CCPR/C/114/D/2395/2014 5.8 The author maintains that the remains of two of the victims for whose deaths he was convicted had been found in Argentina and claims that that shows that he was sentenced without sufficient evidence. 5.9 His communication does not constitute an abuse of the right of submission, given that he has exhausted domestic remedies and meets the criteria for admissibility under the Optional Protocol and the Committee’s rules of procedure. 5.10 The author informs the Committee that, on 23 July 2014, he was visited Military Hospital by representatives of the International Committee of the Red (ICRC) regional delegation in Brasilia, one of them a doctor, and claims that recommended that the State party’s authorities should immediately grant him arrest. in the Cross ICRC house State party’s observations on the merits 6.1 On 15 January 2015 the State party submitted its observations on the merits of the communication and reiterated its view that the communication should be declared inadmissible. 6.2 With regard to articles 2 and 26 of the Covenant, the State party states that the criminal proceedings against the author were not politically motivated and that they were conducted in accordance with ordinary criminal law, notably the Criminal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure and other legislation applicable to the case, as well as the State party’s Constitution, the American Convention on Human Rights and the Covenant. 6.3 The laws granting temporary impunity to those guilty of serious human rights violations under the regime that governed the State party between 1973 and 1985 had been revised to ensure renewed enforcement of the law, the pursuit of histo rical memory and the punishment of the perpetrators. The author was one of the military officers who had been most active under the regime, being a member of the units that had implemented Operation Condor, and he was charged with gross and systematic violations of human rights. 6.4 He was lawfully sentenced to 25 years’ imprisonment, in accordance with the legislation in force and with international standards, and in proportion to the seriousness of the offence committed and the harm inflicted. From the mo ment of his pretrial detention to the present day, the State party has taken the necessary steps to protect his life, personal safety, and physical and psychological integrity, and guarantee him decent treatment. Accordingly, the State party maintains that neither the penalty nor its enforcement constitutes a violation of articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. 6.5 As for the author’s claims under articles 9 and 14, the State party notes that the author’s trial was conducted with respect for due process and in ac cordance with the legislation in force, and within a reasonable time frame for a case of its complexity. The author was able to exercise his right to a defence, and all judicial proceedings were conducted by the competent authorities and in an independent and impartial manner. 6.6 As to the author’s request for house arrest, the State party points out that this is a matter for the court’s discretion and is an exceptional measure, applied in cases in which the person’s life is in danger or he or she is in extremely poor health. In the author’s case, the rejection of his request for house arrest was based on a report by forensic doctors duly appointed by the court dealing with the request, which states that “owing to his age and cardiovascular disease, there is a risk of sudden death at any time or place”, so that being held in a prison facility exclusively for military personnel GE.15-13662 9/13