other one. The author further submits that her step­ father remains imprisoned and that in his double quahty as former Deputy and as an accused tried for a political offence, he has been deprived of all his political rights by a Government decree. Therefore decided: (a) That the author of the communication was justified by reason of close family connection in acting on behalf of the other alleged victims; (Ô) That the communication was inadmissible in so far as it related to the alleged detention of the author of the communication; (c) That the communication was admissible in so far as it related to alleged violations of the Covenant in respect of the treatment of Luis Maria Bazzano Am­ brosini, Martha Valentini de Massera and José Luis Massera; (d) That the attention of the State party be drawn to the concern expressed by the author of the communica­ tion for the health of Luis Maria Bazzano Ambrosini and José Luis Massera and that the State party be re­ quested to arrange for them to be medically examined and given all necessary medication and treatment if this had not already been done; (e) That the text of this decision be transmitted to the State party, together with the text of the relevant documents, and to the author; CO 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 this decision, written explanations or statements clarifying the matter in so far as the com­ munications related to Luis Maria Bazzano Ambrosini, Martha Valentini de Massera and José Luis Massera, and the remedy, if any, that may have been taken by it. The author claims that her mother, Martha Valentini de Massera, was arrested on 28 January 1976 without any formal charges and that in September 1976 she was accused of "assistance to subversive association", an offence which carries a penalty of two to eight years' im.prisonment. She was not allowed to receive visits un­ til November 1976, but had again been taken to an unknown place at the time of the submission of the communication in February 1977. In a subsequent letter of 6 June 1979 the author states that her mother was tried by a military court and sentenced to three and a half years' imprisonment due to expire on 28 July 1979. Having been subjected to ill-treatment during her deten­ tion, her mother had furthermore suffered from the inadequate diet and the prevailing state of unhealthy working conditions, so that her health had been weakened. 3. On 26 August 1977, the Human Rights Commit­ tee 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 admissibihty. 4. By letter dated 27 October 1977 the State party objected to the admissibility of the communication on three grounds: (a) The same matter was already being examined by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights; (b) None of the alleged victims had exhausted all available domestic remedies; (c) In so far as the author of the communication was concerned, the alleged violations are said to have taken place prior to 23 March 1976, the date on which the In­ ternational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Optional Protocol entered into force for Uruguay, and that they have not continued or had effects which themselves constitute a violation after that date. 6. After expiry of the six-month time-limit, the State party submitted its explanations, dated 16 November 1978, which consisted of a "Review of the rights of the accused in cases before a military criminal tribunal, and domestic remedies available to him for protecting and safeguarding his rights in the national courts of justice". 7. On 18 April 1979, the Committee decided that the submission of the State party dated 16 November 1978 was not sufficient to comply with the requirements of article 4 (2) of the Optional Protocol, since it contained no explanations on the merits of the case under con­ sideration and requested the State party to supplement its submission by providing, not later than six weeks from the date of the transmittal of this decision to the State party, observations concerning the substance of the matter under consideration. 5. On 1 February 1978, the Human Rights Commit­ tee, (а) Having ascertained that cases concerning the alleged victims, which had been before the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights, had been withdrawn and were no longer under active considera­ tion by that body, (б) Being unable to conclude that, with regard to ex­ haustion of domestic remedies, on the basis of the infor­ mation before it, there were any further remedies which the alleged victims should or could have pursued, (c) Accepting the contention of the State party that in so far as the communication related to the alleged deten­ tion of the author, the Committee could not consider it since it concerned events which allegedly took place prior to the entry into force of the Covenant and the Optional Protocol in respect of Uruguay, 8. The six-week extension granted by the decision of 18 April 1979 expired on 2 July 1979, but no response had reached the Division of Human Rights at the United Nations Office at Geneva by then, nor even by the time of the taking of this decision by the Committee. 9. The Human Rights Committee, (a) Considering that this communication was registered over two years ago, (b) Considering that this communication was declared admissible more than one year ago and that the six-month time period required by article 4 (2) of the Optional Protocol expired in September 1978, 41