to date from the State party consists of a brief note, dated 10 July 1980, in which the State party requests the Committee to review its decision of 25 July 1978, by which the communication was declared admissible, arguing that although the reference to Millán Sequeira in case No. 2109 before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights is only very brief, the mere fact that the issue was brought before the Inter-American Com­ mission on Human Rights precluded the Human Rights Committee from considering the matter, in accordance with article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol. The Com­ mittee can see no justification for reviewing its decision on admissibility on this basis, for the reasons already set out in paragraph 9 (o) above. assistance and was not afforded an opportunity to challenge his arrest and detention. 13. The Human Rights Committee has been in­ formed by the Government of Uruguay in another case (No. 9/1977), that the remedy of habeas corpus is not apphcable to persons arrested under the "prompt security measures". 14. The Human Rights Committee has considered whether acts, which are prima facie not in conformity with the Covenant, could for any reasons be justified under the Covenant in the circumstances. The Covenant (art. 4) does not allow national measures derogating from any of its provisions except in strictly defined cir­ cumstances, and the Government has not made any sub­ missions of fact or law to justify such derogation. 12. The Human Rights Committee, (a) Considering that this communication was re­ ceived over three years ago, Ф) Considering that this communication was declared admissible two years ago and that the sixmonth time-period established by article 4 (2) of the Optional Protocol expired on 28 March 1979, (c) Considering that the State party has not comphed with the requirements of article 4 (2) of the Optional Protocol, (d) Considering that there has been no response on the merits of the case from the State party even after further extensions of time, (e) Considering that the Committee has the obliga­ tion, under article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol, to consider this communication in the light of all written information made available to it by the author and the State party. Hereby decides to base its views on the following facts, which have not been contradicted by the State party: Miguel Angel Millán Sequeira, 20 years old at the time of the submission of the communication in 1977, was arrested in April and released in May 1975. He was rearrested on 18 September 1975 and detained until he escaped from custody on 4 June 1976. On both oc­ casions he was told that the reason for his arrest was that he was suspected of being "a militant communist". Although brought before a military judge on three oc­ casions, no steps were taken to commit him for trial or to order his release. He did not have access to legal 15. As to the allegations of iU-treatment and tor­ ture, the Committee notes that they relate to events said to have occurred prior to 23 March 1976 (the entry into force of the Covenant and the Optional Protocol for Uruguay). 16. 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 these facts, in so far as they have occurred on or after 23 March 1976 (the date on which the Covenant entered into force in respect of Uruguay) or continued or had effects which themselves constitute a violation after that date, disclose violations of the Covenant, in particular of: Article 9 (3), because Mr. Millán Sequeira was not brought to trial within a reasonable time; Article 9 (4), because recourse to habeas corpus was not available to him; Article 14 (1) and (3), because he had no access to legal assistance, was not brought to trial without undue delay, and was not afforded other guarantees of due process of law. 17. The Committee, accordingly, is of the view that the State party is under an obligation to provide effec­ tive remedies to Millán Sequeira, including compensa­ tion, for the violations which he has suffered and to take steps to ensure that similar violations do not occur in the future. Communication No. 11/1977 Submitted by: Alberto Grille Motta on 25 April 1977 Alleged victims: The author and other persons State party: Uruguay Date of adoption of views: 29 July 1980 (tenth session) pus—Torture—Freedom of expression—State party's duty to investigate—Burden of proof—Derogation from Covenant Standing of author to act on behalf of alleged vic­ tims—Submission to lACHR—Same matter—Ex­ haustion of domestic remedies—Review of decision on admissibility—Sufficiency of State party's reply under article 4 (2) of Optional Protocol—Detention incommunicado—Access to counsel—Habeas cor­ Articles of Covenant: 7, 9 (3) and (4), 10 (1) and 19 (2) and (3) 54