Article 9 (3), because Luis Tourón was not brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized to exercise judicial power; Article 9 (4), because habeas corpus was not available to him; Article 14 (1), because he had no public hearing and because the judgement rendered against him was not made public; Article 14 (3), because he did not have access to legal assistance during the first seven months of his deten­ tion and was not tried in his presence. 13. 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 he has suffered and to take steps to en­ sure that similar violations do not occur in the future. .Communication No. 33/1978 Submitted by: Leopoldo Buffo Carballal on 30 May 1978 Alleged victim: The author State party: Uruguay Date of adoption of views: 21 March 1981 (twelfth session) Detention incommunicado—Access to counse/—Habeas corx>\xi.—Torture—Delays in pro­ ceedings—Detention despite release order—Exten­ sion of time for State party's observations—Deroga­ tion from Covenant—Burden of proof soup in the morning and another at night. They would not allow our relatives to bring us food or medicine. I suffered from chronic diar­ rhoea and frequent colds. 2.4 On 5 May 1976 he appeared before a military court, and on 28 July 1976 he was brought before the court again to be notified that his release had been ordered. 2.5 In spite of the order for his release, he was still detained at the Fifth Artillery barracks under the régime of "prompt security measures" until 26 January 1977. He was, however, forbidden to leave Montevideo and ordered to report to the authorities every 15 days. He gained asylum in the Embassy of Mexico in Montevideo on 4 March 1977 with his wife and children. At the time his home was plundered and his belongings were taken away. 2.6 The author claims that during his detention he was effectively barred from any recourse, not only because he had no access to the outside world while he was held incommunicado (until 28 July 1976) but also, from then on, because of the interpretation given by the Uruguayan authorities to the relevant provision of the Constitution in respect of detention under "prompt security measures". He states that he was never charged with any offence under the law and alleges that the sole reason for the injustices inflicted upon him was his political opinions, the nature of which, however, he fails to specify. 2.7 He states that he did not receive any compensa­ tion after his release. 2.8 He submits that he was a victim of violations of articles 7, 9 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), 10 (1 and 3), 12, 17 and 19 (1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Articles of Covenant: 7, 9 (1). (2) and (4), 10 (1), 14 (3) and 19 Article of Optional Protocol: 4 (2) Views under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol 1. The author of this communication, dated 30 May 1978, is Leopoldo Buffo CarbaUal, a 36-year-old Uruguayan national, residing in Mexico. He submitted the communication on his own behalf. 2.1 The author states the following: 2.2 Upon arriving in Argentina on 4 January 1976 (by legally crossing the border between Uruguay and Argentina), he was arrested without a warrant of arrest and handed over to members of the Uruguayan Navy, who took him back to the city of Paysandú, Uruguay. He was not informed of why he had been deprived of his liberty. A few days later he was transferred to Montevideo. 2.3 During the first period of detention, until 12 February 1976, he was repeatedly subjected to torture (blows, hanging from his hands and forced to stand motionless—"plantón"—for long periods). On 12 February 1976, after having been forced to sign a state­ ment to the effect that he had suffered no abuses, he was transferred to the mihtary barracks of the Fifth Ar­ tillery. From there, he was taken to a large truck garage. The author describes the events as follows: They moved us all to a large truck garage with a concrete roof and two big doors that were open summer and winter. We slept on the floor, which was covered with oil and grease. We had neither mattress nor blankets. For the first time since 1 was detained, 1 was allowed to take a bath, ahhough I had to put on the same clothes, soiled by my own vomit, blood and excrement. When I took off the bhndfold I became dizzy. Later on, my family was allowed to send me a mat­ tress. In this dungeon I remained incommunicado, sitting on the rolled-up mattress during the day, blindfolded and with my hands bound. We were allowed to sleep at night. The only food was a cup of 3. On 28 July 1978, the Human Rights Committee 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 admissibility. 4. By letter dated 29 December 1978, the State party argued that the alleged violation took place on 63