2.3 A number of detainees who were held, together with the author's father, and who were later ahowed to communicate with their families or were released, gave independent but similar accounts of the cruel torture to which Eduardo Bleier was subjected. They generahy agreed that he was singled out for especially cruel treat­ ment because he was a Jew. Thus, on one occasion, the other prisoners were forced to bury him, covering his whole body whh earth, and to walk over him. As a resuh of this treatment inflicted upon him, he was in a very bad state and towards December 1975 had to be in­ terned in the Military Hospital. 2.4 At the time of the submission of the com­ munication the author assumed that Eduardo Bleier was either detained incommunicado or had died as a result of torture. The author further states that since her father's arrest, owing to the uncertainty, there has been a complete disruption of family hfe. She also claims that the honour and reputation of her father were attacked in every possible way by the authorities, in particular by the pubhcation of the above-quoted "communiqué". 2.5 The author maintains that in practice legal remedies do not exist in Uruguay. She claims that habeas corpus or other similar remedies cannot be in­ voked against arrest under the "prompt security measures". In the case of her father, all of the guarantees of amparo that could be invoked in penal proceedings were irrelevant, because he never appeared before any court; nor was he ever formally informed of the reasons for his arrest. The author claims that her father was arrested because of his pohtical opinions. 2.6 She further states that the authorhies never answered the numerous letters addressed to them by various personalities, institutions or organizations, ask­ ing for information about her father's situation. She adds that such silence might well indicate that her father died as a resuh of torture. 2.7 The author claims that the following provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights have been violated by the Uruguayan authorities in respect of her father: articles 2; 3; 6; 7; 9 (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5); 10; 12 (2); 14; 15; 17; 18; 19; 25 and 26. has had the opportunity to talk in various parts of the world with persons formerly imprisoned in Uruguay and that many of them spoke of her father and the bar­ barous torture to which he had been subjected. 6. By a letter dated 25 February 1980, Rosa Valiño deBleier, the wife of the alleged victim, requested the Human Rights Committee to accept her as co-author of communication No. 30/1978 concerning her husband, Eduardo Bleier. She further confirmed all the basic facts as outhned in Irene Bleier Lewenhoff's com­ munication of 23 May 1978. In addition, she stated that she has received many unofficial statements, the latest in December 1978, indicating that her husband was still alive. She claims that some of the persons who were im­ prisoned with her husband and witnessed his tortures and who have explained to her the facts in detail, have now left Uruguay. She further stated that in 1976, she submitted an application for habeas corpus to the military court, as a result of which she received a report saying that her husband had been "wanted" since August of the same year. 7. On 24 March 1980, the Committee decided: (a) That the authors were justified in acting on behalf of the alleged victim by reason of close family connec­ tion; (b) That the communication was admissible in so far as it related to events which have allegedly continued or taken place after 23 March 1976 (the date of the entry into force of the Covenant and the Optional Protocol for Uruguay); (c) That, in accordance with article 4 (2) of the Op­ tional Protocol, the State party be requested to submit to the Committee, within six months of the date of the transmittal to it of this decision, written explanations or statements clarifying the matter and the remedy, if any, that may have been taken by it; (d) That the State party be informed that the written explanations or statements submitted by it under article 4 (2) of the Optional Protocol must relate primarily to the substance of the matter under consideration. The Committee stressed that, in order to perform its respon­ sibilities, it required specific responses to the allegation which had been made by the authors of the communica­ tion, and the State party's explanations of the actions taken by it; 3. By its decision of 26 July 1978, the Human Rights Committee transmitted the communication under rule 91 of the provisional rules of procedure to the State party concerned, requesting information and observa­ tions relevant to the question of admissibility of the communication. (/) That the authors be requested to submit any addi­ tional detailed information available to them of Eduar­ do Bleier's arrest and treatment during detention, in­ cluding statements from other prisoners who claim to have seen him in captivity in Uruguay. 4. By a note dated 29 December 1978 the State party informed the Human Rights Committee that a warrant had been out for the arrest of Eduardo Bleier since 26 August 1976, as he was suspected of being connected with the subversive activities of the banned Communist Party and had gone into hiding ("wanted person No. 1,189"). 8.1 In reply to the Committee's request for addi­ tional detailed information on Mr. Bleier's arrest and treatment, Rosa Vahño de Bleier, in two letters dated 20 June and 26 July 1980, provided detailed informa­ tion which she had obtained from other ex-prisoners who claimed to have seen her husband in captivity in Uruguay. She also included the text of testimonies on her husband's detention and ill-treatment. In one of the testimonies an eyewitness, Alcides Lanza Perdomo, a 5. In reply to the State party's submission of 29 December 1978, Irene Bleier Lewenhoff, by a letter dated 15 February 1979, stated that she had irrefutable proof of the arrest of her father and the treatment in­ flicted upon him during detention. She claims that she 110