(iii) With respect to Martha Valentini de Massera, Article 14 (1), (2) and (3), because she was tried in cir­ cumstances in which she was denied the requisite safeguards of fair trial; and, accordingly, is of the view that the State party is under an obligation to take immediate steps to ensure strict observance of the provisions of the Covenant and to provide effective remedies to the victims. Article 9 (2), because she was not promptly informed of the charges brought against her; Article 10 (1), because for months she was held incom­ municado and was denied visits by any family member; EIGHTH SESSION Communication No. 9/1977 Submitted by: Edgardo Dante Santullo Valcada on 20 February 1977 Alleged victim: The author State party: Uruguay Date of adoption of views: 26 October 1979 (eighth session) military judge before whom he maintained what he had said previously. On 5 November 1976 he was again brought before the military court, where he was in­ formed that, in the absence of any reasonable grounds for charging him with an offence, he could go free. The writer adds that at no time, during the 50 days of his detention, was he able to communicate with a defence counsel and that the recourse of habeas corpus was not applicable in his case because he was detained under the "prompt security measures". Finally he claims that he has not received any compensation for his imprison­ ment and for the resulting economic hardship suffered by his family. Detention—Habeas corpus—Ill-treatment—Effective remedy—Burden of proof Articles of Covenant: 2, 7, 9 (4) and (5) Article of Optional Protocol: 5 (2) (b) Views under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol' 1. The author of this communication dated 20 February 1977 is a Uruguayan national residing in Mex­ ico. He submitted the communication on his own behalf. 2. The author states that on 8 September 1976 he was arrested in the streets of Montevideo by four police officers dressed in civilian clothing and taken to the headquarters of the Investigation and Intelligence Department. There he learned that he was accused of receiving the clandestine newspaper Carta. The author described what ensued as follows: "On denying this, 1 was hooded and forced to remain standing in an un­ natural position (feet one metre apart, body and head very erect, arms stretched out and raised to shoulder level, in my underwear and barefoot on a pile of grit); this caused me intense muscular pain. If I was overcome by fatigue and lowered my arms or head or put my legs a little further together, I was beaten brutally. This treat­ ment was accompanied by punches, kicks, insuhs and threats of torturing my wife and two children (aged six and eight)." He further alleges that he was not given any food and that this situation lasted for three days. The day after his arrest, on 9 September 1976, at 3 a.m., his house was thoroughly searched, allegedly without his permission and without any warrant. On 16 September 1976 he was transferred to the Central Prison where he remained imprisoned for a further 50 days in complete solitary confinement in a cell measuring 1.2 by 2 metres. He was only allowed to leave his cell 15 minutes in the mornings and 15 minutes in the after­ noons. On 23 October 1976, he was brought before a 3. On 25 August 1977, 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 admissibihty. 4. By letter dated 27 October 1977, the State party objected to the admissibility of the communication on the ground that the alleged victim had not exhausted all available domestic remedies, and made the general observation that every person in the national territory has free access to the courts and public and ad­ ministrative authorities and freedom to avail himself of all the administrative and legal remedies available to him under Uruguay's internal law. 5. tee, On 1 February 1978, the Human Rights Commit- (a) Having ascertained that the case concerning the alleged victim has not been submitted to any other inter­ national body, Ф) Being unable to conclude that, with regard to ex­ haustion of domestic remedies, on the basis of the infor­ mation before it, there were any further remedies which the alleged victim should or could have pursued, Therefore decided: (a) That the communication was admissible; ' The text of an individual opinion submitted by a Committee member is appended to these views. 43