Article 14 (3) (a), because he was not promptly informed of the charges against him; Article 14 (3) (e), because he was denied the opportunity to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf. Article 14 (3) (b), because he was unable either to choose his own counsel or communicate with his appointed counsel and was, therefore, unable to prepare his defence; 21. The Committee, accordingly, is of the view that the State party is under an obligation to take immediate steps to ensure strict observance of the provisions of the Covenant and to provide effective measures to the vic­ tim, and in particular to extend to Raúl Sendic treat­ ment laid down for detained persons in articles 7 and 10 of the Covenant and to give him a fresh trial with all the procedural guarantees prescribed by article 14 of the Covenant. The State party must also ensure that Raúl Sendic receiyes promptly all necessary medical care. Article 14 (3) (c), because he was not tried without un­ due delay; Article 14 (3) (d), because he was unable to attend the trial at first instance; FIFTEENTH SESSION Communication No. 10/1977 Submitted by: Alice AUesor and Victor Hugo Altesor on March 1977 Alleged victim: Alberto Altesor (authors' father) State party: Uruguay Date of adoption of views: 29 March 1982 (fifteenth session) Submission to lACHR—Withdrawal of case from lACHR by authors—Resubmission by third party —Exhaustion of domestic remedies—Events prior to entry into force of Covenant and Optional Protocol—Interim measures—Detention incom­ municado—Habeas corpus—Ill-treatment—Pro­ cedural delay—Fair trial—Defence witnesses—Medi­ cal care in prison—Copies of court orders and decisions—Deprivation of political rights electric shocks, forced to remain standing for a total of more than 400 hours, and strung up for long periods, although shortly before his arrest he had undergone a heart operation which saved his hfe but at the same time made it necessary for him to observe very strict rules regarding work, diet and medication. On 14 December 1975 he was transferred to the Batallón de Artillería No. 5, where he remained handcuffed, hooded and in absolute sohtary confinement. He was later moved to the Libertad prison. He was detained under the "prompt security measures" and was not brought before a judge until over 16 months after his arrest, when he was ordered to be tried, ahegedly on no other charge than that of his public and well-known trade union and political mihtancy. He has been deprived of his political rights under Acta Institucional No. 4 of 1 September 1976. Articles of Covenant: 9 (3) and (4), 10 (1), 14 (1) and (3) and 25 Article of Optional Protocol: 5 (2) (a) and (b). Views under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol 1. The authors of the communication (inkial letter dated 10 March 1977 and further letters dated 1 August and 26 November 1977, 19 May 1978, 16 April 1979, 10 June 1980 and 28 January and 6 October 1981) are Uruguayan nationals, residing in Mexico. They sub­ mitted the communication on behalf of their father, Alberto Altesor González, a 68-year-old Uruguayan citizen, a former trade-union leader and member of the Uruguayan Chamber of Deputies, alleging that he is ar­ bitrarily detained in Uruguay. 1.3 The authors further contend that in practice in­ ternal recourses in Uruguay are totally ineffective and that the recourse of habeas corpus is denied by the authorities to persons detained under the "prompt security measures". 1.4 In a further submission, dated 1 August 1977, the authors ahege that in view of their father's very poor state of health, interim measures should be taken, in ac­ cordance with rule 86 of the rules of procedure of the Committee, in order to avoid irreparable damage to their father's health and hfe. The authors claim that the following provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights have been violated: articles 7 (1), 9 (3) and (4), 10 (2) (a) and (3), and 25 (a), (b) and (c). 1.2 The authors of the communication state that their father was arrested in Montevideo on 21 October 1975 without any formal charges brought against him. Although the fact of his arrest and the place of his im­ prisonment were not made public, the writers claim that from information provided by eye-witnesses arrested at the same time and subsequently released, it can be af­ firmed that their father was first detained in a private house and afterwards at the BataUón de Infantería No. 3. There he was allegedly subjected to beatings and 2. By its decision of 26 August 1977, the Human Rights Committee transmitted the communication under rule 91 of the provisional rules to the State party 105