DECISIONS DECLARING A COMMUNICATION PARTLY ADMISSIBLE SEVENTH SESSION Communication No. 29/1978 Submitted by: E. В. on 7 April 1978 Alleged victims: В, С, D, E State party: S Date of decision on admissibility: 14 August 1979 (seventh session) in particular, that if the State party contended that domestic remedies had not been exhausted, it was re­ quested to give details of the effective remedies available to the alleged victim in the particular circumstances of his case. Author's standing to act for alleged victims—Exhaus­ tion of domestic remedies—Burden of proof —Harassment of counsel Articles of Optional Protocol: 2 and 5 (2) (b) The author of the communication dated 7 April 1978 is a Spanish national living in Spain. He submitted the communication on behalf of his brother, B. The author also purported to act on behalf of C, D, and E. All four persons are allegedly imprisoned in S. The State party, in its response dated 29 December 1978, stated that В had not exercised any domestic remedies and it enclosed in an annex a description of the rights available to accused persons before the military criminal tribunals and the domestic remedies designed to protect and safeguard the rights of the accused under the S judicial system. The State party expressed the opinion that the author of the communication would have to prove that a certain legal remedy has been exer­ cised or that it would be ineffective. The author claimed that on 10 July 1977 his brother and the latter's son had been arrested at their place of work, a photographic studio in city X by members of the military police who had confiscated all the photographic equipment. The author believed that the arrest had occurred because his brother and his brother's son had made photographs showing people being tortured. The author further stated that his brother's son had been released after three days, after having been forced to remain on a chair with his head covered, with a view to persuading his father, who was subjected to severe torture, to confess guilt. The author claimed that his brother had subsequently been detained at an undisclosed place and that the family had only been informed of his whereabouts after threatening to take action against the S Consulate in Madrid. In his reply, dated 7 February 1979, to the Commit­ tee's request, the author described the steps taken to ex­ haust domestic remedies in respect of his brother, B. He claimed that an appeal had been filed and that every kind of legal proceeding had been instituted on behalf of his brother. He further claimed that his brother's first defence lawyer, L, had been detained because of his efforts to act in the case, that a second defence lawyer had subse­ quently disappeared and that the third lawyer, engaged by the Spanish Consulate in X, had been imprisoned. The author furnished no information as to the other points raised in the Committee's decision of 26 July 1978. By its decision of 26 July 1978 the Human Rights Committee: (fl) Decided that the author was justified, by reason of close family connection, in acting on behalf of his brother, B; (6) Requested the author to furnish detailed informa­ tion as to the grounds and circumstances justifying his acting on behalf of the other three alleged victims, the efforts made and steps taken by or on behalf of all the alleged victims to exhaust domestic remedies and whether the same matter had been submitted to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights; (c) Decided that the communication be transmitted, under rule 91 of the provisional rules of procedure, to the State party concerned requesting information and observations relevant to the question of admissibility in so far as the communication related to B, pointing out. After having considered all submissions by the author, the Human Rights Committee finds that the in­ formation furnished so far by the author does not justify his acting on behalf of C, D, and E. With regard to the exhaustion of local remedies the Committee is unable to conclude on the basis of the in­ formation before it, that there are further remedies available to the author's brother, В which he could or should have pursued. It seems to the Human Rights Committee that an attempt has been made to file an ap­ peal on behalf of the alleged victim and that the three lawyers who have been acting in his defence have either 11