It is true that self-imposed restrictions on pubHshing, or the inter­ nal programme policy of the media, may threaten the spirit of freedom of expression. Nevertheless, it is a matter of common sense that such decisions either entirely escape control by the Committee or must be accepted to a larger extent than externally imposed restrictions such as enforcement of criminal law or official censor­ ship, neither of which took place in the present case. Not even media controlled by the State can under the Covenant be under an obligation to publish all that may be published. It is not possible to apply the criteria of article 19 (3) to self-imposed restrictions. Quite apart from the "public morals" issue, one cannot require that they shall be only such as are "provided by law and are necessary" for the particular purpose. Therefore I prefer not to express any opinion on the possible reasons for the decisions complained of in the present case. The role of mass media in public debate depends on the relation­ ship between journalists and their superiors who decide what to publish. I agree with the authors of the communication that the freedom of journahsts is important, but the issues arising here can only partly be examined under article 19 of the Covenant. The following members of the Committee associated themselves with the individual opinion submitted by Mr. Opsahl: Mr. Rajsoomer Lallah, Mr. Waher Surma Tarnopolsky. Communication No. 64/1979 Submitted by: Consuelo Salgar de Montejo on 18 December 1979 Alleged victim: The author State party: Colombia Date of adoption of views: 24 March 1982 Right to review of conviction and sentence—Non bis in idem—Derogation from Covenant Articles of Covenant: 4, 9 (1) and 14 (1) and (5) Views under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol 1.1 The author of the communication (initial letter dated 18 December 1979 and further letters dated 18 June 1980 and 7 April 1981) is Consuelo Salgar de Montejo, a Colombian national. She submhted the communication on her own behalf through her legal representative. 1.2 The author alleges that by enacting Legislative Decree No. 1923 of 6 September 1978 (Statute of Securhy) the Government of Colombia has breached ar­ ticles 9 and 14 of the Covenant. 1.3 She claims to be a victim of these violations and, through her legal representative, describes the relevant facts as fohows: 1.4 Consuelo Salgar de Montejo, Director of the Colombian newspaper El Bogotano, was sentenced to one year of imprisonment by a military judge on 7 November 1979 on grounds of the alleged violation of article 10 of the Statute of Security for the aheged of­ fence of having sold a gun. Through the only recourse procedijre available, the recurso de reposición, her sentence was confirmed by the same judge on 14 November 1979. 1.5 She alleges that by application of the decree, she was denied the right to appeal to a higher tribunal in violation of article 14 (5) of the Covenant and that she was denied the guarantees laid down in article 14 (1) of the Covenant because military tribunals are, allegedly, not competent, independent and impartial. On the basis of these allegations, the author claims that she was ar­ bitrarily detained and subjected to arbitrary imprison­ ment and, accordingly, that article 9 (1) of the Cov­ enant was violated. She further alleges, without giving any specific details, that the principles of non bis in idem and of res judicata have been violated. 1.6 The author maintains that there are no further domestic remedies to exhaust and the present case has not been submitted for examination under any other procedure of international investigation or settlement. 2. On 18 March 1980, the Working Group of the Human Rights Committee decided to transmit the com­ munication to the State party, under rule 91 of the pro­ visional rules of procedure, requesting information and observations relevant to the question of admissibihty. 3.1 By letter dated 29 May 1980 the State party refuted the allegations made by the alleged victim. 3.2 The State party contests, in particular, the ahegation that Colombia was in breach of article 14 (5) of the Covenant. It argues that in that provision, the phrase "according to the law" leaves it to national law to determine in which cases and circumstances applica­ tion may be made to a court of higher instance and that if the meaning of this provision should be differently in­ terpreted, it must be borne in mind that Colombia is ex­ periencing a situation of disturbed public order, within the meaning of article 4 (1) of the Covenant, and that consequently the Government may take the measures therein referred to. The State party further maintains that Mrs. Salgar de Montejo was released after having served a term of detention of three months and 15 days and that she now enjoys fuh liberty without any restric­ tion. With regard to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the State party recognizes that in the case in question there are no further remedies. 4. Commenting on the State party's submission, the author argues, in her letter dated 18 June 1980, that the State party cannot invoke article 4 (1) of the Covenant because ii has not so far fulfilled the requirements of the provisions of article 4 (3), and that she should be com­ pensated for the violations of articles 9 and 14 of the Covenant which she has allegedly suffered. She again argues, without further explanation, that the principles of non bis in idem and res judicata have been violated. 127