be imprisoned under the "prompt security measures". She mentions in particular the case of Graciela Baritussio de Lopez Mercado. 2.1 Whh respect to Graciela Baritussio, a 34-yearold Uruguayan national, the author states that she was informed by the alleged victim's former defence counsel that she approved the author's acting on her behalf. She claims that the alleged victim is not in a position to act on her own behalf since this was not possible for a per­ son detained under the prompt security measures. She further claims that Graciela Baritussio had no defence counsel at the time of the submission of the communica­ tion. 2.2 The Committee subsequently ascertained that Graciela Baritussio had been released from prison and hved in Sweden. After being contacted she informed the Committee that she wished to join as a co-author of the communication submitted on her behalf by Carmen Améndola Massiotti. In addition, she furnished the following information (letter of 29 January 1981, enclosing a letter from her former defence lawyer, Mario Deh'Acqua): she was arrested on 3 September 1972, tried by a military judge on 5 February 1973 for "complicity in a subversive association" and brought in April 1973 to the Punta de Rieles prison where she served her two-year prison sentence. On 15 August 1974 she was brought to the same müitary court as before in order to sign the documents for her provisional release. She also mentions that she had quahfied legal assistance from the time of her trial until 15 August 1974, her defence lawyer being Mario Deh'Acqua. The defence lawyer adds in his statement that the decision of 15 August 1974, granting her provisional release became enforceable and final in 1975. Graciela Baritussio con­ tinues that she was informed by the prison authorhies on 3 October 1974 that she would be released, but in­ stead she was brought without any explanations to another military detention centre. There she remained for another three years. On 6 October 1977 she was transferred to another military estabhshment in the in­ terior of the country, which was being used as a prison for women detained under the securhy measures. On 8 August 1978 the governor of the establishment in­ formed her that she was going to be released. Her release took place on 12 August 1978. She adds that she hved during these four years in a state of total insecurhy in view of the fact that the mihtary authorities could move her anywhere in the country without any possibil­ ity of a legal recourse against these measures. She also mentions the situation of the relatives of the detainees who could only obtain evasive rephes from the military authorities. confirmed in the statement by the defence lawyer Mario A. Deh'Acqua (enclosed with Graciela Baritussio's let­ ter of 27 January 1981) who adds that once the docu­ ment for Graciela Baritussio's provisional release had been signed and also after the judgement in that respect had been rendered final and enforceable in 1975, he made numerous representations to the responsible military judges. He was informed that if the prison authorhies did not comply with the court's release order, the judges could do no more. 3.2 Carmen Améndola Massiotti does not specify which articles of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights she alleges to have been violated in her own case, but claims that most of them have been violated. Regarding Graciela Barhussio, she alleges that articles 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14 and 15 of the Covenant have been violated. She states that to her knowledge, the same matter has not been submitted under another pro­ cedure of international investigation or settlement. 4. By its decision of 26 July 1978, the Human Rights Committee, having decided that the author of the com­ munication was also justified in acting on behalf of the second alleged victim, Graciela Baritussio, transmitted the communication under rule 91 of the provisional rules of procedure to the State party concerned, re­ questing information and observations relevant to the question of admissibihty of the communication. 5. By a note dated 8 January 1979, the State party objected to the admissibihty of the communication on the fohowing grounds: (a) that the date of arrest of Carmen Améndola Massiotti preceded the entry into force of the Covenant for Uruguay on 23 March 1976, (6) that she did not apply for any remedy, and (c) whh respect to Graciela Baritussio that she did not avail herself of any of the remedies generally available to per­ sons imprisoned in Uruguay. 6. On 24 Aprh 1979, the Human Rights Committee decided: (a) That the communication was admissible; {b) That in accordance with article 4 (2) of the Pro­ tocol, the State party be requested to submit to the Committee, within six months of the date of the transmittal to it of this decision, written explanations or statements clarifying the matter and the remedy, if any, that may have been taken by it; (c) That the State party be informed that the written explanations or statements submitted by it under article 4 (2) of the Protocol must primarily relate to the substance of the matter under consideration, and in par­ ticular the specific violations of the Covenant alleged to have occurred. The State party was requested, in this connection, to enclose copies of any court orders or decisions of relevance to the matter under considera­ tion. 3.1 With respect to domestic remedies. Carmen Améndola Massiotti claims that they do not exist in Uruguay for persons ^.detained under the "prompt security measures" as they cannot act on their own behalf and lawyers cannot act without the risk of being themselves detained, as happened allegedly to one of Graciela Baritussio's lawyers. She further claims that copies of decisions of military tribunals are not made available to any person. This information was basically 7.1 In its submission under article 4 (2) of the Op­ tional Protocol dated 9 October 1980, the State party informed the Committee, inter alia, that Carmen Améndola Massiotti had qualified legal assistance at all times, the defending counsel of her choice being Milton 137