considerable number of complaints filed. They also wished to know how many detainees there were at present in Turkish prisons, and who was responsible for law enforcement in places of detention. 91. Referring to information provided particularly by non-governmental nrganiaations with regard ~o political activists, journalists and prisoners of conscience held in detention in Turkey, members of the Committee wished to know the number of such detainees, how many such persons were currently facing the death penalty, whether those who had been convicted, as distinct from persons in pre-trial detention, were subjected to solitary confinement and, if so, how long such confinement could last, and what authority was responsible for ordering solitary confinement. Additional inf~rmation was also requested on the role of the Prosecutor's Office and the State Council in protecting citizens against torture, as well as on the progress made in establishing the proposed parliamentary commission on human rights and on its programme of work and powers. Recalling that a large number of allegations of torture in Turkey had been brought to their attention by various reliable sources, members of the Committee wished to know what the Turkish Government intended to do to improve the measures taken to ~revent torture and to ensure that the legislation prohibiting torture was effectively implemented. Referring to article 3 of the Convention, members of the Committee wished to know what measures had been taken ~I the Turkish authorities to guarantee that the principle of non-refoulement was applied in respect of non-European usy1um-seekers, especially Iraqi refugees of Kurdish origin who, according to 'iarious sources, were subjected to restrictive meAsures in an attempt to force them to return to Iraq against their will. 98. 99. With regard to article 4 of the Convention, it was observed that although the Turkish Penal Code banned illhtreatment of prisoners, it was necessary to define what the concept of i11-trea~ment actually covered. Turkish law also did not appear to contain a clear definition of what constituted an act of torture and the penalties applicable for acts of violence were not commensurate with the grave nature of acts of torture, required by the Convention. 100. In connection with article 5 of the Convention, members of the Committee to know the reasons why, according to the figures provided in the report, there was a disproportion between the large number of allegations of torture in Turkey and the small number of sentences imposed on policemen for committing acts of torture. They also asked whether the legislation referred to in the report in relation to the principle of universal jurisdiction would be brought into line with articles 5 and 7 of the Convention. wisl~d 101. In connection with articles 6 dnd 8 of the Convention, it was asked how the Turki8~ authorities discharged their obligation under the Constitution to prevent the escape of individuals suspected of having committed '~orture and whether the provi~ions of article 8 of the Convention were directly applicable in Turkey. 10~. Turning to articles 10 and 11 of the Convention, rnombers of the Comn,ittee asked whether, in addition to human rights programmes for policemen, similar training programmes existed in Turkey for prison, military and medical -20-