the call in some quarters for its abolition, it was the national consensus that the National Security Law should be maintained until the signature of a peace agreement between the two countries. In the meantime/ however, the Government remained determined to eliminate any infringement of human rights resulting from the application of that law beyond restrictions permitted by the Constitution and the Covenant. 474. With reference to article 1 of the Covenant, members of the Committee sought clarification of the position of the Republic of Korea, given the movement towards reunification, regarding the right of peoples to selfdetermination as well as their entitlement to democracy and to choose their own economic, social, political and cultural system. 475. With regard to the constitutional and legal framework within which the Covenant was implemented, members of the Committee wished to receive further information on the status of the Covenant in domestic law. Observing that the Covenant had the same force as any ordinary domestic law, members wondered how a conflict between provisions of the Covenant and subsequent domestic legislation would be resolved* It was asked whether provisions of the Covenant had ever been invoked before the courts and whether a national institution had been established to deal with matters relating to human rights. More generally, with regard to remedies available to individuals, it was asked what effect petitions filed by individuals would have, whether an appeal could be lodged against a decision handed down as a result of a petition, what was the procedure for bringing a case before the Supreme Court and whether there were administrative courts. Clarification was requested of the meaning of article 37 of the Constitution, according to which freedoms and the rights of citizens would not be neglected on the grounds that they were not enumerated in the Constitution. Information was requested on the manner in which the Korean population would be informed of the dialogue entered into by Korean authorities with the Committee and how, in the future, the Government would implement any decisions made about it by the Committee in pursuance of the Optional Protocol. 476. Necessary additional information was requested on the Rational Security Law, in particular as far as restrictions or limitations to articles 15, 18 and 19 of the Covenant were concerned. There was concern that, under that law, it was possible to arrest anyone found in conversation with persons from the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, that political prisoners who had been released from prison after serving their sentences were still required to report to the police every three months and that under its provisions even peaceful demonstrations could be forbidden. Further information was also requested on the meaning of the term "espionage" and on the extent to which the Supreme Court was empowered to decide on the legality of the provisions of the national Security Law, 477. As to the prohibition of discrimination on various grounds, clarification was requested of the absence in article 11 of the Constitution of some grounds of discrimination enumerated in article 2, paragraph 1, of the Covenant, particularly race, religion and political opinion. Information was also sought on any remaining de facto discrimination against women in the Republic of Korea, in particular regarding property rights, and measures taken to eliminate them, as well as on the meaning of the term "reasonable cultural discrimination" used in the report. It was asked whether the procurement of -114-