuse evidence which is not freely given; it is within their power to make torture unrewarding and therefore unattractive and they should use that power. 592. The Human Rights Committee also reminds States parties that they should not expose individuals to the danger of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment upon return to another country by way of their extradition, expulsion or refoulement. This principle, which is made explicit in article 3 of the Convention against Torture, implies that the exposure of a person to a torture-prone situation is as much a violation of that person's basic human rights as the act of torture itself, as has also been confirmed by the European Court of Human Rights. 593. It is interesting to note that the Human Rights Committee is of the opinion that the prohibition contained in article 7 of the Covenant must extend to corporal punishment, including excessive chastisement ordered as punishment for a crime or as an educative or disciplinary measure. This seems to imply that the final sentence of article 1, paragraph 1, of the Convention against Torture, which states that the term "torture" does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions, has to be interpreted as meaning that such lawful sanctions must be in conformity with international standards. No State should be allowed to perform acts as a lawful sanction which in any other form are generally