1979 has been completed, there stiU remain available the extraordinary remedies of annulment and review, as provided for in article 507 of the Code of Military Penal Procedure and Law 3,439 of 5 April 1909, which have not been invoked". The State party adds: "simUarly, Law 14,997 of 25 March 1980 estabhshes procedures for requesting early and conditional release in cases under military jurisdiction ... the party concerned has not so far petitioned the Supreme Court of Mihtary Justice to apply that law to her case, ... consequently, all domestic remedies have not been exhausted". 5. On 22 December 1980, the author forwarded her comments in reply to the State party's submission of 17 October 1980. She claims therein that the remedies pro­ vided for by the law and the various actions to be taken before the Supreme Court of Military Justice avaüable under the law, referred to by the State party, even if they exist, have not been brought to her sister's atten­ tion by her military defence counsel, which indicates that the officially appointed defence counsel has faOed in his duty. She points out that her sister does not have freedom of action, that she does not know the law governing her case and that she is tried under the mihtary legal system to which the defence counsel belongs. The author further challenges the vahdity of the "remedies" referred to by the State party on the ground that the chmate of terror, the harsh and in­ human treatment to which her sister is subjected in prison and the lack of support from her defence counsel make it impossible for her to take action in her own defence. The author therefore concludes that the pro­ ceedings in her sister's case cannot be assessed according to what is apphcable in a normal case {"no puede juzgarse con la formalidad de un caso normal"). 7. On 31 March 1981, the Human Rights Commit­ tee therefore decided: (а) That the communication was admissible; (б) That, in accordance whh article 4 (2) of the Op­ tional Protocol, the State party should be requested to submit to the Committee, within six months of the date of the transmittal to it of this decision, written explana­ tions or statements clarifying the matter and the remedy, if any, that may have been taken by it; (c) That the State party should 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 con­ sideration. The Committee stressed that in order to per­ form its responsibihties, it required specific responses to the ahegations which had been made by the author 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. 8. By a note dated 15 October 1981, the State party submitted the following explanations under article 4 (2) of the Optional Protocol: It (the Government of Uruguay) rejects the libeUous assertions in the communication, regarding "the chmate of terror" and "the harsh and inhuman treatment" to which Miss Mirta Cubas was said to be subjected; it is also incorrect to state that the case of the abovementioned detainee "cannot be assessed according to what is ap­ plicable in a normal case" ("no puede juzgarse con la formalidad de un caso normal"). The proceedings were conducted with all the guarantees required in the relevant legislation. The reason why the ap­ phcation to the Supreme Court of Mihtary Justice for a reduction of her sentence was rejected was simply the nature of the offences com­ mitted and the fact that they were duly proved. The Government of Uruguay also wishes to state that, on 7 August 1981, an application for conditional release for Miss Mirta Cubas was submitted to the Supreme Court of Military Justice. The application is being considered by the Court. 6.1 The Human Rights Committee noted the State party's assertion that there were further remedies avaüable to Mirta Cubas Simones. The State party, however, did not adduce any grounds to show that the remedies which in other cases have been described as be­ ing exceptional in character, should be pursued in the present case. On the contrary, the Committee noted that the officially appointed defence counsel had not in­ voked them on behalf of Mirta Cubas Simones, ahhough more than a year had passed since the Supreme Mihtary Court rendered judgement against her. They could not therefore be regarded as having, in effect, been "available" within the meaning of article 5 (2) {b) of the Optional Protocol. 9. The Human Rights Committee notes the State party's observation that an application for conditional release for Mirta Cubas Simones has been submitted to the Supreme Court of Military Justice. This is not, of course, a remedy within the meaning of article 5 (2) {b) of the Optional Protocol concerning exhaustion of domestic remedies in regard to the violations of the Covenant complained of. Nevertheless, her release would constitute an important step towards alleviating her situation. 10. The Committee has considered the present com­ munication in the light of all information made available to it by the parties, as provided in article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 6.2 In the circumstances, the Committee was unable to conclude, on the basis of the information submitted by the State party, that the communication was inad­ missible under article 5 (2) (6). 11.1 The Committee dedides to base its views on the fohowing facts which have either been confirmed by the State party or are unconstested, except for denials of a general character offering no particular information or explanation: 11.2 Mirta Cubas Simones was arrested on 27 January 1976, without any warrant for her arrest, in her family's home, in the presence of her mother and her 6.3 In its submission dated 17 October 1980 the State party did not contest the author's assertion that the same matter had not been submitted to any other in­ ternational body. 6.4 Consequently, the Committee found that it was not precluded by article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Pro­ tocol from considering the communication. 131