Machado Mega; that, having served her sentence, she regained her fuh freedom and left for the Netherlands on 11 December 1977. With respect to Graciela Baritussio, the State party stated that she also received qualified legal assistance, the defending counsel of her choice being Mario Dell'Acqua, that on 15 August 1974 she was granted provisional release and left for Sweden on 10 July 1979. The State party further contended that there was no justification for the continued considera­ tion of the case. The alleged victims were not under the jurisdiction of the State accused. To consider the com­ munication further would therefore be incompatible with the purpose for which the Covenant and its Pro­ tocol were established, namely, to ensure the effective protection of human rights and to bring to an end any situation in which these rights were violated. The State party concluded that in this case no de facto situation existed to warrant findings by the Committee, and that consequently, by intervening, the Committee would not only be exceeding its competence but would also be departing from normally established legal procedures. By a note dated 23 July 1982, the State party reiterated its arguments with respect to Graciela Baritussio and stated that according to article 1 of the Optional Pro­ tocol, the Committee had competence to receive and consider communications from individuals only if these individuals were subject to the jurisdiction of the State party which allegedly committed the violation of human rights. Graciela Baritussio, however, had left Uruguay for Sweden and therefore did not fulfil this require­ ment. judge. On 12 September she was again brought before a military judge and tried for "assistance to illegal association" and "contempt for the armed forces". Un­ til 1 August 1977 she served her sentence at the women's prison "Ex Escuela Naval Dr. Carlos Nery". During the rainy period the water was 5 to 10 cm deep on the floors of the cells. In three of the cells, each measuring 4 m by 5 m, 35 prisoners were kept. The prison had no open courtyard and the prisoners were kept indoors under ar­ tificial light ah day. On 1 August 1977 Carmen Amén­ dola Massiotti 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 insufficient. She was subjected to hard labour and the food was very poor. The prisoners were constantly subjected to interroga­ tions, harassment and severe punishment. Despite hav­ ing served her sentence on 9 November 1977, she was kept in detention until 11 or 12 December 1977 when the choice was offered to her of either remaining in deten­ tion or leaving the country. She opted for the latter and obtained political asylum in the Netherlands. With respect to Graciela Baritussio 12. Graciela Baritussio was arrested in Uruguay on 3 September 1972, tried by a military judge on 5 February 1973 for "comphcity in a subversive associa­ tion" and brought in Aprh 1973 to the Punta de Rieles prison where she served her two-year prison sentence. On 15 August 1974 she was brought to the same mihtary court as before in order to sign the documents for her provisional release. The decision granting her provi­ sional release became enforceable and final in 1975. Graciela Baritussio, however, remained in detention. On 6 October 1977 she was transferred to another military establishment in the interior of the country which was being used as a prison for women detained under the security measures. On 8 August 1978 the governor of the establishment informed her that she was going to be released. Her release took place on 12 August 1978. Once the document for Graciela Baritussio's provisional release had been signed and after the decision became final and enforceable in 1975, her defence lawyer had made numerous representations to the müitary judges responsible for her case. He was informed that, if the prison authorities did not comply with the court's release order, the judges could do no more. 7.2 With respect to the State party's submission under article 4 (2) of the Optional Protocol that con­ sideration of the communication should be discon­ tinued, the Committee notes that the victims were under the jurisdiction of Uruguay while the alleged violations took place. The Committee therefore rejects the conten­ tion of the State party that further consideration of the case would be beyond its competence or contrary to the purposes of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Optional Protocol thereto. 8. No further submission was received from the author of the initial communication. Carmen Améndola Massiotti, after her second communication dated 5 May 1978. 9. The Human Rights Committee has considered the present communication in the light of ah informa­ tion made available to it by the parties, as provided in article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 13. 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 facts as found by the Committee, in so far as they continued or occurred after 23 March 1976 (the 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 particular of: 10. The Committee decides to base its views on the following facts which are not in dispute or which are unrepudiated or uncontested by the State party except for denials of a general character offering no particular information or explanation: With respect to Carmen Améndola Massiotti 11. Carmen Améndola Massiotti was arrested in Montevideo on 8 March 1975, kept incommunicado un­ til 12 September that year and subjected to severe tor­ ture. On 17 Aprh 1975 she was brought before a military In the case of Carmen Améndola Massiotti Articles 7 and 10 (1), because the condhions of her im­ prisonment amounted to inhuman treatment; 138