concerned requesting information and observations relevant to the question of admissibility of the com­ munication, as well as information concerning the state of health of the alleged victim. 3. By a note dated 27 October 1977, the State party objected to the admissibility of the communication on two grounds: (a) that the same matter was already being examined by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (lACHR) as case No. 2112 and (6) that the alleged victim had not exhausted all available domestic remedies. 4. By a further decision of 26 January 1978 the Committee: (a) Informed the authors of the communication of the State party's objection on the ground that a case concerning their father was already under examination by lACHR, as case No. 2112, and solicited their com­ ments thereon; (b) Informed the State party that, in the absence of more specific information concerning the domestic remedies said to be available to the author of this com­ munication and the effectiveness of those remedies as enforced by the competent authorities in Uruguay, the Committee was unable to accept that he had failed to exhaust such remedies and the communication would therefore not be considered inadmissible in so far as ex­ haustion of domestic remedies was concerned, unless the State party gave details of the remedies which it sub­ mitted had been available to the author in the cir­ cumstances of his case, together with evidence that there would be a reasonable prospect that such remedies would be effective; (c) Expressed concern over the fact that the State party had, so far, furnished no information on Alberto Akesor's state of heahh, urged the State party as a mat­ ter of urgency to arrange for him to be examined by a competent medical board and requested the State party to furnish it with a copy of the board's report. any kind of task involving physical effort, that he was given a diet suitable for the disease and was under medical supervision, that the conditions under which Altesor was detained were governed by the rules of the prison estabhshment which are generally applicable to all ordinary offenders and which make adequate provi­ sion for recreation, visits, correspondence, etc.; that a panel of doctors had been asked to examine Alberto Altesor and that the opinion of this panel of doctors was going to be communicated to the Committee in due course. The medical report was received on 5 October 1979 and transmitted to the authors of the communica­ tion for information. 6. Further proceedings before the Human Rights Committee were considerably delayed owing, first, to the authors' repeated efforts to conceal the fact that they were indeed also the authors of case No. 2112 before lACHR and, thereafter, by their statements, which could not be confirmed, that they had withdrawn case No. 2112 from consideration by lACHR. Finally, on 10 June 1980, the authors furnished the Human Rights Committee with a copy of their withdrawal re­ quest by the secretariat of lACHR. The Committee has however ascertained that the case concerning Alberto Altesor continues to be pursued by lACHR, on the basis of a new complaint from an unrelated third party, sub­ mitted to lACHR in March 1979. 7.1 For the determination of admissibility of the communication which the Committee had before it, the following facts were established: (a) Ahce and Victor Hugo Altesor submitted their father's case to lACHR in October 1976; (¿7) They submitted their father's case to the Human Rights Committee on 10 March 1977; (c) In March 1979, an unrelated third party com­ plained to lACHR about the situation of Alberto Altesor; (d) By letter of 6 May 1980, Alice and Victor Hugo Ahesor withdrew their submission from consideration by lACHR. 5.1 By a note dated 14 April 1978, the State party reiterated that the same matter was before lACHR and it submitted information which consisted of a general description of the rights available to the accused persons in the military criminal tribunals and of the domestic remedies at their disposal as means of protecting and safeguarding their rights under the Uruguayan judicial system. The State party also stated the following con­ cerning Alberto Altesor: 7.2 The Committee concluded that it was not prevented from considering the communication submit­ ted to it by the authors on 10 March 1977 by reason of the subsequent complaint made by an unrelated third party under the procedures of lACHR. Accordingly the Committee found that the communication was not inad­ missible under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol. He was a member of the Executive Committee of the Communist Party and was responsible for the so-called fourth section of the pro­ hibited Communist Party, i.e. the infiltration of the armed forces. He was arrested owing to his connection with the clandestine and subver­ sive activity of the said unlawful organization on 21 October 1975 and placed in custody under the prompt security measures. Subsequently he was brought before the military examining judge of the first circuit; on 24 September 1976 the judge ordered him to be placed on trial, charged with the offence referred to in article 60 (V) of the Military Criminal Code concerning subversive associations. 7.3 With regard to the exhaustion of local remedies, the Committee was unable to conclude, on the basis of the information before it that there were remedies available to the aheged victim which he should have pur­ sued. Accordingly, the Committee found that the com­ munication was not inadmissible under article (5) (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. 8. The Human Rights Committee therefore decided on 29 October 1980: (1) That the communication was admissible, and that the authors were justified in acting on behalf of their father; 5.2 Concerning the state of health of Alberto Altesor, the State party submitted that Alberto Altesor González underwent surgery on 26 December 1974 for a slight aortic stenosis, that he was entirely exempt from 106