institutions and reformatories for juvenile delinquents. Members also questioned the basis for the reservation entered by the Austrian Government with respect to article 10 of the Covenant and wondered if it could be withdrawn. 98. Replying to the questions raised by members, the representative confirmed that there had been allegations of violations of obligations under article 7 of the Covenant. In 1989 a decree was issued, ordering that justifiable allegations should be the subject not only of a police inquiry, but also of a thorough investigation by an independent examining magistrate. While it was too early to provide statistics on the results of the inquiries (a decree stating that statistics should be kept of allegations of ill-treatment during detention was issued in May 1991), the representative referred to a report published by Amnesty International in 1990 in which 14 individual cases had been mentioned. Even before the publication of that report, a decree containing strict orders concerning the rights of detainees to communicate with counsel and the possibility of warning third parties of the arrest had been given. Furthermore, a pamphlet on the rights of detained minors had also been published. The prison commissions were independent bodies responsible for monitoring prison conditions and recommending ways of improvement. As a result of their work, some proposals had been made with a view to improving prison conditions and promoting training programmes for inmates. 99. Regarding pretrial detention, the representative noted that a person remanded in custody after arrest would have to be brought before a magistrate within 48 hours and to be questioned by a magistrate within the following 24 hours, which could be extended up to 72 hours. Any doubt about the lawfulness of the arrest or detention in the view of the magistrate would result in the release of the detainee, although such a decision could be appealed against. According to the figures available for 1988, the average length of pretrial detention was 76 days. 100. On the issue of admissibility of evidence obtained through ill-treatment, the representative explained that the Austrian Parliament's declaration, made when the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment was ratified, had in effect prohibited the use of statements obtained by torture. The Austrian Government was aware that the Code of Criminal Procedure would have to be amended in the light of article 15 of the European Convention on Human Rights so as to provide explicitly for the prohibition of the use as evidence of confessions obtained through illtreatment. In the view of the Austrian authorities, article 15 of the European Convention was even more restrictive than article 7 of the Covenant, 101. In response to queries about confinement in psychiatric institutions, the representative said that compulsory confinement had dropped by two thirds over the previous 15 years and that a new law and new procedures had been in effect since 1 January 1991. Under that law, any person confined compulsorily in a psychiatric institution had to be brought before the competent civil court within two days and questioned by the magistrate within the following four days. Any restriction of freedom of movement and communication would have to be based on a judicial decision, which had to be given within 8 days, and against which an appeal could be lodged within 14 days. -22-