that he had held the post of General-Secretary of the National Union of Metal and Allied Workers and that he had been Vice-President of the Trade Unions Inter­ national of Workers in the Metal Industry. ordering the suspension of all political rights of "all candidates for election office, appearing in the 1966 and 1971 election hsts of Marxist or pro-Marxist parties or pohtical groups declared illegal by Executive Power resolutions No. 1788/67 of 12 December 1967 and No. 1026/73 of 26 November 1973". 2.4 The author declared that the complaint on behalf of her father had not been submitted for ex­ amination under any other procedure of international investigation or settlement. With regard to domestic remedies, the author alleged that there were no effective local remedies, habeas corpus not being applicable under "prompt security measures" when the prisoner was before a military judge, but that, nevertheless, an appeal against the sentence of the first military instance had been lodged, although no appeal was possible against the procedure that led to the sentence of 12 years' imprisonment. 2.1 The author claims that her father was arrested in Montevideo on 19 January 1976 without any court order. She further alleges that her father was held in­ communicado and virtually in isolation, since not only the place in which he had been imprisoned but also the fact of his arrest was kept absolutely secret for four months. She submits that, thereafter, the family re­ ceived indirect confirmation of the fact that he was alive and in detention, her mother being visited by two of­ ficials asking for her husband's clothes. After two fur­ ther months the author's mother was permitted to see him for the first time. The author submits that she is not in a position to give precise details of the treatment her father suffered during that first period of his detention but that, at least on two occasions, he was committed to the military hospital, which, according to the author, is done only in extremely serious cases. 2.2 She further states that after six months in ad­ ministrative detention, her father was charged on 10 August 1976 by a military court with the alleged of­ fences under the Military Penal Code of "subversive association" {"asociación subversiva") and "an attack on the Constitution in the degree of conspiracy" {"aten­ tado a la Constitución en grado de conspiración") and that, in May 1977, the military prosecutor called for a penalty of 12 years' rigorous imprisonment, a sentence which was pronounced by a military judge in September 1978. In this connection, the author submits that her father did not enjoy a position of equality before the court which tried him, because persons arrested on charges of trade-union or political activities are sub­ jected to systematic discrimination before the mihtary courts, i.e., that they are not presumed innocent before the trial. She further states that her father has been prosecuted and held guilty for acts which were not il­ legal at the time when they were committed. She submits that he was not given a public hearing, since the trial took place in writing, the accused not being present, and that not even the judgement was made pubhc in such cases. She further aheges that the tribunal was not a competent tribunal, since under the Constitution military judges are prohibited from trying civilians. She also claims that the choice of defence counsel was prevented by the systematic harassment of lawyers who tried to take up cases of political prisoners. The author further states that the case is now before the military court of second instance, beyond which it could not go, and that her father is at present held in the "military detention estabhshment" at Libertad, after having been held before in various other military units. 2.5 The author claims that the following provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Pohtical Rights have been violated by the Uruguayan authorities in respect of her father: 2; 7; 9 (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5); 10 (1), (2) and (3); 12 (2); 14 (1), (2), (3) and (5); 15; 17; 18 (1); 19 (1) and 22 (1 and 3). 3. By its decision of 24 April 1979, the Human Rights Committee transmitted the communication under rule 91 of the provisional rules of procedure to the State party concerned, requesting information and observations relevant to the question of admissibility of the communication, and requested the author to furnish additional information regarding the progress and out­ come, if any, of the appeal lodged and in substantiation of her claim that there were no effective remedies to be exhausted in the case. 4. In response to the Human Rights Committee's re­ quest, the author, in her letter dated 11 June 1979, claimed that "judicial" remedies under the military pro­ cess consisted solely of an appeal against the decision. She stated that that remedy had been used in her father's case, but that it remained ineffective, no deci­ sion having been given to date. The author further drew attention to her father's state of health, claiming that he was suffering from various disorders, one of which threatened to blind him. She requested the Committee to call upon the State party to report promptly on her father's state of health. 5. The State party, in its response dated 13 July 1979, stated that the case of Rosario Pietraroia Zapala had been submitted to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights for consideration. The State party further submitted that Rosario Pietraroia Zapala had been arrested on 7 March 1976 for involvement in subversive activities and detained under emergency measures, that he had been charged {"procesado") on 10 August 1976 before the examining magistrate of the Military Court for offences committed contrary to ar­ ticles 60 (V), "subversive association", and 60 (XII) in conjunction with 60 (i).clause 6 of the Mihtary Criminal Code, "conspiracy to violate the Constitution, fohowed by acts preparatory thereto". The State party further 2.3 The author also points out that her father's right to take part in public affairs was suspended for a period of 15 years up to September 1991 under the provision of the "Institutional Act No. 4 " ' dated 1 September 1976, ' See also cases N o s . 5/1977 (p. 37), 10/1977 (p. 6), 28/1978 (p. 57) and 34/1978 (p. 65). 77