the court of first instance and, considering that this in­ formation had not been refuted by the State party, understood that domestic remedies had now been ex­ hausted and that consequently the communication might be declared admissible in their case. By means of the emergency procedure laid down in the "Statute of Security", the military authorities prevented and denied the exercise of this right, thus permitting the arbitrary detention of Mr. and Mrs. Fais Borda. 2. 8. On 27 July 1981, the Human Rights Committee therefore decided: (а) That the communication was admissible; (б) That the author of the communication be re­ quested to submit to the Committee not later than 10 October 1981 a statement, in respect of each relevant provision of the Covenant, of the grounds for claiming that the Covenant has been violated {a) in regard to Mr. and Mrs. Fais Borda and ф) in regard to Mr. Justo Germán Bermudez and Miss Martha Isabel Valderrama; (c) That a copy of any submission received from the author pursuant to paragraph 2 of this decision be transmitted to the State party as soon as possible to enable it to take it into account in the preparation of its submission under article 4 (2) of the Optional Protocol; {d) 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 any submission received from the author of the communication pursuant to operative paragraph 2 above, written explanations and statements clarifying the matter and the remedy, if any, that may have been taken by it. The State party was requested, in this connection, to enclose copies of any court orders or decisions of relevance to the matter under considera­ tion. Covenant Accordingly, the only competent, independent and impartial tribunals are the courts of common jurisdiction or judiciary set up under title X V , "the Administration of Justice", of the Colombian Constitution and in accordance with title II, "Jurisdiction and C o m ­ petence", of the Code of Penal Procedure (Decree N o . 409 of 1971). This is on the basis not only of the constitutional principle of separa­ tion of powers, but also of article 58 of the Colombian Constitution: "Justice is administered by the Supreme Court, by superior district courts and by such other courts and tribunals as may be established by law." The Colombian Constitution does not allow military or emergency penal justice for citizens or civilians. Article 170 of the Colombian Constitution provides for courts martial but only for "offences com­ mitted by military personnel on active service and in relation to that service". Military courts or courts martial nevertheless operate in Colombia in breach of the country's constitution and laws and of the Interna­ tional Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, in particular to try pohtical opponents, under Decree N o . 1923 of 1978 (the "Statute of Security"); this is in violation of article 14 of the United Nations In­ ternational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Secondly, the military or emergency courts provided for in articles 9, II and 12 of Decree N o . 1923, the "Statute of Security", in addi­ tion to not being competent, independent and impartial (article 14 (I) of the Covenant), were not set up under a proper law passed by Con­ gress validly amending or repealing the Code of Penal Procedure (Decree N o . 409 of 1971). The "Statute of Security" is a state-of-siege decree which violates the safeguard of legality provided in the Cove­ nant, particularly since it is indefinite, as may be seen in article 1 of the Statute, which provides for sentences of 30 years which do not ex­ ist in the Penal Code. 9.2 He claimed that the detention of Mr. and Mrs. Fais Borda was arbitrary and violated articles 9 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights for the fohowing reasons: 9 of the 14 of the In the first place, the military courts which judge civilians, as pro­ vided for in article 9 of the "Statute of Security", as well as the judicial powers granted to army, navy and air force commanders (ar­ ticle 11) and police chiefs (article 12), nullify the right to a competent, independent and impartial tribunal. Articles 9, 11 and 12 of Decree N o . 1923 ignore not only the universally recognized principle nemo judex in sua causa but also the right to a natural or judicial tribunal, provided for in article 26 of the Colombian Constitution: " N o one may be tried except in conformity with the laws in force prior to the commission of the act with which he is charged, by a court having competent jurisdiction, and in accordance with all formalities proper to each case." 9.1 In accordance with operative paragraph 2 of the decision adopted by the Human Rights Committee on 27 July 1981, the author submitted further information dated 30 September 1981. 1. Article Article The subjection of Mr. and Mrs. Fais Borda to military or emer­ gency penal procedure, in implementation of the "Statute of Security" violated their rights under article 14 (1) of the Covenant. Covenant Mr. and Mrs. Fais Borda were definitely subject to violation of their right to liberty and security of person, since they were detained ar­ bitrarily. They were not detained for any of the reasons laid down in criminal law (the Penal Code), nor in accordance with the appropriate legal procedure, provided for in the Code of Penal Procedure (articles 426 to 471),but under a substantive and adjectival rule of emergency law, namely. Legislative Decree N o . 1923 of 1978 (the "Statute of Security"), which violates the Colombian Constitution and the Inter­ national Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In addition, Mr. and Mrs. Fais Borda were obviously deprived of the rights mentioned in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of article 14 of the Covenant. 9.3 Concerning Justo Germán Bermudez and Mar­ tha Isabel Valderrama, the author claimed that they were victims of arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, Secondly, the right of Mr. and Mrs. Fais Borda to be tried "within a reasonable time" or be released, as provided for in article 9 (3) of the Covenant, was violated. because they were deprived of their liberty on grounds not established by criminal law (the Penal Code) but under an emergency provision such as the "Statute of Security", in violation of the Colombian Con­ stitution and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Likewise, they suffered arbitrary imprisonment because they were subject to a penal procedure that was not that of ordinary penal justice as laid down in the Code of Penal Procedure, but a military, governmental, emergency ad hoc procedure. In its submission dated 30 September 1980, the Colombian Govern­ ment recognized that, besides arbitrary detention, the requirement of reasonable time had not been observed, since it stated: "The orders under which Mr. and Mrs. Fais Borda were released were an outcome of the decision that there was no justification for their continued detention." It has been shown that Mrs. Fais Borda had been detained for over a year. Furthermore, the military sentence pronounced against Germán Bermudez Gross and Martha Isabel Valderrama deprived them of the rights provided for in paragraphs 2 and 3 of article 9 of the Covenant, as well as the habeas corpi/j* safeguard contained in article 417 of the Code of Penal Procedure and article 9 (4) of the International Cov­ enant on Civil and Political Rights. Thirdly, Mr. and Mrs. Fais Borda were victims of the violation of the habeas corpus safeguard, recognized both in article 417 of the Code of Penal Procedure and in article 9 (4) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 142