TWELFTH SESSION Communication No. 32/1978 Submitted by: Lucia Sala de Tourón on 16 May 1978 Alleged victim: Luis Tourón State party: Uruguay Date of adoption of views: 31 March 1981 (twelfth session) Submission to lACHR—Same matter—Detention in­ communicado—Access to counsel—Habeas cor­ pus — Delay in proceedings—Public hearing— Presence of accused at trial—Political rights claim that it is not applicable to the cases of persons de­ tained under "prompt security measures". 2.4 The author also alleges that, pursuant to "In­ stitutional Act No. 4 " {Acta Institucional No. 4) of 1 September 1976, her husband has been deprived of the right to engage in political activities, including the right to vote, for 15 years. 2.5 The author claims that articles 2, 3, 7, 9 (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), 10 (1), (2a), (3), 12, 14 (1), (2), (3a, M, 3e and Ъg), (5), 15, 25 (a and b) and 26 of the Covenant have been violated. Articles of Covenant: 4, 9 (3) and (4) and 14 (1) and (3) Article of Optional Protocol: 5 (2) (a) Views under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol 1. The author of this communication, dated 16 May 1978, is an Uruguayan national, residing in Mexico. She submitted the communication on behalf of her hus­ band, Luis Tourón, a 54-year-old Uruguayan citizen and a former municipal official of the city of Montevideo, allegedly detained in Uruguay. 3. On 28 July 1978, the Human Rights Committee decided to transmit the communication to the State party, under rule 91 of the provisional rules of pro­ cedure, requesting information and observations rele­ vant to the question of admissibility of the communica­ tion. The time-limit for the State party's information or observations expired on 9 November 1978. No reply was received from the State party. 2.1 The author alleges that her husband was ar­ rested on 21 January 1976 and subjected to cruel and in­ human treatment (of which she gives no details) during his detention incommunicado from the date of arrest until August 1976. She states that he was subsequently sentenced to 14 years' imprisonment by a military court and that at the time of writing (16 May 1978) his case was still pending before the second military instance (the Supremo Tribunal Militar). She further states that her husband, having been subjected during the first part of his detention to the régime of "prompt security measures", was denied the right to leave the country, although article 186 (17) of the Uruguayan Constitution provides that persons under that régime have the option to leave the country. 4. On 24 April 1979 the Human Rights Committee therefore decided: (a) That the communication was admissible; {b) That, in accordance with article 4 (2) of the Op­ tional Protocol, the State party should be requested to submit to the Committee, within six months of the date of the transmittal to it of this decision, written explana­ tions or statements clarifying the matter (including copies of any court orders or decisions relevant to the matter) and the remedy, if any, that may have been taken by it. 2.2 The author maintains that no formal charges were made against her husband and that he was not brought before a judge until seven months after his ar­ rest, in August 1976, when he was formally charged with the offence of "subversive association" and af­ forded the right to have the assistance of a counsel; that the real reasons for his arrest were his political opinions and public activities; that he was never afforded a public hearing before a tribunal, as there are no pubhc hear­ ings during the whole procedure of first instance; that, as in the case of any person prosecuted under military justice in Uruguay, he was not allowed to be present at the trial or to defend himself in person; and that the judgement against him was not made public. 5. The time-limit for the State party's submission under article 4 (2) of the Optional Protocol expired on 25 November 1979. By notes dated 23 November 1979 and 13 February 1980, the State party requested the Committee to accord a reasonable extension of time. By a note dated 10 July 1980, the State party submitted the following explanations under article 4 (2) of the Op­ tional Protocol: ... contrary to what is maintained in the communication under con­ sideration, Mr. Luis Tourón was not detained without formal charges against him; as was fully proved by his own statements, he entered in­ to association with others with a view to taking direct action to change the form of government by means which are inadmissible under inter­ nal public law and committed acts aimed at reorganizing the directive machinery of the banned Communist party with the object of adapt­ ing it for underground operations. The author refers in her com­ munication to "the lack of a pubhc hearing before a tribunal". It must be explained that public hearings do not exist under the Uruguayan legal order. The trial is conducted in writing and the ac­ cused has the opportunity to express himself through his counsel and by means of the formal statements before the judge. Another legal er­ ror in the communication under consideration is the assertion that 2.3 She further alleges that military tribunals do not have the competence to deal with the cases of civilian detainees under article 253 of the Constitution and that they are not impartial since, as part of the armed forces, they are subordinated to the military hierarchy. As for the recourse of habeas corpus, the authorities allegedly 61