cedure, requesting information and observations rele­ vant to the question of admissibility. The Committee also decided to request the author to furnish further in­ formation on the grounds and circumstances justifying his acting on behalf of the other alleged victims men­ tioned in the communication. No reply was received from the author in this regard. Articles of Optional Protocol: 4 (2) and 5 (2){a) and (b). Views under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol' 1. The author of this communication (initial letter dated 25 April 1977 and further letter dated 12 December 1978) is a Uruguayan national, residing in Mexico. He submitted the communication on his own behalf as well as on behalf of other persons who alleg­ edly were not in a position to submit a communication on their own. 4. By letter dated 27 October 1977, the State party objected to the admissibility of the communication on two grounds: (a) The same matter had already been examined by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (lACHR); Ф) The alleged victims had not exhausted all available domestic remedies. 2. The author claims that on 7 February 1976 he was arrested by a group of Montevideo pohcemen at the house of a woman friend, Ofelia Fernández. They were both brought to Department 5 of the National Direc­ torate of Information and Intelligence (commanded by a superintendent named by the author), where after several hours of ill-treatment he was interrogated for the purpose of obtaining an admission that he held an im­ portant position in the Communist Party and in order to induce him to identify fellow detainees as active members of the Communist Youth. The author further alleges that over a period of ap­ proximately 50 days, he and his fellow detainees were subjected to severe torture; he cites in his case, inter alia, the application of electric shocks, the use of the "submarino" (putting the detainee's hooded head into foul water), insertion of bottles or barrels of automatic rifles into his anus and forcing him to remain standing, hooded and handcuffed and with a piece of wood thrust into his mouth, for several days and nights. Mr. Grille Motta specifically names several alleged torturers and interrogators. The author states that he was brought before a military judge without having any opportunity to see a lawyer beforehand and after having been totally isolated from the outside world; after making a statement before the Mihtary Court he was transferred to the "Cihndro Municipal", a sports stadium that had been turned into a prison some years ago, where he remained for approx­ imately another two months. Mr. Alberto Grille Motta claims that on 20 May 1976 he was tried by a mihtary judge on charges carrying sentences of from 8 to 24 years' imprisonment. On 3 June 1976 the author and three of his fellow prisoners escaped to the Venezuelan embassy where they were granted "diplomatic" asylum. Mr. Alberto Grille Motta claims that he has not sub­ mitted this case to any other international instance and that he has exhausted all possible domestic remedies, citing in this connection the dismissal by the Supreme Court of Justice of Uruguay of his appeal against cer­ tain decisions of the Mihtary Court. 5. On 1 February 1978 the Human Rights Commit­ tee, (a) Having ascertained that the case concerning the author of the communication which was before lACHR could not concern the same matter as it was submitted to lACHR on 10 March 1976 (prior to the entry into force of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Optional Protocol for Uruguay), Ф) Being unable to conclude on the basis of the in­ formation before it that, with regard to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, there were any remedies which the alleged victim should or could have pursued, (c) Being unable because of the lack of relevant addi­ tional information from the author, to consider the communication in so far as it related to other alleged victims. Therefore decided: (fl) That the communication was admissible in so far as it related to the author, but inadmissible in so far as it related to other alleged victims; Ф) That the text of the decision be transmitted to the State party, together with the text of the relevant documents, 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 the decision, written explanations or statements clari­ fying the matter and the remedy, if any, that may have been taken by it. With regard to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Committee said that its decision "may be reviewed in the light of any further explanations which the State party may submit giving details of any domestic remedies which it claims to 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 effective". 3. On 26 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- 6. After expiry of the six-month time-limit the State party submitted its explanations, dated 6 November 1978, which consisted of a "Description of the rights available to the accused in the military criminal tribunals and of the domestic remedies at his disposal as ' The text of an individual opinion submitted by a Committee member is appended to these views. 55