legislation such as the "Security Statute". She em­ phasizes that the Colombian Code of Criminal Pro­ cedure provides for the guarantee of dual jurisdiction for judgements in criminal cases and the Government of Colombia cannot fail to take account of it without violating the Covenant and the universally recognized right to appeal against custodial sentences. 8.2 She reiterates that the Government of Colombia cannot, in the present case, invoke article 4 of the Cov­ enant because it has not so far fulfilled the requirements of that provision in respect of states of emergency and derogations from its obhgations under the Covenant. The author states that under article 121 of the Colom­ bian Constitution a state of siege has, for all intents and purposes, been in effect in Colombia since the disturb­ ances of 9 April 1948. She mentioned, in particular, that by Decree No. 2131 of 7 October 1976, the previous Government of Colombia declared " a disturbance of pubhc order and a state of siege throughout the national territory" to put an end to the "unconstitutional stop­ page" which was in progress at the Colombian Institute of Social Security and was, according to the Decree, affecting "its medical, paramedical and auxiliary ser­ vices". She added that ahhough the strike was broken within a few months, the state of siege has been extend­ ed sine die. 8.3 The author continues to maintain that the only competent, independent and impartial tribunals with criminal jurisdiction in Colombia are those of the judicial power, which were estabhshed previously under tkle XV ("Administration of Justice") of the Consthution, article 58 of which states that "justice is ad­ ministered by the Supreme Court, higher district courts and such other tribunals and courts as may be estab­ hshed by law". The author stresses that the Constitu­ tion of Colombia in no case permits mihtary courts to try civilians and, at the same time, she remarks that "an unfortunate interpretation of article 61 of the Constitu­ tion by the Supreme Court of Justice has, however, enabled the Government and the military to extend military criminal jurisdiction to civilians". 8.4 The author observes that although h is true that, in ks ruling of 30 October 1978, the Supreme Court of Justice declared that Decree No. 1923 of 1978 was com­ patible with the Constitution, it is equally true that the Court did not rule on the compatibility or incompatibihty of such Decree with the Covenant. She claims that it is ultimately for the Committee to rule on this matter. suelo Salgar de Montejo, Director of the Colombian newspaper El Bogotano, was sentenced to one year of imprisonment by a military tribunal on 7 November 1979 for the offence of having sold a gun in violation of article 10 of Decree No. 1923 of 6 September 1978, also called Statute of Security. For this offence she was tried only once. Through the only recourse procedure available, the recurso de reposición, her sentence was confirmed by the same judge on 14 November 1979. She was convicted for an offence (contravención) which the apphcable legal instrument, namely Decree No. 1925 of 1978, did not make subject to review by a higher court. She was released after having spent three months and 15 days in prison. 9.2 As to the allegations made by the author with regard to breaches of articles 9 (1) and 14 (1) of the Covenant, they are in such general terms that the Com­ mittee makes no finding in regard to them. 10.1 In formulating its views the Human Rights Committee also takes into account the fohowing con­ siderations: 10.2 The Committee notes that the Government of Colombia in ks submission of 29 May 1980 made reference to a skuation of disturbed pubhc order in Col­ ombia wkhin the meaning of article 4, paragraph 1, of the Covenant. In its note of 18 July 1980 to the Secretary-General of the United Nations (reproduced in document CCPR/C/2/Add.4), which was designed to comply with the formal requirements laid down in ar­ ticle 4 (3) of the Covenant, the Government of Colom­ bia has made reference to the existence of a state of siege in all the national terrkory since 1976 and to the necess­ ity to adopt extraordinary measures within the framework of the legal régime provided for in the Na­ tional Constitution for such situations. With regard to the rights guaranteed by the Covenant, the Government of Colombia declared that "temporary measures have been adopted that have the effect of hmiting the ap­ phcation of article 19, paragraph 2, and article 21 of that Covenant". The present case, however, is not con­ cerned wkh articles 19 and 21 of the Covenant. 8.5 Finally, the author alleges that she has [in effect] been tried twice for the same offence: in the first mihtary trial for alleged ihegal possession and purchase of weapons she was acquitted, but authorization was obtained to institute further criminal proceedings against her for selling a weapon, "obviously in retahation for the opposition she had voiced in her newspaper. El Bogotano' '. She considers this to be a violation of the principles of res judicata and non bis in idem. 10.3 In the specific context of the present com­ munication there is no information to show that article 14 (5) was derogated from in accordance with article 4 of the Covenant; therefore the Committee is of the view that the State party, by merely invoking the existence of a state of siege, cannot evade the obligations which it has undertaken by ratifying the Covenant. Although the substantive right to take derogatory measures may not depend on a formal notification being made pursuant to article 4 (3) of the Covenant, the State party concerned is duty bound, when it invokes article 4 (1) of the Cove­ nant in proceedings under the OptionaFProtocol, to give a sufficiently detailed account of the relevant facts to show that a situation of the kind described in article 4 (1) of the Covenant exists in the country con­ cerned. 9.1 The Human Rights Committee bases its views on the fohowing facts, which are not in dispute: Con­ 10.4 The Committee considers that the expression "according to law" in article 14 (5) of the Covenant is 129