Report on the

United Nations Course

Human Rights in the

Administration of
Criminal Justice

CllC) Australian Institute of Criminology

Report on the
United Nations Course

Human Rights in the

Administration of Criminal Justice
Canberra, Australia
29 November-17 December 1976

( g j c ) Australian Institute of Criminology • Canberra 1978

The J.V. Barry Memorial Library has catalogued this work as follows:

United Nations Course on Human Rights in the 323.4

Administration of Criminal Justice, 4th, Canberra, 1976
Report on the United Nations Course [on] Human Rights in the
Administration of Criminal Justice. Canberra, Australian Institute of
Criminology, 1978.
51p.21cm.
Bibliography: p.48-51.
1. Criminal justice, Administration of — Congresses. 2. Civil rights —
Congresses. 3. Prisoners - Legal status, laws, etc. — Congresses.
4. Criminal justice personnel — Legal status, laws, etc. — Congresses.
I. Australian Institute of Criminology. II. Title. .

ISBN 0 642 91587 3

This report is published by the Australian Institute of Criminology as an

account of the proceedings of the course. However the views expressed in
this publication are not necessarily endorsed by the Institute.

©Australian Institute of Criminology 1978

Published and printed by the Australian Institute of Criminology

10-16 Colbee Court, Phillip. ACT. Australia. 2606
Contents

The Course 1
Origin and Purpose 11 Programme 3 | Opening and
Closing Ceremonies 41 Lectures 41 Participants:
Fellowships 5 | Reference Library and Documents 5 |
Directorship and Secretariat 6

Summary of Course Discussions 7

Appendixes: Papers Resulting from Participant

Discussion Groups 17
I Role of Police, Prosecutor and Judge in
Elimination of Torture 18
II Independence of the Judiciary 23
III Duties and Obligations of Citizens 26

Annexes 27
I Programme 28
II Participants and Observers 32
III United Nations Consultants/Lecturers 35
IV Lectures and Other Papers Distributed
to Participants 38
V United Nations Documents Distributed
to Participants 41
VI United Nations Documents Placed in the Library
of the Australian Institute of Criminology for
Consultation by Participants
VII Human Rights and the Criminal Justice System:
A Bibliography
The Course

Origin and Purpose

The fourth United Nations course on Human Rights in the

Administration of Criminal Justice took place at the
Australian Institute of Criminology, Canberra, Australia,
from 29 November to 17 December 1976.
Organised as part of the United Nations Programme of
Advisory Services in the Field of Human Rights by the
United Nations Division of Human Rights and the Aust-
ralian Institute of Criminology, at the invitation of the
Government of Australia, the specific purpose of this
course was to familiarise senior and experienced officials
responsible for various aspects of the administration of
criminal justice in their respective countries with the rele-
vant legislation and administrative procedures in other
countries of the region and the United Nations standards
on human rights in the administration of criminal justice.
The course also provided an opportunity for an ex-
change of views on the law and practices relating to the
protection of human rights in criminal procedure in these
countries and the techniques for the implementation of
international standards.
The United Nations Programme of Advisory Services in
the Field of Human Rights was authorised by the General
Assembly in its resolution 926 (X) of 1955. Under this
programme, the Secretary-General, at the request of
Governments of Member States, provides the services of
expert consultants, organises seminars and grants fellow-
ships for study and for advanced study. The Commission
on Human Rights in 1964 requested that consideration
 2

should be given to the possibility of including, from 1969

onwards, a training course in the annual programme of
advisory services in the field of human rights.
The first such human rights training course was held in
Japan from 14 August to 13 September 1972 on the
question of human rights in the administration of criminal
justice. The course was held at the United Nations Asia
and Far East Institute for the Prevention of Crime and
Treatment of Offenders, situated at Fuchu, Tokyo, Japan,
and was attended by 19 fellows from English-speaking
African countries which were members of the Economic
Commission for Africa and from countries in the Asia and
Far East region which were members of the Economic
Commission for Asia and the Far East.
The second training course on Human Rights in the
Administration of Criminal Justice was held from 18 June
to 7 July 1973 at the Centre for Social and Criminological
Research in Cairo, Egypt, with the participation of 21
fellows from African countries which were members of the
Economic Commission for Africa and from Arab-speaking
countries outside Africa.
San Jose, Costa Rica, was the site for the third United
Nations Training Course which also had as its subject
Human Rights in the Administration of Criminal Justice
and which took place from 24 November to 12 December
1975. This course was organised by the Division of Human
Rights in cooperation with the United Nations Inter-
American Institute for the Prevention of Crime and the
Treatment of Offenders and was attended by 22 fellows
and three observers from the States members of the
Economic Commission for Latin America.
The programme of the fourth course on Human Rights
in the Administration of Criminal Justice consisted of
lectures, workshops, participant discussion groups, visits
of observation and films.
 3

Programme

The lectures and workshops were organised around three

basic themes:
I. The Human Rights of the Citizen in Relation to the
Criminal Justice System.
II. The Human Rights of Accused Persons in Relation to
the Criminal Justice System.
III. The Human Rights of Convicted Persons in Relation
to the Criminal Justice System.

Under these themes the human rights standards of the

United Nations in the administration of criminal justice
and the machinery for their implementation were dis-
cussed, as was the fundamental question of the balance of
human rights and social defence in criminal justice. During
the workshops, discussions took place on lecture topics,
the visits of observation, the films shown and on papers
drafted and presented by the participants on subjects of
interest to them and relating to human rights in the admini-
stration of criminal justice. (See Annex IV Part 2)
Three discussions and drafting groups were formed by
the participants and met in the evenings for the purpose of
discussing a specific topic and presenting a report for
discussion by all participants. The topics selected were:
The Role of the Police, Prosecutor and Judges in the
Elimination of Torture; The Independence of the Judiciary;
and the Duties and Obligations of Citizens.
To enable the participants to have a close contact with
the practical aspects of the administration of criminal
justice in Australia visits of observation were made to:

1. The Australian Capital Territory courts

2. The Australian Capital Territory police service
3. The Goulburn Training Centre (prison)
4. The Australian Capital Territory Juvenile Detention
Centre at Red Hill
5. The Australian Capital Territory Remand Centre at
Belconnen
 4

Also, participants visited the Australian Parliament and

were able to observe it in session.
Finally, three films on the administration of criminal
justice were shown: The Wasted Years, a United Nations
film on three different types of prisons, closed traditional
prisons, labour camps and open prison camps; Wall of
Trust, another UN film about the wider utilisation of free
prison systems, in particular in developing countries; and
Four More Days, an Australian film which explores the
different reactions of guards and prisoners under three
distinct types of prison discipline.

Opening, Closing Ceremonies

This fourth course on human rights in the administration
of criminal justice was opened on 29 November by the
Australian Commonwealth Attorney-General, the Honour-
able R.J. Ellicott, Q.C. The Secretary-General of the
United Nations was represented by the Director of the
United Nations Offices in Australia, New Zealand and Fiji,
Mr Gilberto Rizzo. The Solicitor-General of Australia,
Mr M.H. Byers, Q.C., addressed the closing ceremony on
17 December 1976. The Director of the Division of
Human Rights, Mr M. Schreiber, on behalf of the Secretary-
General, thanked the Government of Australia for having
made the course possible and the Australian Institute of
Criminology for the invaluable support given. At the
closing ceremony certificates of participation were delivered
to participants.

Lectures
The United Nations appointed two internationally recog-
nised experts as consultants for the course. They delivered
lectures on various subjects, chaired workshops and were
available for discussions with the participants.
The Australian Institute of Criminology provided spec-
ialists from its own staff, including its Director, to give
lectures and also enabled highly qualified individuals from
 5

Australia and elsewhere to address the course. The

Director of the United Nations Division of Human Rights
and a staff member of that Division also gave courses.

Participants: Fellowships
Twenty participants were selected from nominations made
by member States of the Economic and Social Commission
for Asia and the Pacific. This selection was made on the
basis of criteria of distribution among the countries of the
region in an effort to ensure that the various systems exist-
ing in it were adequately represented and in the likelihood
that those selected would be able to use the knowledge
acquired at the course on returning to their respective
countries. Sixteen participants were awarded fellowships
by the United Nations and four received the assistance of
the Government of Australia. In addition to the twenty
participants the host government nominated six observers.
The broad variety of posts occupied and functions per-
formed by the participants in their respective countries
enabled them to make an important contribution to vari-
ous aspects of the course, which was enhanced by a wealth
of information deriving from their knowledge and practical
experience of many aspects of public administration.
The participants included judges and magistrates, high-
ranking state counsels and public prosecutors, a senior
ministry official, senior police officers and a university
researcher. The participants and observers who took part
in the course in their personal capacity came from the
following countries: Australia, Bangladesh, Fiji, Indonesia,
Iran, Japan, Korea, New Zealand, Nepal, Papua New
Guinea, Philippines, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Tonga and
Thailand. Their names and countries are set out in Annex II.

Reference Library and Documents

The library of the Australian Institute of Criminology with
its important collection of books and documents on penal
law, criminology and the administration of criminal justice
 6

was opened to the course participants (see Annex VII).

The United Nations distributed to participants basic docu-
ments on human rights and the administration of criminal
justice and placed relevant reference documentation on
criminal justice in the Australian Institute's library for
consultation by the participants (see Annexes V and VI).
Copies of lectures delivered during the course were
distributed as were papers and reference material prepared
by participants (see Annex IV).

Directorship and Secretariat

Mr W. Clifford, Director of the Australian Institute of
Criminology and Mr T. McCarthy, Special Assistant to the
Director, United Nations Division of Human Rights, were
co-directors of the course and Mr C.R. Bevan, Assistant
Director (Training) of the Australian Institute of Crimin-
ology, headed the course's secretariat.
The Australian Institute of Criminology also provided
the course with lecture rooms and other facilities and
arranged transportation for the participants.
Summary of Course Discussions

The discussions which took place during the fourth United

Nations course on Human Rights in the Administration of
Criminal Justice focused on the three themes of the course
— the human rights of the citizen, the accused person and
the convicted person in relation to the criminal justice
system. Other main topics of discussion were the protect-
ion of all persons against torture and other cruel, inhuman
or degrading treatment or punishment, and the three
subjects selected by the participants for their discussion
and drafting groups, that is, the independence of the judic-
iary; duties and obligations of citizens; and the role of the
police, prosecutors and judges in the elimination of torture.
Certain fundamental issues were raised and found per-
tinent to all the discussions of the course. They were: the
balancing of rights and duties; the problem of standard
setting in relation to particular social and cultural contexts;
and non-discrimination in the enjoyment of human rights.
It was recognised that human rights in the administration
of criminal justice was the expression of a balance
established between the rights of the individual on the one
hand and the interest of the larger human community on
the other. The need to show this balance was particularly
important in the Asian and Pacific nations where there was
a lively appreciation of obligations through which human
rights of all persons are ensured. In many cases this balanc-
ing is achieved by weighing the rights of the individual
together with his duties to the community as laid down in
article 29, paragraph 1 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights. It was felt that greater attention should be
paid to this article of the Universal Declaration, especially
 8

in light of the evidence that crime is being less effectively

detected and prosecuted in many Western societies with
the result that the human rights of the citizen are being
violated as much by other persons in society as by those
who are prosecuted and appear before the courts. One
participant called for a declaration of obligations and
quoted from his own country's statutes which specify a
citizen's duties, including the duty of respecting the rights
of others.
It was also recognised that the balancing between the
rights of an individual and the interests of the larger
human community must take place within the context of
each social and cultural system and that the balance struck
in one system of society would not necessarily be valid for
another. The need for human rights to be interpreted in
relation to the cultural differences across the world in no
way detracted from the inalienable rights of the human
person enshrined in the Universal Declaration. It did mean
however, that these rights might be differently secured in
different cultures. For example, in some of the countries
from which the course participants came, the concept of
human rights in its Western setting might not be clearly
understood, but human rights in those societies were
effectively protected by a reciprical network of obligations.
It was recognised that no minimum standards could ever
be fully achieved by all countries everywhere and when-
ever there were minimum standards, they would always be
open to challenge. The situation was greatly aggravated by
the fact that some countries did not have the resources
necessary to meet minimum standards. On the other hand,
nations did not want to lower standards when a minimum
had been determined because for some nations the very
existence of declarations of minimum standards would
enable the different ministries to obtain the consideration
necessary when funds were being allocated to improve the
conditions which they had. The United Nations Standard
Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners were a good
example of this: even nations which could not attain the
minima required still objected to changes in the standards
because they wanted to have them as an ideal to attain.
 9

For the effective implementation of human rights,

standards must not be so detailed as to prevent account
being taken of limited resources within countries. It is the
spirit as much as the letter which is important here and
there could be no denial of human rights where countries
were too poor to reach those higher standards of education,
health and welfare which are normal in some of the richer
countries. The main point to be observed is that human
rights should be fully recognised in terms of things like the
inviolability of life, the right to an education and the right
to work, but that where resources are limited, the actual
standards would have to be those which could be most
fairly shared rather than those which were set by countries
more generously endowed.
With reference to standard setting concerning the rights
of the citizen, there was recognition of the difficulty of
avoiding the individual becoming swamped in a flood of
legislation and his interests being more and more disre-
garded by the expansion of technology and the spread of
bureaucracy. It was considered important that wherever
possible the law should be amended to allow complaints
by citizens against any abuse of powers in the administr-
ation of justice. The habeas corpus system — and its equi-
valents in other systems — was emphasised. Machinery
should be set up to process such complaints, for example,
the ombudsman system.
On the other hand, the danger to the rights of the citizen
did not only come from the official administration. There
were equal dangers from intrusions of privacy by the
media and by the actions of large corporations causing
pollution or keeping prices artificially high. Protecting
rights therefore could mean a development of obligations
to respect the rights of others — the balance was difficult
but always necessary to strike. This became all the more
important for societies in transition between customary
and modern systems. Here the direction (that is, towards
older customary traditions or forward to something quite
new) should be specified to make rights and obligations
meaningful. The participants noted that there were many
societies now in the process of tackling this problem and
 10

considered that the experience of these societies should be

carefully monitored,
Since the criminal justice system depends upon witnesses
being secure and free, the need to make more explicit and
effective the measures for the protection of witnesses was
recommended. In fact, in countries where there is an
obligation to report crime, this obligation implied that
victims would be safeguarded from the disadvantages and
the problems likely to arise when they gave evidence.
In relation to standard setting concerning the rights of
the suspect and the accused, it was noted that since there
is a difference in culture, legal systems and social conditions
among the participating countries, care must be taken in
formulating formal standards regarding the protection of
rights of the suspect and the accused. Especially in develop-
ing countries, where the legal system of a developed
country has been adopted, the 'law in action' is often diff-
erent from the 'law in books' or the 'law in the code'. Even
when the law in the code sets high standards, the rights of
a person may not be protected in practice. On the other
hand, even when the law in the code may look unsatis-
factory, it can protect rights when it is enforced through
the feeling of mutual obligation and decency between
government officers and the suspect or the accused. There-
fore, in order to ensure the protection of the rights of the
suspect, we should pay attention not only to the law in the
code but also to the law in action and the general culture
of the respective countries.
Naturally the goal of protecting rights is the same but
the ways and the methods of protecting the suspect and
the accused may be different, according to legal systems
which a country has adopted. It was noted that when the
minimum standards for die protection of the rights of the
suspect and the accused are formulated, attention should
be paid to this difference.
In protecting the rights of the suspect and the accused,
the shortage of the resources of legal personnel should be
kept in mind. Judges are sometimes located far from the
place where a person is arrested and in some countries the
number of the qualified lawyers are not sufficient. In such
 11

cases, adequate measures, such as permitting the help of

the suspect's friends or other persons, should be taken into
consideration. The system adopted in one Pacific country
under which judges, prosecutors and public defenders
travelled to remote villages where cases were heard was
discussed.
The United Nations draft principles on freedom from
arbitrary arrest and detention and the proposed amend-
ments on the right to communicate were reviewed and it
was agreed that a person, even though suspected or
accused of a criminal offence, retains his basic human
rights which must be respected by the criminal justice
system with only those essential limitations permitted by
law in harmony with the particular cultural system. It was
also agreed that in these circumstances the presumption of
innocence must be maintained and that actual arrest or
detention of a person suspected or accused of a crime
should be an exceptional measure only in cases of serious
offences. Preferably methods not involving deprivation of
liberty should be used.
It was also felt that arrest or detention should be made
pursuant to a written order or warrant except in cases of
flagrante delicto or where the arrest cannot be safely
delayed until a written warrant or order can be obtained.
Arrest or detention of suspected persons is not a penalty
and their liberty should be restricted only in so far as is
necessary to ensure custody. These persons should be
detained under different conditions from convicted per-
sons and the establishment of separate remand centres was
supported.
It was also suggested that a strict limit, for example 30
days, be set for the period of remand and that consider-
ation be given to the continued payment of the normal
salary or wage to the detained person. It was felt import-
ant that from the moment of arrest or detention the
detained person had the right of access to legal counsel, his
family and qualified doctors. It was believed that this
would reduce the opportunity for undue physical or
mental compulsion or other undue treatment of the
detained person. It was believed that except for except-
 12

ional circumstances the maximum length of detention

before a detainee is brought before a judicial authority
should be 24 hours. After the initial period in police
custody it was felt that the detained person should be held
under an authority distinct from that of the police and
that strict rules should govern the access by police to the
detained person.
Under certain systems of criminal justice it was felt
desirable that during interrogation by police or other
investigators the accused or suspected person should have
the right to be accompanied by legal counsel or another
person of his choice. Some participants stated that the
warning of the rights to refuse to make any statement was
contrary to the duty of the police to interrogate the sus-
pect. A mere warning that a statement may be used as
evidence should be sufficient. A view was expressed that a
confession of a suspect in arrest or detention may be used
as evidence, even when his counsel was not present at the
scene of the interrogation, when it was made apparently
voluntarily before a judge or even before a police officer.
In cases where the accused was financially unable to pay
for legal representation it was felt that within the limit of
the resources reasonably available, the state should assume
the burden of furnishing counsel. It was noted however,
that in some systems, notably those with an independent
public prosecutor's office, that the need was not felt
during interrogation by the independent public prosecutor
to enable the accused person to be assisted by counsel.
The importance of the right to freedom from self-
incrimination was recognised and the various systems for
ensuring that confessions were given voluntarily were
discussed — notably the systems where confessions were
made only to magistrates. In the discussions concerning
the human rights of the accused or the suspected person,
it was recognised that the protection of the human rights
of these persons was greatly affected by the independence
and impartiality of the judicial system as well as of the
lawyers and other legal professionals.
The question of standard setting in relation to the police
was discussed. The issue of whether focusing on police
 13

ethics implied a criticism of present police standards was

taken into account. The usefulness of ethics in order to
give police forces professional standards was recognised by
all participants — including those who were police officers.
It was observed that when standards or ethics were set up
for police performance, a good many of them might be
already found in existing statutes. Many statutes laid down
the extent of police powers and the restrains which should
be placed on these in certain conditions. The use of force,
for example, was usually limited by statute.
The general view was that the police needed to improve
their image but that, in terms of police training, this would
only be effective if there was also corresponding public
understanding of the police position. It was observed that
some of the most trained police forces had now less respect
than before. Was therefore training and respect for the
police correlated or were both of these a function of wider
changes in the society itself?
There was a general appreciation that education in
human relations rather than ethics was required by the
police. Better training in the handling of people was more
effective than any standards which might be set down.
There was also a recognition that the policeman's poor
image with the public was often related to the way in
which he was expected to enforce all laws, not only traffic
but those dealing with agriculture, forestry, etc. Policemen
take an oath to uphold the law but does this mean to
enforce all laws: and, if not, where are the limits to be
drawn? It was pointed out that the police in their work
were far more subject to comment by the courts on the
fairness of their operations than were persons in other
professions. This was a control which was not generally
recognised.
There was some division on the question of whether
policemen should be expected to live according to higher
standards than those expected of the public generally. One
participant pointed out that his country's police regulations
went so far as to regulate the domestic affairs of the police
because disturbances of their family life were considered
to be a reflection on the police organisation. This obviously
 14

implied a much higher standard expected of police officers

than of others. However, the police were not superhuman.
They were recruited from the general public. They would
take their morals and standards from those in fashion.
They could not be expected indefinitely to live up to
standards which were no longer recognised within the
community generally. Finally, the police participants
themselves agreed that people undertaking police work
should be prepared to accept insults, harassment and
punishment for the sake of the public which they served
and if they were not able to do this they should look for
other occupations. This, however, was a very high standard
of police performance which might be expected in the
standards formulated but might not be capable of imple-
mentation without very careful training of those involved.
It was believed that there should be a preoccupation
with the changes in expectations which had revolutionised
the concept of human rights over the past thirty years. For
example, legal aid could not mean legal aid to the point
where taxpayers were forced to subsidise all claims with-
out merit or without limit of expense. Similarly, rights to
education, health, etc., could not mean the rights to the
most expensive and privileged treatment for anyone who
wished to claim it. Again there had to be a levelling to the
fairest common denominator so that in the quest for
human rights, the general population would benefit and
not merely those vociferous groups best organised to
obtain their own advantage.
The importance of the principle of non-discrimination
in the enjoyment of human rights in relation to the
administration of criminal justice was recognised. These
rights should be equally enjoyed without distinction of
any kind as to race, colour, sex, language, religion, political
or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth,
or other status and in certain cases affirmative measures
should be taken in line with the principles on the equality
in the administration of criminal justice.
Another important element in the protection of human
rights in the administration of criminal justice is the indep-
endence and impartiality of the members of the judiciary
 15

and members of the legal professions as well as the staff of

procurators in countries where such systems exist. It was
suggested that in certain countries the independence of the
bar association and its members was one way in which
adequate defence could be given to the rights of the
accused and independent representation could be given to
the interests of die community on the side of the prose-
cutors. It was also suggested that it would be important in
certain circumstances to take positive steps to ensure the
respected position of judges within the community.
The extent to which the rights of a person may be
restricted in case of emergency or etat de siege is a difficult
problem. It was admitted that even in such a situation,
basic rights of a person should be guaranteed.
A discussion also took place on the need for more
effective coordination of the work of the police, the courts,
social welfare and correctional services. In the interests of
justice, not all these activities should be under the same
ministry but this division of responsibility leads sometimes
to conflicting policies and there is a great need to find an
answer which would ensure greater effectiveness and
justice for all concerned. A coordinating committee seems
to be the solution.
In relation to a speedy administration of criminal justice,
a number of suggestions were made. These aimed at reduc-
ing delays, especially those due to the quantity of work.
The suggestions were:
. A rule requiring a decision within a number of days
of the hearing.
. Auxiliary (weekend) magistrates.
. Minor offences being dealt with by mail without an
.appearance being necessary before a court.
. A conciliation board (not comprised of lawyers) to
which stipulated offences could be referred and before
which the offender could be summoned, where the
offender and victim may agree upon payment of a
sum to the victim by way of compensation. If the
case was not settled it could be brought before the
 16

courts in the usual way. Offences which might be

dealt with in this way would include common assault
and wilful damage to property, but not theft, em-
bezzlement, etc.

In evaluating the fourth United Nations course on Human

Rights in the Administration of Criminal Justice the parti-
cipants expressed the view that the course had enabled
them to become familiar with international human rights
standards in the field of criminal justice and with the
different methods available for their implementation. They
also learned of the standards in this field and techniques of
application in the various home countries of the partici-
pants as well as in Australia and were able to exchange
experiences and clarify their ideas with respect to the
solution of some of the practical problems involved in
implementing human rights at the national level.
The participants stated their conviction that as a result
of the course they were better equipped to make real and
substantive contributions to the respect for human rights
in the administration of criminal justice in their countries.
Courses like the fourth course on Human Rights in the
Administration of Criminal Justice should be organised on
a regular basis at frequent intervals in all the regions of the
world. Participants were particularly anxious to be kept
informed of developments within the United Nations relat-
ing to human rights and the administration of criminal
justice.
Appendixes: Papers Resulting from
Participant Discussion Groups

During the fourth United Nations Course on Human Rights

in the Administration of Criminal Justice, the participants
formed three evening discussion groups and each group
selected a topic which they wished to analyse in more
detail than was possible during the general course discussion.
The following papers reflect the general trend of the dis-
cussions but they are not understood to be a definitive
expression of the views of any one participant. In certain
instances divisions of opinion on given points are noted.
I Role of Police, Prosecutor and Judge
in Elimination of Torture

Role of the Police

The public conception of the police function varies widely.
In some countries the stress is on law enforcement rather
than on crimc prevention, while in others the police
assume a social role and therefore are more service-oriented.
Still others emphasise the protection of civil liberties and
human rights. Whatever role the police take, and it is a
combination of them which will most likely prove ideal,
it must have the support and acceptance of the community
it serves. Despite the usual clamour for law and order, law
alone does not shape the community; public acceptance
of and response to the law is also important.

Arrest and Detention

Arrest as defined (under Article 1 of Draft Principles on
Freedom from Arbitrary Arrest and Detention) means the
act of taking a person into custody under the authority of
the law or by compulsion of another kind and includes the
period from the moment he is placed under restraint up to
the time he is brought before an authority competent to
order his continued custody or to release him.
Detention refers to the act of confining a person to a
certain place, whether or not in continuation of arrest, and
under restraints which prevent him from living with his
family or carrying out his normal occupational and social
activities.
As guidelines for police officers, both civil and military,
the following measures are recommended:
 19

1. Arrest shall be made only upon the authority of a warrant

of arrest issued by a judge or other competent authority,
except in the following cases:
(a) Upon reasonable suspicion of a person having com-
mitted or about to commit an offence.
(b) In the case of a person who is or reasonably suspect-
ed to be of unsound mind, addicted to drugs or alcohol,
or a vagrant, for the purpose of his care of treatment
or the protection of the community.
(c) For the purpose of preventing the spread of infections
or contagious diseases.
2. No person arrested, detained or deprived of his freedom of
action in any way shall be subjected to torture, or to any
punishment or treatment which is inhuman or degrading.

3. No person shall be subjected to search of his person or

property without his consent except:
(a) On a warrant upon reasonable suspicion that there
is some illegally obtained property in his possession.
(b) That there is some evidence on him relating to an
offence. Evidence obtained in violation thereof shall be
inadmissible. (As to the last sentence some participants
preferred the common law system of giving to the
court a discretion to exclude evidence illegally or
irregularly obtained.)
4. Any person arrested or detained or otherwise deprived
of his freedom of action in any way must be informed as
soon as practicable, in the language he understands, of the
reasons for his arrest or detention, his right to remain
silent and the right to counsel.
The warning to remain silent and to counsel must be
accompanied by the explanation that anything said may be
used in court.

5. Legal assistance shall not be denied by reason of poverty.

If he is indigent and needs the services of a counsel, a
lawyer shall be appointed to represent him. (It was noted
that legal aid is not available in all countries but that it is a
desirable objective.)
 20

6. Any person arrested, detained or deprived of his freedom

of action in any way must be brought within a reasonable
time, but not exceeding 36 hours, before the prosecutor
and/or the court for proper disposition.

7. The accused person shall have free access to a medical

practitioner of his own choice.

8. Freedom of communication, and correspondence shall

be maintained and protected.

9. Arrest by arrangement for minor offences for young

people, married women, old people, provided they are not
recidivists, should be encouraged. ('Arrest by arrangement*
means as to time, place, etc.)

10. In an emergency situation it shall be the duty of the

detaining authority to release detainees unless they are to
be charged within a reasonable time.

11. The right of the detained person to avail himself of baebeas

corpus proceedings or similar review shall be respected.

12. Any person unlawfully arrested or illegally detained

shall be entitled to compensation and reinstatement in
accordance with law.

Role of the Prosecutor

All criminal prosecutions shall be under the direction and
control of a public prosecutor (or any other person entrus-
ted with such authority). However, some participants felt
strongly that there was a growing need for the decision to
prosecute to be transferred from the police into the hands
of a judicial official. As such, the official would be duty
bound to bring to court all persons who appeared to be
responsible for a criminal act, in the same way that it
would be equally his duty to refrain from prosecuting a
case if, after careful investigation, the evidence appeared
 21

insufficient to warrant prosecution. In other words, the

prosecutor or his equivalent would be given the full dis-
cretion as to whether or not to prosecute a criminal case.
This would enable him to prevent malicious and unfounded
prosecution and at the same time to prosecute only the
meritorious cases.
To help eliminate torture the following steps are recom-
mended:
1. Preliminary investigation must be made public and attend-
ed by parties and counsel. A legal aid system should be
approved to service all citizens equally.
2. The preliminary investigation must be terminated within
20 days from its first hearing and within 10 days thereafter
the case must be filed in court or dismissed as the case may
be.
3. The public prosecutor must, within three days from the
time the police remand the suspect, determine the legality
or illegality of the arrest; determine whether or not the
confession has been illegally obtained; and release the
detainee if, after conducting the preliminary investigation,
there is no case against the accused.
4* No person shall be compelled to incriminate himself. No
force, violence, threat, intimidation or any other means
that vitiates the free will shall be used against him.
5. Any evidence secured in violation of the rights of an
accused person shall be inadmissable.
6. The prosecutor must affirmatively prove the facts alleged
against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

7. Bail shall be a matter of right and the public prosecutor

must recommend only reasonable bail depending upon the
gravity of the offence, the financial capacity of the
accused and the probability of his appearance at the trial.

8. Some participants felt it wise, whenever possible, to divorce

cases from the criminal justice system, where they could
be dealt with by compensation from the offender.
 22

Judges or Courts
1. Sentence should only be passed in respect of those offences
of which an accused person is convicted.

2. Sentencing decisions should be based on competent and

reliable evidence.

3. Accused persons should be entitled to public, speedy dis-

position of cases.

4. The Court should have the right to visit prisons and de-
tainees regularly to hear and investigate their complaints.

5. Judges should decide upon the report of the police whether

the subject is illegally or unreasonably detained, and/or
whether confession is legally or illegally obtained.

6. Judges must have the power to release detention prisoners

if there is no reasonable ground for further detention.

7. If the decision is delivered in a language which the offender

does not understand, the decision must be interpreted to
the offender.

8. In the case of certain offences, judges must impose, as is

necessary, an alternative penalty, other than imprisonment,
which is least harmful for the offender and least expensive
to the community.

9* The rights of the accused against double jeopardy shall be

enforced, but appeals against acquittals should not be
precluded.

* Indicates part on which a division of opinion existed.

II Independence of the Judiciary

To preserve the rights and dignity of human beings it is

fundamental that the judiciary should be an independent
arm of the state. This is manifested in Article 10 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights which provides:
'Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public
hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the
determination of his rights and obligations and of any
criminal charge against him'. This can only be achieved if
the judiciary is free from control by the executive or
legislative arm of the state.
To this end we suggest the following principles to be
adopted by the United Nations as a guidance for all its
member states:

1. The judiciary shall be separate from the executive and the

legislature.
2. The judiciary shall be independent in the exercise of its
functions.
3. No extraordinary commission or special tribunal of a tem-
porary character shall be established outside the frame-
work of the judiciary to try any particular cases or persons.
4. (a) Judges and other judicial officers shall not be arrested,
detained or charged for any act done in good faith in the
normal discharge of their duty.
(b) Further, judges and other judicial officers should not
be liable in any civil action for any act done in the normal
discharge of their duty.
5. It shall be an offence for any person:
(a) To abuse, interfere with or obstruct the process of the
court in any way or disobey any order of the court.
 24

(b) To scandalise the court or otherwise do anything

which tends to bring the court or a judge of the court into
hatred, ridicule or contempt.
(c) To do or attempt to do any act to secure a judgment
favourable to him or to any other person.
6. (a) The judges of the Supreme Court or High Court and
other judicial officers shall not be appointed by the exe-
cutive.
(b) The Chief Justice or other person who is the head of
the judiciary shall be appointed by the Head of the State
on the advice of the legislature.
(c) The other judges shall be appointed by the Head of the
State on the advice of the Chief Justice, the Head of the
Judiciary or other appropriate body.
(d) The other judicial officers shall be appointed by the
Chief Justice or other person who is the Head of the Judi-
ciary or other appropriate body.
7. The judges must enjoy security of tenure.
8. A judge shall only be removed from office by the Head of
the State or appropriate body for misbehaviour or inability
to perform the functions of his office.
9. (a) A judge's remuneration and retirement benefits shall
be sufficient to relieve him (and his family) from financial
anxieties and put him beyond the need for auxiliary
appointment and venal temptations.
(b) Judges and other judicial officers shall be prohibited
from engaging in any occupation of profit or otherwise
except with the concurrence of the Head of the State or
the Chief Justice respectively.
(c) A judge's remuneration or retirement benefits shall not
be reduced without his consent.
10. A judge must disqualify himself or be disqualified from
sitting on a case where circumstances exist to affect his
impartiality.
11. The conduct of judges in the performance of their duty
shall not be criticised by the legislature or executive.
12.* (a) A decision of judges shall not be subject to criticism by
the legislature or the executive.
(b) Any decision may be changed by the legislature by an
enactment. No enactment shall have a retrospective effect.
 25

(c) Decisions of the Supreme Court (the highest Court in

the hierarchy) shall be final and decisions of a lower court
may not be altered except by a higher competent court.
13. Judges must be qualified, experienced and competent to
discharge the duties of their high office.

We feel that it shall be imperative on each member state

to make sure these principles are enshrined in the supreme
law of their land (Constitution). These principles in the
Constitution need to be entrenched by way of two-thirds
majority in the legislature and simple majority at universal
sufferage.

* Indicates points on which a division of opinion existed.

Ill Duties and Obligations of Citizens

Draft Code of Obligations

1. It shall be the duty of every person to actively participate
in the attainment or preservation of a just and orderly
society and, consistent with that duty, to be loyal to his
country and to obey its laws.
2. Every person shall recognise, respect, and protect the
rights and freedoms of others, and shall act justly, honestly
and faithfully in his dealings with them.

3. Everyone shall suffer such interference with or detraction

from his alienable human rights as is sanctioned by law and
necessary or desirable for the development and welfare of
his country.

4. In accordance with law, everyone shall contribute to the

support of the state through taxation or otherwise.

5. To protect and conserve national wealth, everyone shall

endeavour to use public or private property prudently and
to the most beneficial advantage of himself and others.

6. Everyone shall support and educate every child for whom

he is responsible; and instil in such child a respect for the
feelings and sensibilities of his fellow human beings.

7. Everyone shall strive to obtain an education that will fully

develop his potentials, character and personality, and will
strengthen his concern for human rights and fundamental
freedoms.
Annexes
I Programme

Themes
I. The Human Rights of the Citizen in Relation to the
Criminal Justice System
II. The Human Rights of the Accused Person in Relation
to the Criminal Justice System
III. The Human Rights of the Convicted Person in Relation
to the Criminal Justice System

A. The Citizen, the Accused and the Convicted Person

and the Criminal Justice System
Lectures on Themes I, II and III

1. Activities of the United Nations in the Field of Human

Rights - Mr M. Schreiber, Director, United Nations,
Division of Human Rights (Geneva)
2. The United Nations and the Protection of All Persons from
Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment
or Punishment — Mr M. Schreiber
3. The Balance of Human Rights and Social Defence in
Criminal Justice — Mr W. Clifford, Director, Australian
Institute of Criminology (Canberra)

4. Standard Setting in the Criminal Justice System — Mr W.

Clifford

5. Ombudsmen and Their Value — Dr J. Robson, United

Nations Consultant, Visiting Fellow of Criminology,
Victoria University (Wellington, New Zealand)
 29

6. Rights and Duties — The Japanese Concept — Professor R.

Hirano, United Nations Consultant, Professor of Criminal
Law, University of Tokyo

7. Human Relations, Crime and the Press — Dr J. Robson

8. The Question of Human Rights in the Conduct of Crim-

inological Research — Mr D. Biles, Assistant Director
(Research), Australian Institute of Criminology

9. United Nations and Human Rights in the Administration

of Criminal Justice. Introduction — Mr T. McCarthy,
Special Assistant to the Director, United Nations Division
of Human Rights (Geneva)

10. Human Rights and the Detainee: United Nations Standards

for the Protection of Persons Deprived of Liberty — Mr T.
McCarthy

11. United Nations Standards on Arrest, Detention and Trial

(three lectures ) — Mr T. McCarthy

B. The Citizen and the Criminal Justice System

Lectures dealing with Theme I

1. Human Rights of the Citizen in Relation to the Criminal

Justice System — Mr P.R. Loof, Senior Assistant Secretary,
Human Rights Branch, Attorney-General's Department,
Canberra

2. Human Rights of the Citizen as Affected by Variations in

Criminal Justice Systems-.
(a) The Japanese Experience — Professor R. Hirano
(b) Other Major Legal Systems - Mr W. Clifford

3. Human Rights of the Citizen in Relation to the Police —

The Honourable Mr Justice Kirby, Chairman, Australian
Law Reform Commission
 30

4. Complaints Against the Police — The Honourable Mr Justice

Kirby

5. Human Rights in Respect of Privacy — Professor Sir Zelman

Cowan, Q.C., Vice Chancellor, University of Queensland

6. Protecting Human Rights by Bills of Rights, Legislation

and Education — Mr P.R. Loof

7. Human Rights of Victims in the Criminal Justice System —

Mr G.R. Wardlaw, Senior Research Officer, Australian
Institute of Criminology, Canberra

8. Human Rights and the Administration of Criminal Justice,

Recent Singapore Legislation (Also Theme II) — Mr A.W.
Ghows, Solicitor-General, Singapore

C. The Accused and the Criminal Justice System

Lectures and Seminars dealing with Theme II
1. Human Rights of the Accused in Relation to the Criminal
Justice System (two lectures) — Professor R. Hirano
2. Human Rights of the Citizen in Relation to the Courts —
Mr F.J. Mahony, O.B.E., Deputy Secretary, Attorney-
General's Department, Canberra
3. Human Rights of the Police as Citizens and in the Perform-
ance of Their Duties — Mr R. Whitrod, Former Commiss-
ioner of Police, Queensland
4. Human Rights as Reflected by Sentencing in Queensland
(also Theme III) — Mr J. Newton, Senior Research Officer,
Australian Institute of Criminology, Canberra

D. The Convicted Person and the Criminal Justice System

Lectures dealing with Theme III
1. Human Rights of Convicted Persons in Relation to the
Criminal Justice System (two lectures) — Professor R.
Hirano
 31

2. Human Rights of Convicted Persons in Relation to Instit-

utional and Non-Institutional Penalties (two lectures) — Dr
Dr J. Robson

3. Human Rights of Convicted Juveniles — Dr J.A. Seymour,

Senior Criminologist, Australian Institute of Criminology,
Canberra

4. Human Rights of the Convicted Person and Pre-Sentence

Reports — Mr P. Mullaly, Senior Crown Prosecutor, Victoria

5. Human Rights in the Administration of Corrections — Mr

C.R. Bevan, Assistant Director (Training), Australian
Institute of Criminology, Canberra
II Participants and Observers

Participants
Mr A. Benipayo
District Judge, Court of First Instance of Manila, City Hall,
Manila, Philippines

Mr S. Dalimunthe
Chief of the Legal Adviser on the Indonesian Headquarters
of Police; Judge in the Military Court; Teacher in the Police
Academy

General Hossein Farzaneh

Chief of Criminal Investigation, Department of National
Police, Teheran, Iran

Ms Fe P. Gutierrez
State Prosecutor, Department of Justice, Manila, Philippines

Mr S. Oi Kaipu
Research Officer, Faculty of Law, University of Papua
New Guinea, Port Moresby

Mr W. Kaputin
Senior Barrister and Solicitor, Public Solicitor's Office,
Boroko, Papua New Guinea

Mr P.B. Kerepia
Commissioner of Police, Royal Papua New Guinea Consta-
bulary, Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea
 33

Mr S.K. Kim
Public Prosecutor, Seoul High Prosecutor's Office, Seoul,
Korea

Mr M.I. Khan
Crown Counsel, P.O. Box 2355, Suva, Fiji

Mr R. Magnus
Senior Magistrate, Subordinate Courts, Singapore 1

Mr C. Maino-Aoae
Assistant State Solicitor, Department of Justice, State
Solicitor's Office, Waigani, Papua New Guinea

Colonel K. Nassiri
Assistant of Tehran Police Chief and Commander of Oper-
ation Committee, Tehran

Mr S. Prawoto
Judge of the High Court, Jalan Surapati No.47, Bandung,
Indonesia

Mr J.D. Rabone
Crown Counsel, Crown Law Office, Wellington, New
Zealand

Mr T.P. Shrestha
District Judge of District Court, Sindhu Palchowk, Chaut-
ara, Bagmatizone, Nepal

Mr T. Tamura
Public Prosecutor and Director, Judicial System Division,
Judicial System and Research Department, Ministry of
Justice, Tokyo, Japan

Mr H.H. Tonga
Chief Superintendent, Police Headquarters, Nukualofa,
Tonga
 34

Ms W.U. Udanuta
Judge of the Bangkok North District Court, Bangkok,
Thailand

Mr A.S. Wijetunga
District Judge, District Judge's Bungalow, Nuwara Eliya,
Sri Lanka

Mr M.N. Zaman
Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government
of the People's Republic of Bangladesh, Bangladesh Secre-
tariat, Dacca

Observers
Mr W.J. Galligan
Superintendent of Police, (Crime Advisor) to Commissioner
of Police, Queensland, Australia

Mr C. Giles
Human Rights Section, Attorney-General's Department,
Canberra, Australia

Mr B. Matthews
General Legal Section, Department of Foreigh Affairs,
Canberra, Australia

Mr G. Roberts
Attorney-General's Department, Canberra, Australia

Ms P. Wells
Department of Foreign Affairs, United Nations Political
Section, Canberra, Australia

Mr A. Lobban
Child Care Officer, Department of Children Services, 64
Mary Street, Brisbane, Australia
Ill United Nations
Consultants/Lecturers

United Nations Consultants

Dr J. Robson
Visiting Fellow of Criminology, Victoria University, Well-
ington, New Zealand

Professor R. Hirano
Professor of Criminal Law, Department of Law, Toyko
University, Tokyo, Japan

Lecturers
Mr C.R. Bevan
Assistant Director (Training), Australian Institute of Crim-
inology, Canberra, Australia

Mr D. Biles
Assistant Director (Research), Australian Institute of
Criminology, Canberra, Australia

Mr W. Clifford
Director, Australian Institute of Criminology, Canberra,
Australia
Professor Sir Zelman Cowan, Q.C.
Vice Chancellor, University of Queensland, Queensland,
Australia
Mr A.W. Ghows
Solicitor-General of Singapore, Attorney-General's Cham-
bers, Singapore
 36

The Honourable Mr Justice M.D. Kirby

Chairman, Australian Law Reform Commission, Sydney,
Australia
Mr P.R. Loof
Senior Assistant Secretary, Human Rights Branch, Attorney
General's Department, Canberra, Australia

Australian Co-ordinator 6th United Nations Congress on

the Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Offenders,
Australia 1980

Mr T. McCarthy
Special Assistant to the Director, United Nations Division
of Human Rights, Geneva, Switzerland

Mr F.J. Mahony, O.B.E.

Deputy Secretary, Attorney-General's Department, Can-
berra, Australia
Chairman, Board of Management, Australian Institute of
Criminology

Mr P. Mullaly

Senior Crown Prosecutor, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Mr J. Newton
Senior Research Officer, Australian Institute of Crimin-
ology, Canberra, Australia
Mr M. Schreiber
Director, United Nations Division of Human Rights, Geneva,
Switzerland

Dr J.A. Seymour
Senior Criminologist, Australian Institute of Criminology,
Canberra, Australia

Mr G.R. Wardlaw
Senior Research Officer, Australian Institute of Criminology
Canberra, Australia
 37

Mr R. Whitrod
Former Commissioner of Police, Brisbane, Queensland,
Australia
IV Lectures and Other Papers
Distributed to Participants

Lectures and Opening Addresses

Opening Address by the Attorney-General - The Honourable
R.J. Ellicott, Q.C.

Opening Address to the Human Rights Course on the Adminis-

tration of Justice — W. Clifford

Human Rights of Victims in the Criminal Justice System —

Grant Wardlaw

Human Rights in Sentencing: The Queensland Experience —

J.E. Newton

The Question of Human Rights in the Conduct of Criminolog-

ical Research — David Biles

Human Rights of Convicted Juveniles — Dr J.A. Seymour

Human Rights and Legal Drafting in Singapore — A.W. Ghows

Human Rights in the Administration of Corrections — C.R.

Bevan

Human Rights of the Police as Citizens and in the Performance

of Their Duties - R. Whitrod

Complaints Against Police: How Should They be Handled? —

The Honourable Mr Justice M.D. Kirby
 39

Human Rights of the Convicted Person in Relation to Pre-

sentence Reports — Paul R. Mullaly, Q.C.

Human Rights of the Citizen in Relation to the Courts. Dis-

cussion paper — F.J. Mahony, O.B.E.

Standard Setting in the Criminal Justice System — W. Clifford

Protecting Human Rights by Human Rights Legislation — P R.

Loof

The Balance of Human Rights and Social Defence in the

Administration of Criminal Justice — W. Clifford

Human Rights of the Citizen in Relation to the Police — The

Honourable Mr Justice M.D. Kirby

United Nations Standards on Human Rights in the Administr-

ation of Criminal Justice. Discussion paper prepared by the
United Nations Division of Human Rights

Papers and Documents Submitted by Participants

Human Rights in the Administration of Criminal Justice in
Papua New Guinea — C. Maino-Aoae

Human Rights in the Preliminary Investigation Within the

Sphere of Criminal Law in Indonesia (some viewpoints
concerning the rights of suspects) — S. Dalimunthe

Independence of the Judiciary and the Judicial System of

Indonesia — Sunu Prawoto

Human Rights in Relation to the Administration of Criminal

Justice — H. Tonga

The Constitution of Japan

Constitution of the Independent State of Papua New Guinea

 40

Fundamental Duties and Rights: Constitution of Nepal

Constituent Assembly of Bangladesh. The Constitution of the

People's Republic of Bangladesh

The Constitution of Sri Lanka (Ceylon)

Singapore Constitution

The 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia

The Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand

Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, Article IV,

Bill of Rights

Criminal Statutes, Japan, selected articles. Ministry of Justice

of Japan
V United Nations Documents
Distributed to Participants

General Documents
1. Charter of the United Nations and Statute of the Inter-
national Court of Justice. (OPI/511)
2. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (OPI/15)
3. The International 'Bill of Human Rights'. (OPI/565)
4. The International Covenants on Human Rights and Option-
al Protocol. (OPI/562)
5. United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of All
Forms of Racial Discrimination. (OPI/151)
6. International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms
of Racial Discrimination. (OPI/442)
7. Programme of Action to Combat Racism and Racial Dis-
crimination. (OPI/514)
8. International Convention on the Suppression and Punish-
ment of the Crime of Apartheid. (OPI/513)
9. Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Torture
and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment. (OPI/560)
10. The United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of
Discrimination Against Women. (Equal Rights for Women
- A Call for Action). (OPI/538)
11. Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial
Countries and Peoples. (OPI/472)
12. Basic Facts About the United Nations. (Sales No.E.75.1.13)
13. States Members of the United Nations. (OPI/554)
14. Questions and Answers on Human Rights. (OPI/493)
 42

Documents Relating to Human Rights in the

Administration of Criminal Justice
1. Study of Equality in the Administration of Justice. (Sales
NO.E.71XIV.3)
2. Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners
and Recommendations on Selection and Training of Per-
sonnel for Penal and Correctional Institutions and on Open
Penal and Correctional Institutions. (Sales No. [Link].4)
3. Draft principles on freedom from arbitrary arrest and
detention, and amendments thereto proposed in the study
of the right of arrested persons to communicate with those
whom it is necessary to consult in order to ensure their
defence or to protect their essential interests: Conference
room paper prepared by the Secretariat for the Fifth
United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and
Treatment of Offenders. (A/CONF.56/CRP.1)
4. Report of the Fifth United Nations Congress on the
Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders.
(A/CONF.56/10)
5. Report of the United Nations Committee on Crime Pre-
vention and Control on its Third Session, (Geneva, 1974).
(E/CN.5/516)
6. Report of the United Nations Committee on Crime Pre-
vention and Control on its Fourth Session (New York,
1976)
7. Health aspects of avoidable maltreatment of prisoners and
detainees: paper by the World Health Organisation sub-
mitted to the Fifth United Nations Congress on the Pre-
vention of Crime and Treatment of Offenders. (A/CONF.
56/9)
8. The treatment of offenders, in custody or in the comm-
unity, with special reference to the implementation of the
standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners
adopted by the United Nations. (A/CONF.56/6)
9. Analytical summary of information received on torture
and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punish-
ment in relation to detention and imprisonment submitted
by the Secretary-General to the General Assembly at its
thirtieth session (A/10158 and Corr.l and Add.l)
 43

10. Notes by the Secretary-General on the question of the

human rights of persons subjected to any form of detention
or imprisonment submitted to the Sub-Commission on
Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities
at its twenty-ninth session. (E/CN.4/Sub.2/359/Add.2) ;
(E/CN.4/Sub.2/374 and Add.1-2)
11. Report on the question of the human rights of persons
subjected to any form of detention or imprisonment pre-
pared by the Secretary-General and submitted to the Sub-
Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection
of minorities at its twenty-ninth session. (E/CN.4/Sub.
2/376)
12. Note by the Secretary-General on torture and other cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in relation
to detention and imprisonment submitted to the General
Assembly at its thirty-first session (A/31/234)
VI United Nations Documents Placed
in the Library of the Australian
Institute of Criminology for
Consultation by Participants

United Nations. United Nations action in the field of human

rights. 1974. (ST/HR/2)
International review of criminal policy, no.25, 1967
International review of criminal policy, no.26, 1968
International review of criminal policy, no.28, 1970
International review of criminal policy, no.29, 1971
Third United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and
the Treatment of Offenders, Stockholm, 1965. Report pre-
pared by the Secretariat. (A/CONF.26/7)
Fourth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime
and the Treatment of Offenders, Kyoto, 1970. Report by
the Secretariat. (A/CONF.43/5)
Seminar on Judicial and other Remedies against the Illegal
Exercise or Abuse of Administrative Authority, Buenos
Aires, 1959. Report. (ST/TAO/HR/6)
Seminar on the Protection of Human Rights in Criminal Pro-
cedure, Vienna, 1960. Report. (ST/TAO/HR/8)
Seminar on Judicial and other Remedies against the Abuse of
Administrative Authority with special emphasis on the role
of parliamentary institutions, Stockholm, 1962. Report.
(ST/TAO/HR/15)
Third United Nations Seminar for the Arab States on the Pre-
vention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, Damas-
cus, Syria, 1964. Report. (ST/TAO/SER.C/81)
Seminar on the Effective Realization of Civil and Political
Rights at the National Level, Kingston, Jamaica, 1967.
Report. 1967. Report. (ST/TAO/HR/29)
Seminar on Freedom of Association, London, U.K., 1968.
Report. (ST/TAO/HR/32)
United Nations. Remedies against the abuse of administrative
 45

authority: selected studies. 1964. (ST/TAO/HR/19)

United Nations, Committee on Crime Prevention and Control.
Report on its third session. 1974. (E/CN.5/516.E/AC.57/
21/Rev.l)
United Nations, Economic and Social Council. Report — pro-
tection of human rights in Chile. 1976. (A/31/253)
United Nations, Commission on Human Rights. Report on the
thirtieth session. 1974 9E/5464.E/CN.4/1154)
United Nations, Commission on Human Rights. Report on the
thirty-first session. 1975 (E/5635.E/CN.4/1179).
United Nations, Commission on Human Rights. Report on the
thirty-second session. 1976. (E/5768. E/CN.4/1213)
United Nations, Commission on Human Rights, Sub-Commiss-
ion on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of
Minorities. Report on its twenty-seventh session. 1974.
(E/CN.4/1160. E/CN.4/Sub.2/354)
United Nations, Commission on Human Rights, Sub-Commiss-
ion on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of
Minorities. R e p o r t . . . on its twenty-eighth session. 1975.
(E/CN.4/1180.E/CN.4/Sub.2/364)
United Nations, Commission on Human Rights, Sub-Commiss-
ion on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of
Minorities. Report on its twenty-ninth session. 1976.
(E/CN.4/1218.E/CN.4/Sub.2/378)
United Nations, Commission on Human Rights, Ad Hoc Work-
ing Group of Experts. Report. . . question of the violation
of human rights and fundamental freedoms, including
policies of racial discrimination and segregation and of
apartheid .. . \976. (E/CN.4/1187)
VII Human Rights and the
Criminal Justice System:
A Bibliography

Prepared by the J.V. Barry Memorial Library, Australian

Institute of Criminology.
Items marked with an asterisk* are held by the J.V.
Barry Memorial Library.

Monographs
* AUSTRALIA. COMMITTEE ON COMPUTERISATION OF
CRIMINAL DATA. Socio-legal Aspects of Computeris-
ation of Criminal Data. In its Report. . . presented to the
Attorney-General, August 1973. Canberra, 1974, section
9.1-9.5.
"BAGOT, C. Confidentiality of Pre-sentence Reports in
Sentencing. In AUSTRALIAN CRIME PREVENTION
CORRECTION AND AFTER-CARE COUNCIL, 7th
Conference, Melbourne, 1973. Proceedings. Melbourne,
1973, pp.R41-R58.
•CAMPBELL, Enid & WHITMORE, Harry. Constitutional
Protection of Human Rights. In their Freedom in Australia.
Rev. ed. Sydney, S.U.P., 1973, pp.432456.
"COWEN, Sir Zelman. The Private Man. (The Boyer Lectures
1969). Sydney, Australian Broadcasting Commission, 1972
(c.1969).
•DANELIUS, Hans. Human Rights in Sweden. Stockholm,
Swedish Institute, 1973.
*DAVIS, S.M. Rights of Juveniles; the Juvenile Justice System.
New York, Boardman, 1974.
•DECROW, Karen. Sexist Justice. New York, Random House,
1974.
 47

*Detention: Minimum Standards of Treatment: report of a

conference held by the British Institute of Human Rights
(Human Rights Trust). Chichester, Barry Rose, 1975.
•EGGLESTON, Elizabeth M. Aborigines and Criminal Justice
in Australia. In AUSTRALIAN CRIME PREVENTION,
CORRECTION AND AFTER-CARE COUNCIL, 7th
Conference, Melbourne, 1973. Proceedings. Melbourne,
1973, [Link]-ClO.
•EGGLESTON, Elizabeth M. Fear, Favour or Affection;
Aborigines and the Criminal Law in Victoria, South
Australia and Western Australia. (Aborigines in Australian
Society 13) Canberra, A.N.U.P., 1976.
EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Human
Rights in Prison. (Caselaw Topics no.l) Strasbourg, Council
of Europe, 1971.
HOPE, R.M. Right of Peaceful Assembly. Sydney, N.S.W.
Council of Civil Liberties, 1970.
•KRANTZ, Sheldon and others (eds). Model Rules and Regul-
ations on Prisoners' Rights and Responsibilities. St Paul,
Minn., West, 1973.
LIECHTENSTEIN, M.I. Employment Problems of the Ex-
offender; Testimony Before the City of New York
Commission on Human Rights. Santa Monica, Calif., Rand
Corporation, 1972.
* Living it Down: the Problem of Old Convictions-, the Report
of a Committee set up by JUSTICE, the Howard League
for Penal Reform, and the National Association for the
Care and Resettlement of Offenders. (Chairman: Rt Hon.
Lord Gardiner). London, Stevens, 1972.
•MAYER, M.F. Rights of Privacy. New York, Law - Arts,
1972.
•NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES. The Rights
of Suspects: a Re-examination of the Judges' Rules. Rev.
ed. London, 1973?
•NETTHEIM, Garth (ed.). Aborigines, Human Rights and the
Law. Sydney, A.N.Z. Book Co., 1974.
"ROBERTSON, A.H. (ed.). Privacy and Human Rights. Man-
chester, Manchester U.P., 1973.
ROSENGART, O. The Rights of Suspects. New York, Avon
Books, 1974.
 48

•SEARCH GROUP, INC. SECURITY AND PRIVACY STAND-

ING COMMITTEE. Standards for Security and Privacy of
Criminal Justice Information. (Technical Report no.13)
Sacramento, Calif., Search Group, Inc., 1975.
*Seminar on the Protection of Human Rights in Criminal
Procedure, Vienna, Austria, I960-, organized by the United
Nations in cooperation with the Government of Austria.
New York, United Nations, 1960.
*Seminar on the Role of the Police in the Protection of
Human Rights, Canberra, Australia, 1963; organized by
the United Nations in cooperation with the Government of
Australia. New York, United Nations, 1963.
•UNITED NATIONS. DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AND
SOCIAL AFFAIRS. Standard Minimum Rules for the
Treatment of Prisoners and Related Recommendations.
New York, 1958.
•UNITED STATES. NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMISSION
ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE STANDARDS AND GOALS.
Juveniles. In its Courts. Washington, D.C., 1973, pp.289-
305.
•UNITED STATES. TASK FORCE ON JUVENILE DELIN-
QUENCY. Task Force Report; Juvenile Delinquency and
Youth Crime; Report on Juvenile Justice and Consultants'
Papers. Washington, Govt. Pr., 1967.
•WALDOCK, Sir Humphrey. The Legal Protection of Human
Rights, National and International. In An Introduction to
the Study of Human Rights, ed. by Sir Francis Vallat.
London, Europa, 1972? pp.83-98.

Journals
ADDISON, P.H. 'The Legal and Ethical Consideration of
Clinical Research'. Medico-Legal Journal, vol.40, no.4,
1972, pp.144-151.
AMSTERDAM, A.G. 'The Supreme Court and the Rights of
Suspects in Criminal Cases'. New York University Law
Review, vol.45, no.4, 1970, pp.785-815.
CHANLETT, E. & MORIER, G.M. 'Declaration of the Rights
of the Child'. International Child Welfare Review, vol.22,
no.l, 1968, pp.4-8.
 49

•DAMASKA, M.R. 'Adverse Legal Consequences of Conviction

and their Removal; a Comparative Study'. Journal of
Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, vol.59,
no.4, 1968, pp.542-568.
•DANDURAND, Y. 'Ethnic Group Members and the Correct-
ional System: a Question of Human Rights'. Canadian
Journal of Criminology and Corrections, vol.16, no.l,
1974, pp.35-52.
DELL, S. 'Remands in Custody'. New Law Journal, vol.122,
May 11, 1972, pp.418.
*DISNEY, Julian. 'Prisoners' Voting Rights'. Alternative
Criminology Journal, vol.1, no.4, 1976, pp.3 5-44.
FRIEDMAN, L.M. 'The Idea of Right as a Social and Legal
Concept'. Journal of Social Issues, vol.27, no.2, 1971,
pp.189-198.
GINSBURG, R.B. 'Sex and Unequal Protection; Men and
Women as Victims'. Journal of Family Law, vol.11, 1971.
pp.347.
"GOLDRING, John. 'White Laws, Black People'. Australian
Quarterly, vol.45, no.3, Sept. 1973, pp.5-18.
HAFT, M.G. 'Women in Prison; Discriminatory Practices and
Some Legal Solutions'. Clearinghouse Review, vol.8, May
1974, pp.1-6.
ITZKOWITZ, H. & OLDAK, L. 'Restoring the Ex-offenders
Right to Vote; Background and Developments'. American
Criminal Law Review, vol.11, no.3, 1973, pp.721-770.
KATKIN, D. 'Presentence Reports; an Analysis of Uses,
Limitations and Civil Liberties Issues'. Minnesota Law
Review, vol.55, no.l, 1970, pp.15-31.
KONOPKA, G. 'Corrections and Human Dignity'. Georgia
Journal of Corrections, vol.3, no.l, 1974, pp.49-57.
LEGRAND, Camille E. 'Rape and Rape Laws; Sexism in
Society and Law'. California Law Review, vol.61, 1973,
pp.919-941.
•LOVIBOND, S.H. 'Ethics of Behaviour Modification'. Aust-
ralian Psychologist, vol.6, no.3, Nov. 1971, pp.172-180.
McNULTY, J.K. 'The Right to be Left Alone'. American
Criminal Law Review, vol.11, no.l, 1972, pp.141-164.
McPHAIL, T.L. 'Behavioral Science Research and the Rights
of Human Subjects', Canadian Review of Sociology and
 50

Anthropology, vol.11, no.3, 1974, pp.255-261.

MADDISON, J.C. 'Justice in Corrections; the Dilemma*. Aust-
ralian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, vol.5,
no.l, 1972, pp.5-14.
MALONEY, A. 'The Supreme Court and Civil Liberties'.
Criminal Law Quarterly, vol.18, no.2, 1976. pp.202-217.
MEWETT, A.W. 'Law Enforcement and the Conflict of Values'.
Criminal Law Quarterly, vol.12, no.2, 1970, pp.179-200.
•MISNER, R.L. 'Administration of Criminal Justice on Abor-
iginal Settlements'. Sydney Law Review, vol.7, no.2, Sept.
1974, pp.257-283.
•MONAHAN, John & CUMMINGS, Lesley. 'Social Policy
Implications of the Inability to Predict Violence'. Journal
of Social Issues, vol.31, no.2, 1975, pp.153-164.
ORAM, Nigel. 'Law and Order; Maximum Participation at all
Levels'. New Guinea and Australia, The Pacific and South-
EastAsia, vol.7, Jan. 1973, pp.4-22.
REDER, M.W. 'Citizen Rights and the Cost of Law Enforce-
ment'. Journal of Legal Studies, vol.3, no.2, 1974, pp.435-
455.
•REED, J.P. & NANCE, D. 'Society Perpetuates the Stigma of
a Conviction'. Federal Probation, vol.36, no.2, 1972,
pp.27-31.
•REED, J.P. & NANCE, D. 'Retention and Dissemination of
Arrest Records; Judicial Response'. University of Chicago
Law Review, vol.38, no.4, 1971, pp.850-874.
•RUBIN, S. 'The Man with a Record; a Civil Rights Problem'.
Federal Probation, vol.35, no.3, Sept. 1971, pp.3-7.
•RUBIN, S. 'Sex and Sentencing'. Southwestern Law Journal,
vol.26, Dec. 1972, pp.890.
SHARP, W.T. 'The Juvenile Court and Civil Rights'. Criminol-
ogist, vol.7, no.25, 1972, pp.37-501.
SPECE, R.G.,/>. 'Conditioning and other Technologies used to
"Treat"? "Rehabilitate"? "Demolish"? Prisoners and
Mental Patients'. Southern California Law Review, vol.45,
no.2, 1972, pp.616-681.
SPECE, R.G., jr. 'Symposium - Women and the Law'. Val-
paraiso University Law Review, vol.5, 1971, (Symposium
issue).
•VOGELMAN, R.P. 'Prison Restrictions - Prisoner Rights'.
 51

Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science,

vol.59, no.3,1968, pp.386-396.
•VOGELMAN, R.P. 'Women and the Criminal Law: a Sym-
posium'. American Criminal Law Review, vol.11, Winter
1973, pp.291.
YELICH, S.N. 'The Hidden Penalty'. Legal Aid Briefcase,
vol.29, no.2,1970, pp.61-66.
ZASHIN, E. 'Civil Rights and Civil Disobedience: the Limits of
Legalism'. Texas Law Review, vol.52, no.2, pp.285-301.
 I S B N 0 642 91587 3
Australian Institute of Criminology