Article 9 (1), because he was not released until approx­ imately six or seven months after an order for his release was issued by the military court; Article 9 (2), because he was not informed of the charges brought against him; Article 9 (3), because he was not brought before a judge until four months after he was detained and 44 days after the Covenant entered into force for Uruguay; Article 9 (4), because recourse to habeas corpus was not available to him; Article 14 (3), because the conditions of his detention ef­ fectively barred him from access to legal assistance. 14. The Committee, accordingly, is of the view that the State party is under an obligation to provide effec­ tive remedies, if applied for, including compensation for the violations which Mr. Buffo Carballal has suf­ fered, and to take steps to ensure that similar violations do not occur in the future. activities", whicii constitute a criminal offence under the relevant legislation. Such an explanation is par­ ticularly necessary in the present case, since the author of the communication contends that he has been pro­ secuted solely for his opinions. 13. The Human Rights Committee, acting under ar­ ticle 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Pohtical 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: Articles 7 and 10 (1), because of the conditions under which Mr. Buffo Carballal was held during his deten­ tion; Communication No. 34/1978 Submitted by: Jorge Landinelh Silva et al. on 30 May 1978 Alleged victims: The authors State party: Uruguay Date of adoption of views: 8 April 1981 (twelfth session) Derogation from Covenant—State Deprivation of political rights of emergency— any activity of a political nature, including the right to vote, for term of 15 years. 3.1 The authors contend that such a deprivation of their rights goes beyond the restrictions envisaged in ar­ ticle 25 of the Covenant, since suspension of pohtical rights under the Uruguayan juridical system, as in others, is only permissible as a sanction for certain categories of penal crimes. They further contend that the duration of the suspension of rights, as well as the number of categories of persons affected by this suspen­ sion, are without precedent in political history. In con­ clusion, the authors claim that the fundamental idea upon which the "Institutional Act No. 4 " is based, is incompatible with the principles set forth in article 25 of the Covenant. 3.2 The authors of the communication state that they have not submitted the same case to any other pro­ cedure of international investigation or settlement. Articles of Covenant: 4 and 25 Views under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol 1. The authors of this communication (initial letter dated 30 May 1978 and a further letter dated 26 February 1981) are Jorge Landinelli Silva, 34 years old, professor of history; Luis E. Echave Zas, 46 years old, farm labourer; Omar Patron Zeballos, 52 years old, assistant accountant; Niurka Sala Fernández, 49 years old, professor of physics; and Rafael Guarga Ferro, 39 years old, engineer, all Uruguayan citizens residing in Mexico. They submitted the communication on their own behalf. 2. The facts of the present communication are un­ disputed. The authors of the communication were all candidates for elective office on the lists of certain pohtical groups for the 1966 and 1971 elections, which groups were later declared illegal through a decree issued by the new Government of the country in November 1973. In this capacity. Institutional Act No. 4 of 1 September 1976 (art. 1 (a))' has deprived the authors of the communication of the right to engage in 4. Under rule 91 of the provisional rules of pro­ cedure of the Committee, the communication was transmitted to the State party on 28 September 1978 with the request that the State party submit, not later than 9 November 1978, information or observations which it might deem relevant to the question of the ad­ missibility of the communication, in particular as regards the fulfilment of the conditions set out in article 5 (2) (a) and 5 (2) (¿7) of the Optional Protocol. No reply was received from the State party in this connection. ' The text reads as follows: "[..] The Executive Power, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by the institutionalization of the revolutionary process, "(ff) All Candidates for elective office on the lists for the 1966 and •1971 elections of the Marxist and pro-Marxist Political Parties or Groups declared illegal by the resolutions of the Executive Power N o . 1788/67 of 12 December 1967 and N o . 1026/73 of 26 November 1973; [ . . . ] " "DECREES: "Art. 1. The following shall be prohibited, for a term of 15 years, from engaging in any of the activities of a political nature authorized by the Constitution of the Republic, including the vote: 65