because they have ahegedly been deprived of the pro­ cedural guarantees laid down in the Colombian Con­ stitution and in the Covenant. He states that ah domestic remedies have been exhausted whh the deci­ sion of the Supreme Court of Justice upholding the con­ stitutionality of the Decree and that the cases of the alleged victims have not been submitted to any other procedure of international investigation or settlement. 2. On 9 August 1979, the Human Rights Committee decided to transmit the communication to the State party, under rule 91 of the provisional rules of pro­ cedure, requesting information and observations rele­ vant to the question of admissibility. 3.1 By letters dated 30 April and 30 September 1980 the State party refuted the allegations made by the author. 3.2 The State party, in particular, rejected the allegation made by the author of the communication that the enactment of Legislative Decree No. 1923 of 6 September 1978 and consequently the arrest and detention of the four persons represented by the author were contrary to the Colombian Constitution and in violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The State party pointed out that the Decree was issued by the President of the Republic of Colombia in the exercise of the constitutional powers vested in him by article 121 of the Colombian Constitu­ tion after the declaration of a "state of siege" due to the disturbance of public order and that the Supreme Court of Justice in a judgement of 30 October 1978 had held the Decree to be constitutional. In this connection the State party recahed that Colombia is experiencing a situation of disturbed public order within the meaning of article 4, paragraph 1, of the Covenant. to establish an alleged violation of the Covenant on that basis. 3.4 With regard to the specific case of Mr. and Mrs. Fais Borda, the State party confirmed their release, which was ordered when it was found during an in­ vestigation that their continued detention was not justified. The State party added that there is no ground for deducing directly from the fact that these orders were issued that arbitrary detention took place in either or both of these cases. It was further stated by the State party that, should Mr. and Mrs. Fais Borda consider that their detention was arbitrary (in the sense that the requisite legal formalities and rules had not been com­ plied with), they may file a complaint with the compe­ tent authorities and institute the appropriate pro­ ceedings for the recovery of damages. To challenge their detention on the ground that the requisite legal for­ malities and rules had not been complied with, a criminal investigation could be initiated by the alleged victims, through the judicial police, the AttorneyGeneral or the Judge Advocate General of the Armed Forces. To obtain compensation for damages and in­ juries resulting from an aheged arbitrary detention civil proceedings may then be instituted; if the violation of rights is the result of action by a public official the com­ plainants may also appeal to the administrative courts. As none of the aforementioned procedures have been resorted to by Mr. and Mrs. Fais Borda the State party concluded that domestic remedies had not been ex­ hausted in their case. 3.5 With regard to the case of Mr. Justo Germán Bermudez and Miss Martha Isabel Valderrama, the State party claimed that the accused have benefited from all procedural guarantees accorded by the law and that the ahegedly improper length of their prison terms, based on charges of rebelhon, was justified by the provi­ sions of Decree No. 1923, appjicable under the present "state of siege" in Colombia. The State party stated that the appeal was still being heard in the Higher Military Tribunal and explained that "the time that has elapsed in this connection ... is due both to the nature of the case and to the large number of appeals and in­ quiries whh which the Higher Military Tribunal has to deal". The State party concluded that domestic remedies had not been exhausted in this case either. 3.3 The State party also rejected the allegations made by the complainant that articles 9, 11 and 12 of Decree No. 1923 contravene article 14, paragraph 1, of the Covenant. It quoted the ruhng of the Supreme Court of Justice, in particular the following: ... Decree N o . 1923 has done nothing other than apply the exception provided for in article 61 [of the Constitution] which authorizes in ex­ ceptional times the cumulative performance, and hence provisional transfer, of powers, and specifically jurisdictional powers, by and to bodies other than those normally exercising them, and which legitimates the introduction of military penal justice, and empowers the military and pohce authorities specified in the Decree, to deal with and to order penaUies for certain offences. 4. On 29 July 1980 the Human Rights Committee decided to request the State party to furnish detailed in­ formation as to: (a) How, if at all, the state of siege proclaimed in Colombia affects the present case; Ф) Which are the competent authorities, before which Mr. and Mrs. Fais Borda may file a complaint and institute proceedings for the recovery of damages in the particular circumstances of their case, as well as the nature of such proceedings, based on the law in force; (c) The status of the appeal of Germán Bermudez Gross and Martha Isabel Valderrama before the Higher Military Tribunal, and, if not yet concluded, the reasons for the apparent delay and the anticipated time for the completion of those proceedings. The Decree does' not establish ad hoc bodies nor does it change the origin or composition of existing bodies. It simply empowers certain authorities to perform simultaneously their own ordinary functions and those vested in them provisionally by virtue of the enabling provi­ sions of article 61 of the Constitution. ... The State party added that the ruling of the Supreme Court was quoted precisely in order to show that military tribunals are not ad hoc bodies but an integral part of the branch of the public power responsible for the administration of Justice in conformity with the National Constitution and cannot be dismissed as unqualified, as was done by the complainant. Dr. Camargo, who sought to deny their legality in order 140