Mr. Pinkney was detained at tiie Lower Mainland Regional Correction Centre the only law in force governing the control and censorship of prisoners' cor­ respondence appears to have been section 2.40 (b) of the Gaol Rules and Regulations, 1961. A legislative provi­ sion in the very general terms of this section did not, in the opinion of the Committee, in itself provide satisfac­ tory legal safeguards against arbitrary apphcation, though, as the Committee has already found, there is no evidence to establish that Mr. Pinkney was himself the victim of a violation of the Covenant as a result. The Committee also observes that section 42 of the Correc­ tional Centre Rules and Regulations that came into force on 6 July 1978 has now made the relevant law con­ siderably more specific in its terms. 35. The Human Rights Committee, acting under ar­ ticle 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is of the view that the communication discloses a violation of article 14 (3) (c) and (5) of the Covenant because the delay in producing the transcripts of the trial for the purpose of the appeal was incompatible with the right to be tried without undue delay. Communication No. 63/1979 Submitted by: Violeta Setelich on 28 November 1979 Alleged victim: Raúl Sendic Antonaccio State party: Uruguay Date of adoption of views: 28 October 1981 (fourteenth session) Submission to lACHR—Exhaustion of domestic rem­ edies—Access to counsel—Torture—Medical care in prison—Solitary confinement—Presence of accused at trial—Delay in proceedings—Fair trial— Witnesses for the defence—Right of prisoner to communicate directly with Committee—Competence of Commit­ tee—Obligation of State party under article 4 (2) of Optional Protocol 2.2 The author further stated that, between June and September 1973, eight women and nine men, in­ cluding her husband, were transferred by the army to unknown places of detention, and that they were in­ formed that they had become "hostages" and would be executed if their organization, MLN(T), took any ac­ tion. She added that, in 1976, the eight women "hostages" were taken back to a military prison, but that the nine men continued to be held as "hostages". The author enclosed a statement, dated February 1979, from Elena Curbelo de Mirza, one of the eight women "hostages" who were released in March 1978. (In her statement, Mrs. Mirza confirmed that Raúl Sendic and eight other men detainees continued to be considered as "hostages". She listed the names of her fellow hostages, both the men and the women. She stated that a hostage lived in a tiny cell with only a mattress. The place was damp and cold and had no window. The door was always closed and the detainee was kept there alone 24 hours a day. On rare occasions he was taken out to the yard, blindfolded and with his arms tied. She further stated that hostages were often transferred to fresh prisons, that relatives had then to find where they were and that visits were authorized only at very irregular in­ tervals.) Articles of Covenant: 7, 9 (3), 10 (1) and 14 (3) Articles of Optional Protocol: 4 (2) and 5 (2) (a) and (b) Views under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol 1. The author of this communication (initial letter dated 28 November 1979 and further letters dated 28 and 31 May, 23 June, 7 July and 3 October 1980, 9 February, 27 May and 22 July 1981) is Violeta Setelich, a Uruguayan national residing in France. She submitted the communication on behalf of her husband, Raúl Sen­ dic Antonaccio, a 54-year-old Uruguayan citizen, de­ tained in Uruguay. 2.1 The author stated in her submission on 28 November 1979 that her husband had been the main founder of the Movimiento de Liberación Nacional (MLN-Tupamaros). She commented that the MLN(T) had been a political movement—not a terrorist one—aimed at estabhshing a better social system through the radical transformation of socio-economic structures and recourse to armed struggle. She further stated that, on 7 August 1970, after seven years of clandestine activity, her husband was arrested by the Uruguayan police; that on 6 September 1971 he escaped from Punta Carretas prison together with 105 other political detainees; that he was re-arrested on 1 September 1972 and taken, seriously wounded, to a military hospital; and that, after having been kidnapped by a military group, he finally appeared in Military Detention Establishment No. 1 (Libertad prison). 2.3 The author described five places of detention where her husband was kept between 1973 and 1976, and stated that in all of them he was subjected to mistreatment (solitary confinement, lack of food and harassment), while in one of them, as a result of a severe beating by the guards, he developed a hernia. She men­ tions that, in September 1976, he was transferred to the barracks of Ingenieros in the city of Paso de los Toros. 2.4 The author declared that, beginning in February 1978, her husband was once again subjected to inhuman treatment and torture: for three months, he was made to do the "plantón" (stand upright with his eyes blind­ folded) throughout the day; he was only able to rest and 101