tions under the Covenant and the Optional Protocol and brought to justice those found to be responsible. nature of the political activities in which Grille Motta was alleged to have been engaged and which led to his arrest, detention and committal for trial. Bare informa­ tion from the State party that he was charged with subversive association and an attempt to undermine the morale of the armed forces is not in itself sufficient, without details of the alleged charges and copies of the court proceedings. The Committee is therefore unable to conclude on the information before it that the arrest, detention and trial of Grille Motta was justified on any of the grounds mentioned in article 19 (3) of the Cove­ nant. 15. The Human Rights Committee has considered whether acts and treatment, which are prima facie not in conformity with the Covenant, could for any reasons be justified under the Covenant in the circumstances. The Government has referred to provisions of Uruguayan law, including the "prompt security measures". However, the Covenant (art. 4) does not allow national measures derogating from any of its provisions except in strictly defined circumstances, and the Government has not made any submissions of fact or law to justify such derogation. Moreover, some of the facts referred to above raise issues under provisions from which the Covenant does not allow any derogation under any cir­ cumstances. 18. The Committee, accordingly, is of the view that the State party is under an obligation to provide the vic­ tim with effective remedies, including compensation, for the violations which he has suffered and to take steps to ensure that similar violations do not occur in the future. 16. The Human Rights Committee acting under ar­ ticle 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is of the view that these facts, in so far as they have occurred after 23 March 1976 (the date on which the Covenant entered in­ to force in respect of Uruguay), disclose violations of the Covenant, in particular of: Articles 7 and 10 (1), on the basis of evidence of torture and inhuman treatment, which has not been duly in­ vestigated by the Uruguayan Government and which is therefore unrefuted; Article 9 (3), because Mr. Grille Motta was not brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power; Article 9 (4), because recourse to habeas corpus was not available to him. APPENDIX i Individual opinion submitted by a member of the Human Rights Committee under rule 94 (3) of the Committee's provisional rules of procedure Communication No. 11/1977 Individual opinion appended to the Committee's views at the re­ quest of Mr. Christian Tomuschat: I can see no justification for a discussion of article 19 of the Covenant in relation to the last sentence of paragraph 13. T o be sure, the petitioner has complained of a violation of article 19. But he has not furnished the Human Rights Committee with the necessary facts in support of his contention. The only concrete allegation is that, while detained, he was interrogated as to whether he held a position of responsibility in the outlawed Communist Youth. N o further information has been provided by him concern­ ing his political views, association and activities. Since the petitioner himself did not substantiate his charge of a violation of article 19, the State party concerned was not bound to give specific and de­ tailed replies. General explanations and statements are not suffi­ cient. This basic procedural rule applies to both sides. A petitioner has to state his case plainly. Only on this basis can the defendant Government be expected to answer the charges brought against it. Eventually, the Human Rights Committee may have to ask the pet­ itioner to supplement his submission, which in the present case it has not done. 17. As regards article 19, the Covenant provides that everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference and that the freedom of expression set forth in paragraph 2 of that article shall be subject only to such restrictions as are necessary (a) for respect of the rights and reputations of others or (b) for the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals. The Government of Uruguay has submitted no evidence regarding the ELEVENTH SESSION Communication No. 28/1978 Submitted by: Luciano Weinberger Weisz on 8 May 1978 Alleged victim: Ismael Weinberger State party: Uruguay Date of adoption of views: 29 October 1980 (eleventh session) Submission to lACHR—Exhaustion of domestic remedies—Detention incommunicado—Access to counsel—Habeas corpus—Torture—Prison condi­ tions—Fair and public hearing—Delay in pro­ ceedings—Presence of accused at trial—Retroactivity of penal laws—Freedom of expression—Trade union activities—Right to engage in political activities Articles of Covenant: 2 (1), 4, 7, 9 (3) and (4), 10 (1), 14 (1) and (3), 15 (1). 19 (2), 25 and 26 57