11.2 With respect to their ahegation that the sentence against their father was pohtically motivated, they indicate that the State party still has not specifically stated which acts the detainee committed in order to warrant his present situation. 11.3 The authors also declare that they never re­ ceived any information about their father's state of health through the Embassy of Uruguay in Mexico. 12.1 The Human Rights Committee has considered the present communication in the light of ah informa­ tion made available to it by the parties, as provided in article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. The Committee bases its views on the fohowing facts: 12.2 Alberto Altesor was arrested in Montevideo on 21 October 1975 and placed in custody under the "prompt security measures". Recourse to habeas cor­ pus was not available to him. On 24 September 1976 a military 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 association". The court of first instance sentenced him to eight years' imprisonment (the Committee is not in­ formed of the date of this decision). The court of second instance confirmed the judgement of the court of first instance on 18 March 1980. 13.1 In formulating its views the Human Rights Committee also takes into account the following con­ siderations, which reflect a faUure by both parties to furnish the information and clarifications necessary for the Committee to formulate final views on a number of important issues: 13.2 In operative paragraph 2 of its decision on admissibhity of 29 October 1980, the Committee requested the authors to clarify which of the events previously described by them were aheged to have occurred on or after 23 March 1976 (the date on which the Covenant entered into force for Uruguay) and to provide detailed information as to their present knowledge about their father's treatment after this date. The Committee notes that the authors' reply on 28 January 1981 and their submission of 6 October 1981 do not furnish the Com­ mittee with any further precise information to enable it to establish with certainty what in fact occurred after 23 March 1976. The authors claim that, based on infor­ mation provided by eye-witnesses arrested at the same time as Alberto Altesor and subsequently released, their father was subjected to torture fohowing his arrest. No eye-witness testimonies have been furnished, nor a clear indication of the time-frame involved. The authors have however explained that the "mistreatment which he suf­ fered earlier, to the point of having to be hospitalized, is not inflicted on him at present". 13.3 With respect to the date when Alberto Altesor was first brought before a judge, the authors claim that he was kept incommunicado and not brought before a judge for over 16 months after his arrest. The State party's explanations in its note of 14 April 1978 are ambiguous in this respect: "Fue detenido... el 21/10/75 e internado ai amparo de las medidas prontas de seguridad. Con posterioridad fue sometido al juez militar de instrucción de 1er. turno quien con fecha 24 de Septiembre de 1976 dispuso su procesamiento The Committee cannot determine whether "con posterioridad" (subsequently) means that Alberto Altesor was brought before a judge within a reasonable time; nor is it clear whether "fue sometido al juez müitar" means that he was brought personally before the judge or whether his case was merely submitted to the judge in writing or in the presence of a legal representative. The State party should have clearly stated the precise date when Alberto Altesor was brought personally before a judge, since article 9 (3) of the Covenant requires that "Anyone arrested or de­ tained on a criminal charge shah be brought promptly before a judge." Without that statement, the State party has failed to rebut the authors' allegation that their father was not brought before a judge until after 16 months of detention. The fact that Alberto Altesor was committed for trial by a military judge on 24 September 1976 (i.e. over 11 months after his arrest), does not adequately clarify the matter. 13.4 The authors claim that their father was ar­ rested because of his political activities. In reply, the State party stated that Alberto Ahesor headed a section of the proscribed Communist Party believed to be engaged in the infiltration of the armed forces, and that he was arrested owing to his connection with the clandestine and subversive activity of the said unlawful organization. The State party has not furnished any court decision or other information as to the specific nature of the activities in which Alberto Altesor was aheged to have been engaged and which led to his deten­ tion. 13.5 In operative paragraph 5 of its decision of 29 October 1980 the Committee requested the State party to furnish specific and detailed responses to each and every ahegation made by the authors. The Committee observes that the State party's submission under article 4 (2) of the Optional Protocol, dated 21 August 1981, does not constitute sufficient refutation with regard to various of the allegations made by the authors. The State party's general statements that "the trial was held with ah due guarantees" and that Alberto Altesor had "counsel as required by law" are insufficient to rebut the allegations that the accused was not prompUy in­ formed of the charges against him, that he was not allowed to defend himself in person, that there was no public hearing, and that defence witnesses were not ex­ amined under the same conditions as witnesses against him. The State party has not responded to the Commit­ tee's request that it should be furnished with copies of any court orders or decisions relevant to the matter. The Committee is seriously concerned by this omission. Although similar requests have been made in a number of other cases, the Committee has never yet been fur­ nished with the texts of any court decisions. In such cir­ cumstances, the Committee feels unable, on the basis of the information before it, to accept the State party's contention that Alberto Altesor had a fair trial. 108