4 January 1976, prior to the entry into force of the Covenant for Uruguay, and made the general observa­ tion that every person in the national territory has free access to the courts and to public administrative authorities and may exercise freely all the administrative and judicial remedies provided for under the legal system of the country. made available to it by the parties as provided in article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol, hereby decides to base its views on the fohowing facts which have been essentially confirmed by the State party, are unrefuted or are un­ contested, except for denials of a general character of­ fering no particular information or explanation. Leopoldo Buffo Carballal was arrested on 4 January 1976 and held incommunicado for more than five months, much of the time tied and blindfolded, in several places of detention. Recourse to habeas corpus was not available to him. He was brought before a military judge on 5 May 1976 and again on 28 June or 28 July 1976, when an order was issued for his release. He was, however, kept in detention until 26 January 1977. 5. On 24 April 1979, the Human Rights Committee, (a) Having concluded that, although the date of ar­ rest was prior to the entry into force of the Covenant for Uruguay, the alleged violations continued after that date, (b) 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 victim should or could have pursued. 10. As to the allegations of torture, the Committee notes that they relate explicitly to events said to have oc­ curred prior to 23 March 1976 (the date on which the Covenant and the Optional Protocol entered into force for Uruguay). As regards the harsh conditions of Mr. Buffo Carballal's detention, which continued after that date, the State party has adduced no evidence that the allegations were duly investigated. A refutation in general terms to the effect that "in no Uruguayan place of detention may any situation be found which could be regarded as violating the integrity of persons" is not sufficient. The ahegations should have been investigated by the State party, in accordance with its laws and its obligations under the Covenant and the Optional Pro­ tocol. Therefore decided: (a) That the communication was admissible; (b) 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 and the remedy, if any, that may have been taken by it. 6. The time-limit for the State party's submission under article 4 (2) of the Optional Protocol expired on 25 November 1979. By notes dated 23 November 1979 and 13 February 1980, the State party requested the Committee to accord a reasonable extension of time. The only submission received to date from the State party consists of a brief note, dated 7 July 1980, in which the State party reaffirms that the legal system in force affords every guarantee of due process and adds the following explanations: 11. The Human Rights Committee has considered whether acts and treatment which prima facie are not in conformity with the Covenant could, for any reasons be justified under the Covenant in the circumstances. The Government has referred to provisions of Uruguayan law, including the "prompt security measures". The Covenant (art. 4) allows national measures derogating from some of its provisions only in strictly defined cir­ cumstances, and the Government has not made any sub­ mission of fact or law to justify derogation. Moreover, some of the facts referred to above raise issues under provisions from which the Covenant does not allow any derogation under any circumstances. The author's assertions about the conditions of his detention under the prompt security measures are completely unfounded, for in no Uruguayan place of detention may any situation be found which could be regarded as violating the integrity of persons. Leopoldo Buffo Car­ ballal was arrested on 4 January 1976 for his presumed connections with subversive activities and was interned under the prompt security measures; he was granted unconditional release on 28 June 1976. On 29 June 1976 the Fifth Military Court of Investigation closed the preliminary investigation proceedings for lack of evidence. After­ wards, Buffo Carballal took refuge in the Mexican Embassy before leaving for Mexico. The foregoing shows that justice in Uruguay is not arbitrary and that in the absence of any elements constituting proof of criminal acts, no one is deprived of his liberty. For all these reasons, the author's assertions, which are merely accusations devoid of all foundation, are hereby rejected. 12. The Human Rights Committee has duly taken note of the State party's submission that Leopoldo Buffo Carballal was arrested and detained for his presumed connection with subversive activities. Such general reference to "subversive activities" does not, however, suffice to show that the measures of penal prosecution taken against Leopoldo Buffo Carballal were compatible with the provisions of the Covenant. The Covenant provides in article 19 that everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference and that the freedom of expression set forth in paragraph 2 of that article shall be subject only to such restrictions as are necessary (a) for respect of the rights and reputa­ tions of others or ib) for the protection of national security or of public order {ordre public), or of public health, or morals. To date, the State party has never ex­ plained the scope and meaning of "subversive 7. The Human Rights Committee notes that it 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 detained under the "prompt security measures". 8. The Human Rights Committee has received no further correspondence from the author subsequent to his original communication of 30 May 1978. Letters ad­ dressed to him by the Secretariat have been returned by the Mexican postal authorities as unclaimed. 9. The Human Rights Committee, considering the present communication in the light of all information 64