applied to all prisoners. Many shortcomings still had to be overcome, particularly with regard to overcrowdir". In 1990, &mnesties and pardons for those convicted of political crimes and reduction in sentences for 350 ordinary offenders had alleviated the problem of overcrowding. At the start of 1990, less than 10 per cent of the prison population had been convicted of offences and almost ~l per cent had been prisoners on trial or awaiting trial. According to the most fecent statistics, the number of remand prisoners and prisoners on trial hBd fallen to 81 per cent and it was haped that it would drop further to 60 or 50 per cent within one year ar a result of the application uf Act No. 3 of 1990. Technical teams composed of social workers, psychologists and criminologists were needed. Prisoners had to be properly classlfied within the prisons. The representative further indicated that the Government of Panama had taken a number of practical steps to ensure the dignity of individuals detained in prison. It had allocated the equivalent of some $5.4 million for the construction of a new detention centre. was mindful of the problems existing in the prison system and was making every affort to ensure that detainees were not mistreated. 228. With respect to article 4 of the Convention, the representative pointed out that, siuce 1983, the Panamanian Penal Code had contained provisions on offences against the integrity of the person. with particular reference to violations involving unnecessary suffering inflicted by pUblic officials. In all cases. the decision as to guilt was made by the officiating judge on the basis of expert advice. If the person concerned was found to have been responsible for cruel, inhuman or degrading trea~ent, an application on his behalf for bail could be denied. Public officials found guilty of such offences faced sentences of 10 to 15 years' imprisonment. There was no capital punishment in Panama. 229. In connection with artiCle 7 of the Convention, the representative ga~e a detailed description of the three phases of climinal proceedings in Panama and point~d out that the persons accused of an offence were entitled to be brought before the competent authorities within a period oC 24 hours and. when formally charged. had to be informed of their rights. They were entitled to the services of a defenca counsel, paid for and appointed by the State it the~ were without means. Accused persons could. however. defend themselves in person if they so wished. Pre-trial detention was the responsibility of the Public Pros<lcutor's Office and should not normally exceed two months' duration. However, if the offence was of a serious nature or if repeated offences were invol'/Ad it could be extended to four months, subject to the remedy of hAbl~~ul. As a safeguard against arbitr&ry detenti(,n by the State. the Penal Code made provision for compensation on the grounds of material or moral injury and for setting aside cases after a period of one year's detention. Criminal legislation in Panama prohibited solitary confinement or incommunicado d~tention, and affirmed the principle of the presumption of innocence. Defendants who alleged ill-treatment when in custody could request a medical examination by a doctor of their own choosing and could submit evidence of such ill-treatment in the court proceedings. There were no political prisoners in Panama. A number of former political figures had been charged but the offences in question were common crimes committed while they had held political oCfice. not political crimes. The represdntative indicated that no speciCic programmes were envisaged for drug traffickers. The Government's policy was to try to ensure that they were -42-