a means of protecting and safeguarding his rights under the Uruguayan judicial system". On 3 June 1976, Mr. Grille Motta and three other de­ tainees escaped from their place of detention, thus thwarting the course of justice. The allegations that the author of the communication was subjected to iU-treatment and torture were nothing but a figment of the imagination of the author; they were nothing more than a further example of the cam­ paign of defamation being waged against Uruguay with the object of discrediting its image abroad. 7. In a letter dated 12 December 1978 and submitted under rule 93 (3) of the provisional rules of procedure the author reaffirmed his previous assertions that he has exhausted all domestic remedies available to him in practice. He pointed out that the remedy of habeas cor­ pus was not applicable in his case and that his appeal against the only ruling by the military court which could be appealed against in his case was dismissed by the Supreme Court of Justice after his escape. He submitted that the Committee should declare that a serious viola­ tion has occurred of articles 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 17, 18 and 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 11. The Committee has considered the present com­ munication in the light of all information made available to it by the parties, as provided in article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 12. With regard to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Committee has been informed by the Government of Uruguay in another case (No. 9/1977) that the remedy of habeas corpus is not applicable to persons arrested under "prompt security measures". Mr. Grille Motta states that he did in fact appeal to the Supreme Court of Uruguay against a ruling of the military court and that his appeal was dismissed. There is no evidence from which the Committee can conclude that there was any other domestic remedy available to him which he should have exhausted. 8. On 18 April 1979, the Committee decided that the submission of the State party, dated 6 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, including copies of any court orders or decisions of relevance to the matter under consideration. 13. The Committee therefore decides to base its views on the following facts which have either been essentially confirmed by the State party or are un­ contested except for denials of a general character offer­ ing no particular information or explanation: Alberto Grille Motta was arrested on 7 February 1976. About one month later, he was brought before a military judge without having any opportunity to consult a lawyer beforehand and after having been held completely in­ communicado with the outside world. On 17 May 1976 he was ordered to be tried on charges of subversive association and an attempt to undermine the morale of the armed forces under articles 60 (V) and 58 (3) respect­ ively of the Mihtary Penal Code. The remedy of habeas corpus was not available to him. He was arrested, charged and committed for trial on the grounds of his pohtical views, associations and activities. 9. The Committee's decision of 18 April 1979 was transmitted to the State party on 18 May 1979. The six weeks referred to therein therefore expired on 2 July 1979. More than three months after that date a further submission dated 5 October 1979 was received from the State party. 10. In its further submission of 5 October 1979 the State party, while repeating the views expressed in its submission of 6 November 1978, namely that the ques­ tion of admissibility should be reviewed by the Commit­ tee in the light of the explanations given by the State party on domestic procedures available to the accused and reaffirming its conviction that its reply of 6 November 1978 should have been sufficient to settle the matter once and for all, added the following ex­ planations: Mr. Alberto Grille Motta, who had already been de­ tained in 1967 for causing a disturbance on the premises of the Central Office of the Department of Montevideo, was again arrested on 7 February 1976 under "prompt security measures" for his alleged subversive activities from within the clandestine organization of the pro­ scribed Communist Party. He was placed at the disposal of the military courts which, by decision of 17 May 1976, ordered him to be tried on charges of subversive association and attempt to undermine the morale of the armed forces, under ar­ ticles 60 (V) and 58 (3) respectively of the Military Penal Code. At that time, contrary to what is stated in Mr. GriUe Motta's communication, he appointed Dr. Susana Andreassen as his defence counsel. 14. As regards the serious allegations of illtreatment and torture claimed by Mr. Grille Motta to have continued for about 50 days after his arrest on 7 February 1976, the Committee notes that it follows from this account that such treatment continued after 23 March 1976 (the date of the entry into force of the Covenant and the Optional Protocol for Uruguay). Fur­ thermore, in his communication of 25 April 1977, which was transmitted by the Committee to the Uruguayan Government, Mr. Grille Motta named some of the of­ ficers of the Uruguayan Police who he stated were responsible. The State party has adduced no evidence that these allegations have been duly investigated in ac­ cordance with the laws to which it drew attention in its submission of 9 October 1979 in case No. 9/1977. A refutation of these allegations in general terms is not sufficient. The State party should have investigated the allegations in accordance with its laws and its obliga56