stated that Rosario Pietraroia Zapala had been sen­ tenced on 28 August 1978 to 12 years' imprisonment, that the legal proceedings instituted against him had been entirely consistent with the provisions of the Uruguayan legal code, that he had appeared before a court as soon as his trial began on 10 August 1978' and that for his defence he had benefited at all times from the legal constitutional guarantees. mittee that "because of congenital glaucoma, his left eye had to be removed by surgery carried out at the Cen­ tral Hospital of the Armed Forces three months ago. During his iUness, Mr. Pietraroia enjoyed all the guarantees of medical, surgical and hospital care af­ forded to all detainees, and his current state of heaUh is good." 9. The six-month time-limit referred to in the Committee's decision of 14 August 1979 expired on 12 April 1980. By a note dated 10 July 1980, the State party submitted its written explanations under article 4 (2) of the Optional Protocol. 6. On 14 August 1979, the Human Rights Commit­ tee, (a) Having noted, as regards the question of exhaus­ tion of domestic remedies, that the State party had not raised any objection to the admissibility of the com­ munication on this ground, and (b) Having ascertained that the case concerning Rosario Pietraroia, which had been submitted to the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights under case No. 2020, had been effectively withdrawn. 10. In that submission, the State party informed the Committee that a judicial decision had been dehvered on the appeal lodged by the defence of the alleged victim and gave the following explanations: On 9 October 1979, the Supreme Military Court rendered a judge­ ment in second instance confirming the judgement of the first in­ stance. Consequently, the author's assertions concerning domestic remedies are wholly groundless, since, at the time of submission of the communication to which this reply refers, the domestic remedies could not be considered to have been exhausted. Furthermore, for the guidance of the Committee, the Government of Uruguay reiterates that the remedies of appeal for reversal and appeal for review may be exercised in respect of final judgements rendered by military courts in second instance. In such cases, the court of justice which hears and delivers a decision on the appeal is formed by five civilian members and two high-ranking officers. With regard to the author's request to be informed about her father's state of heakh, the Government of Uruguay has already replied to the Committee, explaining the reason for his operation. As he was found to be suffering from congenital glaucoma of the left eye, the eye had to be removed. In the course of that operation, carried out in the Central Hospital of the Armed Forces, and also during his convalescence, Mr. Pietraroia received constant medical care, just as all detainees needing any kind of inten­ sive care have received and are receiving such care. He is currently be­ ing held at Military Detention Establishment M . l , and his state of health is good. All prisoners receive permanent medical care. In addi­ tion, they are visited regularly by eye, ear, nose and throat, and heart speciahsts. Any persons requiring more specialized care a n d / o r surgical operations are taken to the Central Hospital of the Armed Forces, where they remain as long as is necessary for their recovery. Therefore decided: 1. That the communication was admissible; 2. That, in accordance with article 4 (2) of the Optional 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; 3. That the State party be informed that the writ­ ten explanations or statements submitted by it under article 4 (2) of the Optional Protocol must primarily relate to the substance of the matter under considera­ tion and, in particular, the specific violations of the Covenant alleged to have occurred. That the State party be requested, in this connection, to enclose copies of any court orders or decisions of relevance to the matter under consideration; 4. That the attention of the State party be drawn to the concern expressed by the author of the com­ munication with regard to the state of health of her father and that the State party be requested to furnish information to the Committee thereon. 11. In a further submission, dated 18 August 1980, under rule 93 (3) of the Committee's provisional rules of procedure, the author states that, with regard to the remedies of appeals for reversal and for review, these remedies can only be invoked when the person con­ cerned has served half his sentence, i.e., in her father's case in two years' time. Concerning her father's state of health, she maintained the foOowing: 7. In a further letter, dated 13 August 1979, the author submitted her comments on the State party's submission under rule 91 of the Committee's provi­ sional rules of procedure. Those comments were re­ ceived after the adoption of the Committee's decision on 14 August 1979. The author reiterated that her father was arrested on 19 January 1976 and that for nearly eight months (from 19 January to 10 August 1976) he had not been brought before any form of judicial authority. The deafness from which my father has been suffering since the early months when he was held incommunicado has not been treated, since it was diagnosed as an "old person's complaint"; 1 must advise the Committee that he had never before had hearing problems. This, together with the problem of his sight, is a consequence of being beaten about the head. As a resuU of being strung up his spine and collar-bone have been damaged. In early April of the present year, one of his forefingers was operated on because, once bent, it did not return to its normal position, but the operation was a failure because it did not correct the defect and he has been suffering from pain in his hand ever since. 8. In a further note, dated 5 October 1979, the State party submitted its comments on the author's reply of 11 June 1979 to the Human Rights Committee's request for further information under rule 91 of its provisional rules of procedure. Concerning the state of health of Rosario Pietraroia, the State party informed the Com- In the barracks where he was detained before being transferred to the Libertad prison, where he is held at present, he put out his knee performing military drill and his leg has not been right since. A short while ago "he fell into a well he had not noticed" and gravely injured his leg, which causes him considerable pain. Finally, his feet get very cold, which is a sign of a serious deterioration in his physical condi- ^ This may be a typing error in the State party's submission. From the context, the correct date would appear to be 10 August 1976. 78