2.5 Mrs. Saldías de López states that the case has not been submitted to any other procedure of interna­ tional investigation or settlement. 2.6 She also claims that the limited number of domestic remedies which can be invoked in Uruguay under the "prompt security measures" have been exhausted and she also refers in this connection to an unsuccessful resort to amparo by the mother of the victim in Argentina. 2.7 She has also furnished a copy of a letter from the Austrian Consulate in Montevideo, Uruguay, men­ tioning that the Austrian Government has granted a visa to Mr. López Burgos and that this information has been communicated to the Uruguay Ministry of Foreign Af­ fairs. 2.8 She alleges that the foUowing articles of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights have been violated by the Uruguayan authorities in respect of her husband: articles 7, 9 and 12 (1) and article 14 (3). Mr. López Burgos is being held at Military Detention Establishment No. 1. The Government of Uruguay also brings to the attention of the Committee a report on a medical examination of Mr. López Burgos, stating in part as follows: Medical history prior to imprisonment (Antecedentes personales anteriores a su "reclusión"): operated on for bilateral inguinal hernia at the age of 12; (2) history of unstable arterial hypertension; (3) frac­ ture of lower left jaw. Family medical history: (1) father a diabetic. Medical record in prison (Antecedentes de "reclusión"): treated by the dental surgery service of the Armed Forces Central Hospital for the fracture of the jaw with which he entered the Establishment. Discharged from the Armed Forces Central Hospital on 7 May 1977 with the fracture knitted and progressing well; subsequently examined for polyps of larynx on left vocal cord; a biopsy conducted . . . . 5. In a further letter dated 4 March 1980 the author, Deha Saldías de López, refers to the Human Rights Committee's decision of 7 August 1979 and to the note of the Government of Uruguay dated 14 December 1979, and claims that the latter confirmed the author's previous statement concerning the exhaustion of all possible domestic remedies. 3. By its decision of 7 August 1979 the Human Rights Committee: (1) Decided that the author was justified in acting on behalf of the alleged victim; (2) 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 com­ munication indicating that if the State party contended that domestic remedies had not been exhausted, it should give details of the effective remedies available to the alleged victim in the particular circumstances of his case. 6. In the absence of any information contrary to the author's statement that the same matter had not been submitted to another procedure of international in­ vestigation or settlement and concluding, on the basis of the information before it, that there were no unex­ hausted domestic remedies which could or should have been pursued, the Committee decided on 24 March 1980: (1) That the communication was admissible in so far as it relates to events which have allegedly continued or taken place after 23 March 1976 (the date of the entry into force of the Covenant and the Optional Protocol for Uruguay): (2) 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; (3) That the State party be informed that the written explanations or statements submitted by it under article 4 (2) of the Optional Protocol must primarily relate to the substance of the matter under consideration, and in particular the specific violations of the Covenant alleged to have occurred. The State party is requested, in this connection, to give information as to the whereabouts of López Burgos between July and October 1976 and as to the circumstances in which he suffered a broken jaw and to enclose copies of any court orders or decisions of relevance to the matter under consideration. 4. The State party, in its response under rule 91 of the provisional rules of procedure, dated 14 December 1979, states "that the communication concerned is com­ pletely devoid of any grounds which would make it ad­ missible by the Committee since, in the course of the proceedings taken against Mr. López Burgos he enjoyed ah the guarantees afforded by the Uruguayan legal order". The State party refers in this connection to its previous submissions to the Committee in other cases citing the domestic remedies generally available at present in Uruguay. Furthermore the State party pro­ vides some factual evidence in the case as follows: Mr. López Burgos was arrested on 23 October 1976 for his connection with subversive activities and detained under prompt security measures; on 4 November 1976, the se­ cond military examining magistrate charged him with presumed commission of the offence of "subversive association" under section 60 (V) of the Military Penal Code; on 8 March 1979, the court of first instance sentenced him to seven years' imprisonment for the of­ fences specified in section 60 (V) of the MOitary Penal Code, section 60 (I) (6) in association with 60 (XII) of the Müitary Penal Code and sections 7, 243 and 54 of the Ordinary Penal Code; subsequently, on 4 October 1979, the Supreme MUitary Court rendered final judge­ ment, reducing his sentence to four years and six months. It is further stated that Mr. López Burgos' defence counsel was Colonel Mario Rodriguez and that 7.1 In its submission under article 4 (2) of the Op­ tional Protocol, dated 20 October 1980, the State party asserts that Mr. López Burgos had legal assistance at all times and that he lodged an appeal; the result of the ap­ peal was a sentence at second instance that reduced the penalty of seven years to four years and six months of rigorous imprisonment. The State party also rejects the allegation that López Burgos was denied the right to 89