date on which the Covenant and the Optional Protocol entered into force for Uruguay) disclose the fohowing violations of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in respect of: Articles 7 and 10 (1), because of the ül-treatment to which Mario Alberto Teti Izquierdo has been sub­ jected; Articles 9 (3) and 14 (3) (c), because his right to trial within a reasonable time has not been respected; Article 14 (3) (b) and (c), because he was unable to have the assistance of counsel of his own choice and because the conditions of his detention, from September 1980 to May 1981, effectively barred him from access to any legal assistance; Article 14 (3) (g), because he was forced to sign a state­ ment in connection with charges made against him. 10. 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 remedies to the vic­ tim and, in particular, in view of the fact that Mario Alberto Teti Izquierdo is facing new charges, to give him ah the procedural guarantees prescribed by article 14 of the Covenant. The State party should also ensure that Mario Alberto Teti Izquierdo receives promptly all necessary medical care. SIXTEENTH SESSION Communication No. 25/1978 Submitted by: Carmen Améndola Massiotti on 25 January 1978, later joined by Graciela Baritussio Alleged victims: The authors State party: Uruguay Date of adoption of views: 26 July 1982 (sixteenth session) yard and the prisoners were kept indoors under ar­ tificial hght ah day. 1.3 On 1 August the author was transferred to Punta de Rieles prison. There she was kept in a hut measuring 5 m by 10 m. The place was overcrowded with 100 prisoners and the sanitary conditions were in­ sufficient (one wash-basin and four toilets). The prisoners were constantly subjected to interrogations, harassment and severe punishment. The officers in charge of S2—mhkary intelligence inside the prison—Major Victorino Vázquez and Lieutenant Echeverría, themselves carried out the interrogations and also supervised torture. She also mentions that the prisoners were compelled to do hard labour which in­ volved making roads inside the prison, putting up new prison buildings, mixing concrete, carrying heavy building materials, as well as gardening, cleaning and cooking for the detainees and the guards, i.e. a total of 800 persons, the last task being assigned to 10 women prisoners. The author points out that work was com­ pulsory even for women who were ill or had physical in­ firmities. She adds that food was very poor (giving details). Standing of author—Jurisdiction of State party— Admissibility ratione temporis—Prison condi­ tions—Detention after serving sentence—Lack of effective remedy Articles of Covenant: 2 (3), 7, 9 (1) and (4) and 10 (1) Views under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol 1.1 The initial author of the communication. Carmen Améndola Massiotti (inkial letter dated 25 January 1978) is a 32-year-old Uruguayan national residing in the Netherlands. 1.2 The author alleges that she herself was arrested in Montevideo on 8 March 1975, that she was kept in­ communicado until 12 September of that year and sub­ jected to severe torture (giving detailed description) in order to make her confess membership in political organizations which had been declared illegal by the military régime. She states that on 17 April 1975 she was brought before a military judge and that her family was only informed the fohowing day about her detention which had been denied by the müitary authorities. On 12 September she was again brought before a military judge and tried for "assistance to ihegal association" and "contempt for the armed forces". Until 1 August 1977 she served her sentence at the women's prison "Ex Escuela Naval Dr. Carlos Nery" which she describes as an old building where pieces of concrete kept falling off the ceiling and on the prisoners. During the rainy period the water was 5 to 10 cm deep on the floor of the cells. In three of the cehs, each measuring 4 m by 5 m, 35 prisoners were kept. The prison had no open court­ 1.4 The author further claims that, despite having served her sentence on 9 November 1977, she was kept in detention until 12 December 1977, when the choice was offered to her of either remaining in detention or of leaving the country. She opted for the latter and ob­ tained pohtical asylum in the Netherlands. 1.5 She alleges in this connection that in the Paso de los Toros prison there were 17 women whose release had been signed by the mihtary courts, but who continued to 136