of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. She asserted that no domestic remedies are ap­ phcable in her brother's present situation and added that the same matter has not, to her knowledge, been submitted to another procedure of international in­ vestigation or settlement. preparatory acts", "conspiracy to commit an offence", "use of a fraudulent public document", "accessory after the fact" and "escape from custody". On 21 April 1980, in a judgement dehvered in the first of the cases, he was sentenced at first instance to eight years' rigorous imprison­ ment for a series of offences ("conspiracy to commit an offence", with aggravating circumstances, "attempt to overthrow the Constitu­ tion amounting to conspiracy followed by preparatory acts", with ag­ gravating circumstances, "use of explosive b o m b s " and "failure to disclose personal particulars" in which connection he was declared to be a habitual offender) and to two to four years' precautionary measures, without prejudice to such final combined sentence as might be deemed appropriate. On 30 June 1980, this case came up on appeal before the Supreme Court of Military Justice. The defence counsel magistrate is now Dr. Amilcar Perea. Subsequently, the fourth military examining magistrate ordered another inquiry to be made as further evidence had come to light that would warrant new pro­ ceedings. When the authorities learned of the so-called "six-point" plan that was being plotted outside the prison, they again investigated that establishment with the result that new ringleaders of the "Tupamaros" extremist movement were identified there, among them Mario Teti, who was responsible for conducting operations to reac­ tivate the subversive organization in question. He was moved from Military Detention Establishment N o . 1 to another detention establishment, with the agreement and knowledge of the competent court, for the purpose of the requisite investigation, interrogation and inquiries, and also for reasons of security, wkh a view to dismantling the said plan. His state of health is good. 2. On 24 October 1980, the Human Rights Commit­ tee 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 Committee also requested the State party to furnish without delay information concerning the whereabouts and state of health of Mario Alberto Teti Izquierdo. 3.1 By a note dated 10 December 1980, the State party objected to the admissibility of the communica­ tion on the ground that it did not fulfil the requirements of article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol, since domestic remedies had not been exhausted. The State party submitted that the Uruguayan Code of Military Penal Procedure, in articles 489 and 507 respec­ tively, provided for the remedies of appeal for annul­ ment and review in respect of final sentences and in ad­ dition that, since Mario Alberto Teti Izquierdo under­ went two trials and the decision in one of them was sub­ mitted to the Supreme Military Tribunal on appeal only on 30 June 1980, it was evident that domestic remedies had not been exhausted. 3.3 In a further submission of 6 May 1981 the State party stated that: After the authorities learned of the so-called "six-point" plan which was being devised by subversive elements outside Military Detention Estabhshment N o . I wkh the participation of similar elements confined in the prison, a further investigation was carried out within the prison. 3.2 In a further submission dated 3 March 1981, the State party provided additional information concerning the case of Mario Alberto Teti Izquierdo as fohows: This investigation led to the identification of new ringleaders of the extremist "Tupamaros" movement who were operating there and among whom Mario Teti was found to be responsible for the conduct of operations aimed at reactivating the above-mentioned subversive organization. The accused, Mario Alberto Teti Izquierdo, was arrested on 7 December 1970. He took part in the escape from the Punta Carretas prison and was also involved in the attack on the notary's office in Calle Treinta y Tres and in the attack on the Union Branch of the Pan de Azúcar Bank. On 11 December 1970, he was committed for trial by the first examining magistrate on a charge of having committed the of­ fences of "conspiracy to commit an offence", "attempts to over­ throw the Constitution" and "being in possession of explosives", contrary to articles 150, 152 (6) and 197 of the Ordinary Criminal Code. His defence counsel was Dr. Wilmar OHvera. On 3 May 1971, he was freed under the system of "provisional release" and left the country—making use of the option afforded by article 168 (17) of the Constitution—for Chile. On 1 October 1976, his case came up before the third military examining magistrate. On 24 May 1976,' he was ar­ rested for alleged involvement in subversive activities. A second case was brought against him on 15 September 1972 and he was committed for trial by the third mihtary examining magistrate on a charge involv­ ing a series of offences, namely, "attempts to overthrow the Constitu­ tion amounting to conspiracy fohowed by preparatory acts", "con­ spiracy to commit an offence" and "use of a fraudulent public docu­ ment", contrary to article 132, subparagraph (vi), in conjunction with articles 137, 150 and 243 of the Ordinary Criminal Code. His defence counsel was Dr. Juan Barbé. In a judgement at first instance, he was sentenced to nine years' rigorous imprisonment less the time spent in preventive detention. On 12 May 1976, the case came up on appeal before the Supreme Court of Mihtary Justice. On 3 November 1977, the judgement at first instance was set aside and the accused was in­ stead sentenced, as a principal offender, to 10 years' rigorous im.­ prisonment, less the time spent in preventive detention, for a combina­ tion of principal and secondary offences, namely "attempts to over­ throw the Constitution amounting to conspiracy followed by The fourth Mihtary Court of Investigation ordered that he should be further questioned because of this new evidence, which would ap­ pear to constkute grounds for holding another trial. Mario Teti was moved from Military Detention Establishment N o . 1 to another detention estabhshment wkh the agreement and knowledge of the competent court, for the purposes of the necessary investigation, questioning and inquiries, and for reasons of security in order to disrupt the above-mentioned subversive plan. The prisoner's state of health is g o o d . 4.1 The Human Rights Committee noted the asser­ tion of the State party, in its first submission, that fur­ ther remedies were available to Mario Teti Izquierdo. Nevertheless, in other cases the State party has de­ scribed these remedies by way of appeal for annulment or review as being exceptional in character. No grounds had been adduced to show that these exceptional remedies were apphcable in the present case. They could not, therefore, be regarded as, in effect, being "available" within the meaning of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. The Committee noted that an appeal against the judgement of 21 Aprh 1980 came before the Supreme Court of Mihtary Justice on 30 June 1980 and the Committee had not been informed of the conclusion of these proceedings. However, if no decision had yet been reached the Committee could not but conclude that, in so far as the appeal was relevant to the matters complained of, the proceedings in this case had been ' This would appear to be a typographical error; the correct date seems to be 24 May 1972. 134