while in detention, including the various forms of physical and mental torture to which they were allegedly subjected. They stated that due to the treatment which he had received, Alcides Lanza's state of health was still poor and, as evidence of this, they submitted a medical report dated 19 February 1980, from a doctor in Stockholm, together with copies of hospital and laboratory records relating thereto. They also enclosed several photographs showing scars on Alcides Lanza's legs, allegedly caused by cigarette burns as a means of torture. The doctor's report shows that Alcides Lanza continues to suffer from auditive disturbances, a tremor of his right hand and inability to use it properly and symptoms of mental depression. 12. The Committee has noted that the submissions of the Government of 8 October 1979 were received after the expiry of the time-limit imposed by article 4 (2) of the Optional Protocol and even after the time-limit following the Committee's renewed request of 18 April 1979. Nevertheless the Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all information made available to it by the parties, as provided for in ar­ ticle 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 13. With regard to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Committee notes that the submissions and explanations of the Government still do not show in any way that in the particular circumstances of the two in­ dividuals concerned at the time of the events com­ plained of, there were remedies available which they should have pursued. The Committee has been in­ formed by the Government in another case (No. 9/1977) that the remedy of habeas corpus is not applicable to persons arrested under prompt security measures. Moreover, Beatriz Weismann and Alcides Lanza have explained that they had no effective contact with lawyers to advise them of their rights or to assist them in exercising them. (ii) Beatriz Weismann de Lanza was arrested for in­ vestigation on 17 February 1976 and detained under the prompt security measures, as stated by the Government. She was kept incommunicado for many months. It is not in dispute that she was kept in detention for more than seven months without charges, and later, according to the infor­ mation provided by the Government, she was kept in detention for over 18 months (28 September 1976 to April 1978) on the charge of "assisting a subversive association", appar­ ently on similar grounds to those in the case of her husband. She was tried and sentenced in April 1978 by a military judge, at which time her of­ fence was deemed to be purged by the period spent in custody pending trial. She was, however, kept in detention until 11 February 1979. Throughout her period of detention and during her trial she had no effective access to legal assistance. With regard to her allegations that during her detention she was subjected to illtreatment and to physical and mental torture, she states that she complained to the military judge, but there is no evidence that her complaints have been investigated. 15. The Human Rights Committee has considered whether acts and treatment, which are prima facie not in conformity with the Covenant, could for any reasons be justified under the Covenant in the circumstances. The Government has referred to provisions of Uruguayan law, in particular the "prompt security measures". However, the Covenant (art. 4) does not allow national measures derogating from any of its provisions except in strictly defined circumstances, and the Government has not made any submissions of fact or law to justify such derogation. Moreover, some of the facts referred to above raise issues under provisions from which the Covenant does not allow any derogation under any cir­ cumstances. As regards the observations of the Government quoted above (para. 8) it appears from the above find­ ings of the Committee (para. 14) that various guarantees of due process have not been effectively observed, and that a number of quite specific allegations of illtreatment and torture have only been deemed by the Government "not worthy of any further comment". In its decision of 26 October 1979 concerning case No. 9/1977, the Committee has emphasized that denials of a general character do not suffice. Specific responses and pertinent evidence (including copies of the relevant deci­ sions of the courts and findings of any investigations which have taken place into the validity of the com­ plaints made) in reply to the contentions of the author of a communication are required. The Government did not furnish the Committee with such information. Con­ sequently, the Committee cannot but draw appropriate conclusions on the basis of the information before it. 14. The Committee therefore decides to base its views on the following considerations: (i) Alcides Lanza Perdomo was arrested for in­ vestigation on 2 February 1976 and detained under the "prompt security measures" as stated by the Government. He was kept incommunicado for many months. It is not in dispute that he was kept in detention for nearly eight months without charges, and later for another 13 months, on the charge of "subversive association" apparently on no other basis than his political views and connec­ tions. Then, after nearly 21 months in detention, he was sentenced for that offence by a military judge to three years severe imprisonment, less the period already spent in detention. Throughout his period of detention and during his trial he had no effective access to legal assistance. Although he had served his sentence on 2 February 1979, he was not released until 1 July 1979. His present state of physical and mental ill-health for which no other explanation has been offered by the Uruguayan Government, confirms the allegations of ill-treatment which he suffered while under detention. 16. The Human Rights Committee, acting under ar­ ticle 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Pohtical Rights, is of the view that the facts set out above (para. 14), in so far as they 48