9.4 In addition, the author claimed that Justo Germán Bermúdez and Martha Isabel Valderrama had been deprived of the procedural rights mentioned in paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 5 of article 14 of the Covenant for the same reasons as those mentioned above in paragraph 9.2 concerning Mr. Fais Borda and his wife. 9.5 At this stage in the proceedings the author raised the claim that Justo Germán Bermúdez and Martha Isabel Valderrama are also victims of violations of ar­ ticle 15 of the Covenant. He argues as fohows: Article 15 of the Covenant lays down the following; "Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time when the criminal offence was committed." However, Germán Bermúdez Gross and Martha Isabel Valderrama received a heavier penalty under article 2 of Legislative Decree N o . 1923 of 6 September 1978, which increased the penalty of ordinary imprisonment for the offence of rebellion to between 8 and 14 years, whereas in the Colom­ bian Penal Code (Decree N o . 2300 of 14 September 1936), in force at the time of the military judgement, the penalty was only six months to four years (art. 139). In addition, article 125 of the new Colombian Penal Code, pro­ mulgated o n 25 January 1980 and in force since 25 January 1981 (Decree-Law N o . 100 of 1980) provides that "persons who use arms in attempting to overthrow the national government or to abolish or modify the existing constitutional or legal régime shall be liable to or­ dinary imprisonment for three to six years". However, neither the Colombian Government nor the Brigade of Military Institutions ap­ plied the principle of benefit of penal law, laid down not only in the Colombian Constitution, but also in article 15 (1) of the Covenant: "If, subsequent to the commission of the offence, provision is made by law for the imposition of a lighter penalty, the offender shall benefit thereby". 10. In its submission under article 4 (2) of the Op­ tional Protocol, dated 24 March 1982, the State party reiterated that: The charges made by Mrs. Maria Cristina Salazar de Fais Borda, Orlando Fais Borda, Justo Germán Bermiidez and Martha Isabel Valderrama Becerra through their attorney, Dr. Pedro Pablo Camargo, that they were arbitrarily detained lack all legal basis since it is within the power of the Government to carry out investigations through the judiciary in respect of persons who are presumed to have committed an offence and, to ensure that they appear in court, they may be placed under preventive detention. However, if citizens con­ sider that there has been a departure from the law, they may, in ac­ cordance with articles 272-275 of the Penal Code, make a complaint on the grounds of arbitrary-detention. It should be pointed out with respect to civil responsibility arising from a punishable act that there is a prescriptive period of 20 years if an action is brought independently of eriminal proceedings and a prescriptive period equal to that for the relevant criminal proceedings if an action is brought as part of such proceedings in accordance with article 108 of the Criminal Code. Where the sentence may be one of deprivation of liberty, the prescriptive period for criminal proceedings is equal to the maximum sentence provided for by law, but in no case may it be less than five years or more than 20 years. In the case with which we are concerned (arbitrary detention), the period will be five years, that being the maximum sentence which may be imposed. Concerning Justo Germán Bermiidez and Martha Isabel Valder­ rama, the law authorizes them, providing the period of prescription is still running, to submit an appeal for review or to vacate if they believe that the judgement of the Higher Military Court was not in ac­ cordance with the legal principles in force in our country. There is no period established by law within which an action for review must be submitted, although, according to the interpretation of articles 584-585 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, doctrine holds that this should be done while the person is serving the sentence. The parties would have a period of 15 days from the date of notification of the sentence of the Higher Military Court to submit an appeal to vacate. After this period, the right to seek to vacate a judge­ ment by the Supreme Court of Justice, which is the highest body for the verification of trials, is lost, as stipulated in article 573 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which also states that such appeals must be made on the specific grounds set forth in article 580 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 11. In his additional information and observations dated 19 June 1982, the author reherated that Mr. and Mrs. Fais Borda could not start civil or administrative proceedings or try to obtain compensation for reasons already mentioned (see para. 6.1 above) and because there has not been a judgement declaring that they had been arbitrarily arrested. He further argued that Justo Germán Bermúdez and Martha Isabel Valderrama can­ not submit an appeal to vacate a judgement because of lapse of time or for review because there are no grounds to request such review. 12.1 The Human Rights Committee had considered the present communication in the light of all informa­ tion made available to it by the parties, as provided in article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. The Committee bases its views on the following facts, which are not in dispute or which are unrefuted by the State party. 12.2 The Supreme Court of Justice of Colombia in a judgement of 30 October 1978 held Decree No. 1923 of 6 September 1978 to be constitutional. In this Decree h is recalled that "by Decree No. 2131 of 1976, pubhc order was declared to be disturbed and the entire na­ tional terrhory in a state of siege". Article 9 of Decree No. 1923 reads as foUows: "The mihtary criminal courts, in addition to exercising the competence given them by the laws and regulations in force, shall try by court martial proceedings the offences [in particular of rebelhon] referred to in articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, as weU as those committed against the hfe and person of members of the Armed Forces, etc." In this Decree No. 1923 judicial powers are also granted to army, navy and air force commanders (art. 11) and pohce chiefs (art. 12). 12.3 On 21 January 1979, Mr. Fais Borda and his wife, Maria Cristina Salazar de Fais Borda, were ar­ rested by troops of the Brigada de Institutos Militares under Decree No. 1923. Mr. Fais was detained incom­ municado at the Cuartel de Infantería de Usaquin, from 21 January to 10 February 1979 when he was released whhout charges. Mrs. Fais continued to be detained for over one year. Mr. and Mrs. Fais Borda were released as a result of court decisions that there was no justifica­ tion for their continued detention. They had not, however, had a possibility themselves to take pro­ ceedings before a court in order that that court might decide without delay on the lawfulness of their deten­ tion. 12.4 On 3 April 1979, the President of the Summary Court Martial (First Battalion of Military Police, Brigade of Military Institutions) found Justo Germán Bermúdez Gross guihy of the offence of rebelhon (art. 7 of the judgement) and sentenced him to a principal penalty of six years and eight months' rigorous im­ prisonment and interdiction of pubhc rights and func­ tions, as well as the accessory penalty of loss of patria potestas for the same period. In the same judgement it 143