134. The report was introduced by the representative of the reporting State, who informed the Committee that during the period under review, and before and after that period, there had been no reports of any person being subjected to an act of torture in New Zealand. 135. The representative then provided an overview of how the Convention was put into effect in New Zealand law. He explained that this operated at three levels. First, statements of principle were contained in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, including its section 9 which provided that "everyone has the right not to be subjected to torture, or to cruel, degrading or disproportionately severe treatment or punishment". Those principles formed the background against which the laws of New Zealand were interpreted and implemented. Secondly, there were provisions in the criminal law, particularly the Crimes of Torture Act 1989, which prescribed offences and penalties for the commission of torture. In this regard, he indicated that the Act defined torture in terms that closely followed those of article 1 of the Convention. It also provided the necessary jurisdictional basis for compliance with the requirements of article 5 of the Convention and amended New Zealand’s extradition statutes so as to ensure that the principle of "extradite or prosecute" contained in articles 7 and 8 of the Convention could be implemented. Thirdly, there were various statutory, regulatory and administrative procedures for the independent investigation of complaints of misconduct on the part of public officials, including the police. 136. In addition, the representative referred to some recent cases which demonstrated how the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 had been applied by the New Zealand courts, although none of those cases concerned article 9 of the Act on the right not to be subjected to torture. 137. Finally, the representative of the reporting State indicated that concern had been expressed during the period of the Gulf War in 1991, with regard to the application and interpretation of article 3 of the Convention as it related to the treatment of persons arriving in New Zealand from other countries. The New Zealand authorities had noted that, in respect of refugee applicants, there was a certain lack of clarity about the implementation of articles 2, paragraph 2, and 3 of the Convention in relation to article 33 of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. Nevertheless, the practice of the New Zealand authorities was that no refugee applicant should be expelled or returned to a place where there were substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture. New Zealand was aware that its obligations under article 3 of the Convention were not confined to persons who met the definition of a refugee but also extended to persons with well-founded fears of torture on grounds other than those listed in the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. For those individuals, special procedures were available to obtain temporary or permanent residence on humanitarian grounds in New Zealand or to appeal against deportation. 138. The members of the Committee expressed appreciation for the excellent report submitted by the State party and wished to receive more information on the constitutional and legal framework for the application of the Convention, in particular on the jurisdiction of courts of appeal and special tribunals and on the appointment of their judges. They also sought information on the number of persons who had died in prisons and asked whether the Human Rights Commission of New Zealand could investigate broader human rights problems other than those relating to discrimination. 139. With regard to article 3 of the Convention, clarification was sought as to the possibilities for an individual denied refugee status in New Zealand on the grounds of national security to be expelled to a country other than his own. -25-