sleep for a few hours at a time; he was beaten and given insufficient food and he was not allowed to receive visits. In May 1978, he received his first visit after this three months' sanction and his state of heahh was alarming. 2.5 At the end of August 1978, the authorities officially stated that, because of the danger he represented, her husband was not detained in Libertad Prison, but at Paso de los Toros. The author main­ tained that the fact her husband was held as a hostage and the cruel and discriminatory treatment to which he was subjected constituted flagrant violations of both na­ tional and international law, particularly the Geneva Conventions of 1949. 2.6 The author stressed that her husband's situation had not changed with the coming into force of the Inter­ national Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Optional Protocol on 23 March 1976. She requested the Human Rights Committee to take appropriate action with a view to securing her husband's right to submit a communication himself. 2.7 The author further aheged that her husband had needed an operation for his hernia since 1976; that, despite a medical order to perform such an operation, the military authorities had refused to take him to a hospital, and that his state of health continued to deteriorate. (Because of his hernia, he could take only li­ quids and was unable to walk without help; he also suf­ fered from heart disease.) She feared for his life and even thought that it had been decided to kill him slowly, notwithstanding the official abohtion of the death penahy in Uruguay in 1976. She therefore requested the Human Rights Committee to apply rule 86 of its provi­ sional rules of procedure in order to avoid irreparable damage to his heaUh. 2.8 The author stated that her husband had been denied all judicial guarantees. She further stated that, since December 1975, it had been compulsory for ah cases relating to political offences to be heard by mOitary courts and that her husband's trial, which was stih pending, would, therefore, be before such a body. 2.9 She added that in July 1977, the Government issued Acta Institucional No. 8, which in effect subor­ dinated the judicial power to the Executive, and that in­ dependent and impartial justice could not be expected from the mihtary courts. She further aheged that domestic remedies such as habeas corpus, were not ap­ phcable, that civihans were deprived of the safeguards essential to a fair trial and of the right to appeal, that defence lawyers were systematically harassed by the müitary authorities and that her husband had not been allowed to choose his own counsel. She maintained that all domestic remedies had been exhausted. 2.10 She also stated that, at the time of writing (28 November 1979), she was unaware of her husband's whereabouts. She requested the Human Rights Com­ mittee to obtain information from the State party about his place of detention and conditions of imprisonment. Rights had been violated by the Uruguayan authorities: articles 2, 6, 7, 10 and 14. 4. On 26 March 1980, 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 admissibility of the communica­ tion. The Committee also requested the State party to furnish information on the state of heahh of Raúl Sendie Antonaccio, the medical treatment given to him and his precise place of detention. 5. By a note dated 16 June 1980, the State party contested the admissibility of the communication on the ground that the same matter had been submitted to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (lACHR) as case No. 2937. In this connection the Com­ mittee ascertained from the Secretariat of lACHR that the case referred to was submitted by a third party and opened before lACHR on 26 April 1978. The State party did not furnish any information concerning Raúl Sendic's state of health, the medical treatment given to him or his whereabouts. 6. In her submission dated 23 June 1980, the author, commenting on the State party's submission, stated that she had never submitted her husband's case to the lACHR. She further stated that it had become known, thanks to strong international pressure on the mihtary authorities, that her husband was detained in the Regimiento "Pablo Galarza" in the department of Durazno. She aheged that the State party had refrained from giving any information on her husband's state of heahh because he was kept on an inadequate diet in an underground ceh with no fresh air or sunlight and his contacts with the outside world were restricted to a monthly visit that lasted 30 minutes and took place in the presence of armed guards. 7. In a further submission dated 7 July 1980, Violeta Setelich identified the author of the communica­ tion to lACHR concerning its case No. 2937 and en­ closed a copy of his letter, dated 8 June 1980, addressed to the Executive Secretary of lACHR, requesting that consideration of case No. 2937 concerning Raúl Sendic should be discontinued before that body, so as to remove any procedural uncertainties concerning the competence of the Human Rights Committee to con­ sider the present communication under the Optional Protocol. 8. In the circumstances, the Committee found that it was not precluded by article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol from considering the communication. The Committee was unable to conclude from the informa­ tion at its disposal that there had been remedies available to the victim of the alleged violations which had not been invoked. Accordingly, the Committee found that the communication was not inadmissible under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. 9. On 25 July 1980, the Human Rights Committee therefore decided: (a) That the communication was admissible; 3. The author claimed that the foho wing provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political 102