6. On 26 January 1978, the Human Rights Com­ mittee (G) Decided that case No. 1968 submitted to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights on 26 July 1975, could not relate to events alleged to have taken place on or after 23 March 1976, the date on which the Covenant and the Optional Protocol entered into force for Uruguay and, therefore, did not preclude the Committee, under article 5 (2) {a) of the Optional Protocol, from consideration of the communication submitted to it on 16 February 1977; (6) Requested clarification from the author of the communication about the other case allegedly concern­ ing him before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (case No. 2109, October 1976); and (c) Informed the State party that "unless the State party gives details of the remedies which it submits have been available to the author in the circumstances of his case, together with evidence that there would be a reasonable prospect that such remedies would be effec­ tive", the communication wih "not be considered inad­ missible in so far as exhaustion of domestic remedies is concerned". party may submit under article 4 (2) of the Optional Protocol"; (b) That article 5 (2) {b) of the Protocol did not preclude the Committee from considering a com­ munication received under the Protocol, where the allegations themselves raised issues concerning the availability or effectiveness of domestic remedies and the State party, when expressly requested to do so by the Committee, did not provide details on the availability and effectiveness of domestic remedies in the particular case under consideration. The Committee, therefore, decided: (a) That the communication was admissible; (b) That the text of this decision be transmitted to the State party and to the author; (c) That in accordance with article 4 of the Protocol, the State party be requested to submit to the Commit­ tee, 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; id) That any explanations or statements received from the State party be communicated to the author under rule 93 (3) of the provisional rules of procedure of the Committee. 7. In response, the author informed the Committee that the only possible reference to him in case No. 2109 before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights is a two-line statement in a list of several hundred persons allegedly arbitrarily arrested. The State party furnished a general description of the rights available to accused persons before the military criminal tribunals and the domestic remedies designed to protect and safeguard the right of the accused under the Uruguayan judicial system. It also quoted article 17 of the Uruguayan Constitution concerning the remedy of habeas corpus. However, the State party did not specify which remedies have been available to the author in the particular circumstances of his case. 10. Having received no submissions from the State party under article 4 (2) of the Optional Protocol, the Human Rights Committee decided on 18 April 1979: 1. That the State party be reminded that the sixmonth time-limit for the submission of its explana­ tion or statements under article 4 (2) of the Optional Protocol expired on 28 March 1979; 2. That the State party be requested to fulfil its obligations under article 4 (2) of the Optional Pro­ tocol without further delay and that its submission should reach the Committee in care of the Division of Human Rights, United Nations Office at Geneva, not later than six weeks from the date of the transmittal of this decision to the State party, to afford adequate time for the author of the communication to submit, before the next session of the Committee, additional information or observations, as provided in rule 93 (3) of the provisional rules of procedure of the Committee; 3. That the State party be informed that the writ­ ten explanations or statements submitted by it under article 4 (2) of the Optional Protocol must primarily relate to the substance of the matter under considera­ tion, and in particular the specific violations aheged to have occurred and included copies of any court orders or decisions of relevance to the matter under consideration. 8. Commenting on the information concerning domestic remedies submitted by the State party, the author contended that the remedies listed by the State party were not applicable in his case, because he was not put to trial, and that he was barred from recourse to habeas corpus, as the authorities do not recognize the right to habeas corpus for those who are detained under the régime of "security measures". 9. In a decision adopted on 25 July 1978, the Human Rights Committee concluded: (a) That the two-line reference to MiUán Sequeira in case No. 2109 before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights—which case hsts in a similar manner the names of hundreds of other persons allegedly de­ tained in Uruguay—did not constitute the same matter as that described in detail by the author in his com­ munication to the Human Rights Committee. Accord­ ingly, the communication was not inadmissible under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol. In arriving at this conclusion the Committee, however, indicated that it might be subject to review "in the light of further explanations relevant to this question which the State 11. The six-week time-limit referred to in the Com­ mittee's decision expired over one year ago, on 2 July 1979. By notes dated 23 November 1979 and 13 February 1980, the State party requested the Committee to accord a reasonable extension of time for the submis­ sion of its explanations or statements under article 4 (2) of the Optional Protocol. The only submission received 53