sister. For tiie subsequent tiiree months she was held in­ communicado at an unknown place. During this time the Uruguayan authorities denied her detention. In July 1976, five months after her arrest, Mirta Cubas Simones was brought to trial and charged with the offence of "aiding a conspiracy to violate the law" {asistencia a la asociación para delinquir) and a three-year prison sentence was requested by the public prosecutor. Upon appeal to the Supreme Mihtary Tribunal in August 1978, she was charged in addition with the offence of "subversion", and the public prosecutor asked for the sentence to be increased to six years. Judgement was pronounced on 2 October 1979. In November 1979 a plea was made on her behalf that the sentence be re­ duced. This plea was rejected by the Supreme Military Tribunal. Mirta Cubas Simones was tried in camera, the trial was conducted without her presence and the judge­ ment was not rendered in public. She was assigned a court-appointed military defence counsel whom she was unable to consuh. The Commhtee further notes that the State party did not comply with the Commhtee's re­ quest to enclose copies of any court order or decisions of relevance to the matter under consideration. For ah these reasons the Committee is unable to accept that Mirta Cubas Simones had a fair trial. In addition, since 1976 Mirta Cubas Simones has been subjected to con­ tinuously harsh prison conditions. 12. Accordingly, the Human Rights Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the facts as found by h, in so far as they occurred after 23 March 1976 (the date on which the Covenant entered into force in respect of Uruguay), disclose the fohowing violations of the Covenant, in particular of: Article 10 (1), because Mirta Cubas Simones was held incommunicado for three months and during this period the authorities wrongfully denied that she was detained; Article 14 (1), because she did not have a fair and pubhc hearing; Article 14 (3) (b), because she was unable to commun­ icate with her court-appointed defence lawyer and therefore did not have adequate facilities for the pre­ paration of her defence; Article 14 (3) (d), because she was not tried in her presence. 13. The Committee, accordingly, is of the opinion that the State party is under an obligation to provide the victim whh effective remedies, including compensation, for the violations she has suffered and to take steps to ensure that similar violations do not occur in the future. Communication No. 73/1980 Submitted by: Ana Maria Teti Izquierdo on 7 July 1980 Alleged victim: Mario Alberto Teti Izquierdo (author's brother) State party: Uruguay Date of adoption of views: 1 April 1982 (fifteenth session) Exhaustion of domestic remedies—Detention incom­ municado—Ill-treatment—Confession under duress —State of health of prisoner—Access to counsel— Delay in proceedings Articles of Covenant: 7, 9 (3), 10 (1) and 14 (3) Article of Optional Protocol: 5 (2) (b) Views under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol 1. The author of this communication (initial letter dated 7 July 1980 and further letters dated 26 December 1980 and 16 January, 8 June and 12 September 1981) is Ana Maria Teti, Uruguayan national residing in France. She submhted the communication on behalf of her brother, Mario Alberto Teti Izquierdo, 37 years old, holding dual nationality (Uruguayan and Italian), de­ tained in Uruguay. 1.2 The author stated in her submission of 7 July 1980 that her brother, a medical student, was arrested in Uruguay, on 24 May 1972, ahegedly for belonging to a youth movement opposed to the regime. She alleged that for two months after his arrest he was held incom­ municado and tortured several times, that for this pur­ pose he was removed from the Libertad prison to an unknown place, and that as a resuh he suffered serious physical and psychological injury, which led him to at­ tempt suicide in 1974. The author further stated that from the time of her brother's arrest in 1972 unth Oc­ tober 1976 he had access to three lawyers. Dr. Wilmar Olivera, Dr. Alba Deh'Acqua and Dr. Mario Deh'Acqua, each one for a short period of time only, because they were harassed and persecuted and finally had to leave the country on account of their defence of political prisoners such as Mario Teti. Thereafter it was imposs­ ible for Mario Teti himself to appoint a lawyer to act in his defence and Colonel Barbé, a mihtary defence counsel, was officially appointed by the court to act in the case. (The author added, in her further submission of 16 January 1981, that since October 1976, her brother had been deprived of the rights of an accused person to prepare his defence, to have adequate means to do so and to have a defence counsel of his choice.) 1.3 The author further claimed that her brother was brought to trial towards the end of 1972 and that he was sentenced, in a final judgement by the Supreme Military Tribunal in 1978, to 10 years' imprisonment. She men132