(2) That the authors should be requested to clarify without delay, and not later than six weeks from the date of the transmittal of the present decision to them, which of the events previously described by them were alleged to have occurred on or after 23 March 1976 (the date on which the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights entered into force for Uruguay) and to provide the Committee with detailed information (in­ cluding relevant dates) as to their present knowledge about their father's treatment and situation after 23 March 1976; (i.e. after undue delay), that he was tried by a military and not by a civihan court, that the judge was not com­ petent, independent or impartial, that the accused was not promptly informed of the charges against him, that he was not allowed to defend himself in person, that there was no pubhc hearing, and that the witnesses on his behalf were not allowed to be examined under the same conditions as the witnesses against him. The authors also allege procedural irregularities in the trial, including the sentencing of Alberto Altesor to eight years' imprisonment, ahhough the prosecution had ahegedly asked only for a sentence of six years. Although more than five years have elapsed since his ar­ rest (at the time of writing in January 1981), his case is supposedly still in a court of second instance. 9.4 With regard to Alberto Altesor's state of health, the authors allege that he has been a patient at the Military Hospital since 29 December 1980; before that, at the Libertad prison, he had been found to be suffer­ ing from chest pains, fainting and loss of weight. (4) That, in accordance with article 4 (2) of the Op­ tional Protocol, the State party be requested to submit to the Committee within six months of the date of the transmittal to it of any submission received from the authors of the communication pursuant to operative paragraph 2 above, written explanations and statements clarifying the matter and the remedy, if any, that may have been taken by it; (5) That the State party be informed that the written explanations or statements submitted by it under article 4 (2) of the Optional Protocol must relate primarily to the substance of the matter under consideration. The Committee stressed that, in order to perform its respon­ sibilities, it required specific and detailed responses to each and every aUegation made by the authors of the communication, and the State party's explanations of the actions taken by it. The State party was requested, in this connection, to enclose copies of any court orders or decisions of relevance to the matter under considera­ tion; 10.1 In its submission under article 4 (2) of the Op­ tional Protocol, dated 21 August 1981, the State party rejects the authors' assertion in their submission of 28 January 1981 that article 14 of the Covenant was violated because Alberto Altesor was tried by a military and not by a civilian tribunal, referring to the Uruguayan law No. 14068 (State Security Act), which establishes the jurisdiction of military courts over of­ fences against the State, including the offences of "subversive association" and "action to overthrow the Constitution" of which Mr. Altesor was accused. The State party further asserts that due procedural guarantees were observed during the trial, and that Alberto Altesor had court-appointed counsel. 10.2 With regard to the authors' assertion that the case is still pending in a court of second instance, the State party explains that this is incorrect and that the court of second instance confirmed the judgement of the court of first instance on 18 March 1980. 10.3 The State party also rejects the assertion that Alberto Altesor is being subjected to persecution because of his political ideas. 10.4 With regard to Alberto Altesor's state of health, the State party indicates that he underwent medical examination on 20 March 1981, without, however, specifying the result of the examination. The State party adds that it has communicated to the authors via the Uruguayan Embassy in Mexico that the Government of Uruguay is prepared to carry out any further medical examinations and treatment as may be required by Alberto Ahesor's state of health. (7) That, further to the requests set out in operative paragraphs 4 and 5 above, the State party be requested to furnish the Committee, as soon as possible, with in­ formation concerning the present state of heahh of Alberto Altesor, considering that the latest information from the State party on this point was dated 5 October 1979. 9.1 On 28 January 1981 the authors submitted fur­ ther information and clarifications pursuant to paragraph 2 of the Committee's decision of 29 October 1980. 9.2 With regard to acts which allegedly occurred or continued or had effects which themselves constituted a violation of the Covenant after 23 March 1976, the authors maintain that ah the aheged violations of the In­ ternational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights oc­ curred or continued to make their effects felt after that date. In particular the authors indicate that their father was kept in solitary confinement without being brought before a judge for 16 months, 11 of which were after the date on which the Covenant entered into force for Uruguay. 11.1 In a further letter dated 6 October 1981 the authors refer to the State party's submission under ar­ ticle 4 (2), and claim that it does not answer their specific complaints of violations of guarantees em­ bodied in the Covenant. The fact that their father was brought before the military courts because of the terms of a particular Uruguayan law cannot alter the essence of the matter: "that the procedure applied in this way is lacking in internationally estabhshed guarantees". 9.3 The authors further allege that violations of the Covenant occurred not only after its entry into force, but also after this communication was filed with the Committee, including specific violations of article 14, inter alia, that Alberto Altesor was not tried until 1977 107