(b) That the text of this decision be transmitted to the State party, together with the text of the relevant documents, and to the author; (c) 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 this decision, written explanations or statements clarifying the matter and the remedy, if any, that may have been taken by it. unfounded, irresponsible and unaccompanied by the least shred of evidence and that they accordingly did not deserve further comment. 9. The Committee has noted that the submissions by the Government of Uruguay of 9 October 1979 were received after the expiry of the time-limit imposed by ar­ ticle 4 (2) of the Optional Protocol, and even after the time-limit following the Committee's renewed request of 18 April 1979. The Committee considered the present communication in the light of all information made available to it by the parties as provided for in article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 6. The time-limit for the State party's submission under article 4 (2) of the Optional Protocol expired on 3 September 1978. More than four months after expiry of the six-month time-limit, the State party submitted its explanations, dated 8 January 1979, which consisted of a "Review of the rights of the accused in cases before a military criminal tribunal, and domestic remedies available to him for protecting and safeguarding his rights in the national courts of justice". It contained a reference to the remedy of habeas corpus under article 17 of the Constitution, but it did not mention the fact that under the Uruguayan legal system the remedy of habeas corpus is not applicable to persons arrested and detained under the régime of prompt security measures. 10. The Human Rights Committee therefore decides to base its views on the following facts which have either been essentially confirmed by the State party or are unrepudiated or uncontested except for denials of a general character offering no particular information or explanations: Edgardo Dante Santullo Valcada was ar­ rested on 8 or 9 September 1976. He was brought before a military judge on 25 October 1976 and again on 5 or 6 November 1976 when he was released. During his detention he did not have access to legal counsel. He had no possibility to apply for habeas corpus. Nor was there any decision against him which could be the sub­ ject of an appeal. 7. On 10 April 1979, the Committee decided that the submission of the State party dated 8 January 1979 was not sufficient to comply with the requirements of article 4 (2) of the Optional Protocol, since it contained no ex­ planations on the merits of the case under consideration and requested the State party to supplement its submis­ sion by providing, not later than six weeks from the date of the transmittal of this decision to the State party, observations concerning the substance of the matter under consideration. 11. As regards the allegations of ill-treatment, the Committee noted that in his communication the author named the senior officers responsible for the illtreatment which he alleged that he received. The State party has adduced no evidence that his allegations of illtreatment have been duly investigated in accordance with the laws to which it drew attention in its submission of 9 October 1979. A refutation of these allegations in general terms is not enough. The State party should in­ vestigate the allegations in accordance with its laws. 8. The Committee's decision of 18 April 1979 was transmitted to the State party on 18 May 1979. The six weeks referred to therein, therefore, expired on 2 July 1979. More than three months after that date, a response was received from the State party, dated 9 Oc­ tober 1979. The State party informed that Mr. Santullo Valcada was arrested on 9 September 1976 in connec­ tion with the identification of persons acting as clan­ destine contacts for the proscribed Communist Party. During the inspection of his house, a great amount of subversive material was allegedly found and Mr. Santullo was detained under the "prompt security measures". On 6 November 1976 he was released and a few days later, on 25 November, he obtained political asylum at the Embassy of Mexico. It is maintained that, throughout the proceedings, all the provisions of the in­ ternal legal order were strictly complied with. The State party also referred in its submission to the régime of "prompt security measures" describing some of its characteristics. Under such régime, any person can be arrested on grounds of a grave and imminent danger to security and public order; the remedy of habeas corpus is not applicable. Furthermore the State party referred to the domestic legal provisions prohibiting any physical maltreatment in Uruguay. Without going into further details, the State party submitted that the author's allegations concerning violations of the Covenant were 12. The Human Rights Committee acting under ar­ ticle 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is of the view that these facts, having arisen after 23 March 1976, disclose violations of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, in particular: "of article 9 (4) because, habeas corpus being inappHcable in his case, Santullo Valcada was denied an effective remedy to challenge his arrest and detention." As regards article 7 of the Covenant the Committee can­ not find that there has not been any violation of this provision. In this respect the Committee notes that the State party has failed to show that it had ensured to the person concerned the protection required by article 2 of the Covenant. 13. The Committee, accordingly, is of the view that the State party is under an obligation to take immediate steps to ensure strict observance of the provisions of the Covenant and to provide effective remedies to the vic­ tim, including compensation in accordance with article 9 (5) of the Covenant. 44