4. Education for understanding tiie cultural heritage of various nations, with special reference to dif­ ferent behefs in the present world.' The State party observes that Mr. Hartilcainen was among the experts consulted by the working group and that the National Board of Education intends to request the Union of Free Thinkers in Finland, among others, to give its comments on the working group's proposal for a curriculum before the working group is asked to work out a teacher's guide. However, the Government of Finland submits that it is beyond the competence of the Human Rights Committee to study the formulation of school curricula and repeats its conclusion that no legislative inconsistency with the Covenant has been established. 10.3 The Committee notes that the information before it does not sufficiently clarify the precise extent to which the author and the other alleged victims can ac­ tually be said to be personally affected, as parents or guardians under article 1 of the Optional Protocol. This is a condition for the admissibihty of communications. The concept of a "victim" has been further examined in other cases, for instance in the final views in case No. 35/1978. However, this case having been declared ad­ missible without objection on this point, the Committee does not now consider it necessary to reopen the matter, for the following reasons. 10.4 The Committee does not consider that the re­ quirement of the relevant provisions of Finnish legisla­ tion that instruction in the study of the history of rehgions and ethics should be given instead of religious instruction to students in schools whose parents or legal guardians object to religious instruction is in itself in­ compatible with article 18 (4), if such alternative course of instruction is given in a neutral and objective way and respects the convictions of parents and guardians who do not believe in any rehgion. In any event, paragraph 6 of the School System Act expressly permits any parents or guardians who do not wish their children to be given either religious instruction or instruction in the study of the history of religions and ethics to obtain exemption therefrom by arranging for them to receive comparable instruction outside of school. ,10.5 The State party admits that difficulties have arisen in regard to the existing teaching plan to give ef­ fect to these provisions, (which teaching plan does ap­ pear, in part at least, to be religious in character), but the Committee believes that appropriate action is being taken to resolve the difficulties and it sees no reason to conclude that this cannot be accomplished, compatibly with the requirements of article 18 (4) of the Covenant, within the framework of the existing laws. 10.1 The Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all information made available to it by the parties as provided for in article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. Its views are as follows: 10.2 Article 18 (4) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides that: The States Parties to the present Covenant undertalce to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in confor­ mity with their own convictions. ^ The author, in his submission of 5 January 1981, offers the following translation of these objectives: " 1 . Education for ethically rightly functioning human relation­ ships; " 2 . Education for individual, communal and social consciousness, sense of responsibility and functioning; " 3 . Education to understand the cultural heritage of our own na­ tion and our present culture, especially material from world view; " 4 . Education to understand the cultural heritage of various na­ tions, especially different world views in the present world." Communication No. 44/1979 Submitted by: Alba Pietraroia in January 1979 Alleged victim: Rosario Pietraroia, also known as Rosario Roya Zapala (author's father) State party: Uruguay Date of adoption of views: 27 March 1981 (twelfth session). Submission to lACHR—Exhaustion of domestic remedies—Health of victim—Detention incom­ municado—Access to counsel—Habeas corpus— Procedural delays—Fair and public hearing— Presence of accused at trial—Retroactivity of penal law—Freedom of expression—Trade union ac­ tivities—Political rights—Derogation from Covenant Views under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol 1. The author of the communication (initial letter dated January 1979 and further letters dated 11 June and 13 August 1979 and 18 August 1980) is a Uruguayan national, residing in Peru. She submitted the com­ munication on behalf of her father, Rosario Pietraroia (or Roya) Zapala, a 68-year-old Uruguayan citizen, a former trade-union leader and alternate member of the Chamber of Deputies in the Uruguayan Parliament, at present detained in Uruguay. She states that from his early youth her father had worked as a lathe operator. Articles of Covenant: 4, 9 (2), (3) and (4), 10 (1), 14 (1) and (3), 15 (1), 19 (2) and (3), and 25 Article of Optional Protocol: 5 (2){a) and (b) 76