13.1 The Human Rights Committee cannot accept the State party's criticism that it has displayed an ig­ norance of legal rules and a lack of ethics in carrying out the tasks entrusted to it or the insinuation that it has failed to carry out its task under the rule of law. On the contrary, in accordance with its mandate under article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol, the Committee has con­ sidered the communication in the light of the informa­ tion made available to it by the authors of the com­ munication and by the State party concerned. In this connection the Committee has adhered strictly to the principle audiatur et altera pars and has given the State party every opportunity to furnish information to refute the evidence presented by the authors, 13.2 The Committee notes that the State party has ignored the Committee's repeated requests for a thorough inquiry into the authors' allegations. 13.3 With regard to the burden of proof, this can­ not rest alone on the author of the communication, especially considering that the author and the State party do not always have equal access to the evidence and that frequently the State party alone has access to relevant information. It is implicit in article 4 (2) of the Optional Protocol that the State party has the duty to investigate in good faith aU allegations of violation of the Covenant made against it and its authorities, especially when such allegations are corroborated by evidence submitted by the author of the communica­ tion, and to furnish to the Committee the information available to it. In cases where the author has submitted to the Committee allegations supported by substantial witness testimony, as in this case, and where further clarification of the case depends on information ex­ clusively in the hands of the State party, the Committee may consider such allegations as substantiated in the absence of satisfactory evidence and explanations to the contrary submitted by the State party. 13.4 The Committee finds that the disappearance of Eduardo Bleier in October 1975 does not alone estabhsh that he was arrested by Uruguayan authorities. But, the allegation that he was so arrested and detained is con­ firmed (i) by the information, unexplained and substan­ tially unrefuted by the State party, that Eduardo Bleier's name was on a hst of prisoners read out once a week at an army unit in Montevideo where his family delivered clothing for him and received his dirty clothing until the summer of 1976, and (ii) by the testimony of other prisoners that they saw him in Uruguayan detention centres. Also there are the reports of several eyewitnesses that Eduardo Bleier was sub­ jected to severe torture while in detention. 14. It is therefore the Committee's view that the in­ formation before it reveals breaches of articles 7, 9 and 10 (1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Pohtical Rights and that there are serious reasons to believe that the ultimate violation of article 6 has been perpetrated by the Uruguayan authorities. 15. As regards the latter point the Human Rights Committee urges the Uruguayan Government to recon­ sider its position in this case and to take effective steps (i) to estabhsh what has happened to Eduardo Bleier since October 1975; to bring to justice any persons found to be responsible for his death, disappearance or ill-treatment; and to pay compensation to him or his family for any injury which he has suffered; and (ii) to ensure that similar violations do not occur in the future. Communication No. 45/1979 Submitted by: Pedro Pablo Camargo on 5 February 1979 on behalf of the husband of Maria Fanny Suárez de Guerrero Alleged victim: Maria Fanny Suárez de Guerrero State party: Colombia Date of adoption of views: 31 March 1982 (fifteenth session) Exhaustion of domestic remedies—Right to life—Use of firearms by police—Death of victim—Derogation from Covenant—State of emergency Articles of Covenant: 4 and 6 Article of Optional Protocol: 5 (2) (b) Views under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol 1.1 The communication (initial letter dated 5 February 1979 and further letters dated 26 June 1979, 2 June, 3 and 31 October 1980 and 2 January 1981) was submitted by Pedro Pablo Camargo, Professor of Inter­ national Law of the National University of Colombia, at present residing in Quito, Ecuador. He submitted the communication on behalf of the husband of Maria Fanny Suárez de Guerrero. 1.2 The author of the communication describes the relevant facts as follows: on 13 Aprh 1978, the judge of the 77th Mihtary Criminal Court of Investigation, himself a member of the pohce, ordered a raid to be car­ ried out at the house at No. 136-67 Transversal 31 in the "Contador" district of Bogotá. The order for the raid was issued to Major Carlos Julio Castaño Rozo, the SIPEC Chief of the F-2 Police, Bogotá Police Depart­ ment. The raid was ordered in the belief that Miguel de German Ribon, former Ambassador of Colombia to France, who had been kidnapped some days earher by a guerrilla organization, was being held prisoner in the house in question. Those taking part in the raid were Captains Jaime Patarroyo Barbosa and Jorge Noel Bar­ rero Rodriguez; Lieutenants Alvaro Mendoza Contreras and Manuel Antonio Bravo Sarmiento; Corporal First 112