counsel after approximately 10 months of detention. Finally, the author alleges that the judgement against his brother was not made public. The author also alleges that pursuant to Acta Insti­ tucional No. 4 of 1 September 1976, (arts. I (o), ф) and 2 (a))' his brother is now deprived of the right to engage in political activities for 15 years. Articles of Optional Protocol: 5 (2) (a) and (b) Views under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol 1. The author of this communication (initial letter dated 8 May 1978 and subsequent letters dated 16 June 1978, 11 February 1979 and 18 August 1980) is a Uruguayan citizen residing in Mexico. He submitted the communication on behalf of his brother, Ismael Weinberger, a journalist at present detained in Uruguay. 3. The author further claims that in practice domestic remedies do not exist in Uruguay. With regard to the recourse of habeas corpus, the authorities main­ tain that it is not applicable to the cases of persons de­ tained under "prompt security measures", while an ap­ peal against a sentence to a higher tribunal is in practice ineffective. The author aUeges that articles 2, 3, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 25 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights have been violated. He states in his letter of 16 June 1978 that the Inter-American Commis­ sion on Human Rights took note of his brother's case and, after having requested a report on it from the Government of Uruguay, decided to take no further ac­ tion in the matter and to file it (case No. 2134). 2. The author alleges the following: His brother was arrested in the presence of his relatives at his home in Montevideo, Uruguay, on 25 February 1976, without any warrant of arrest. He was held incommunicado for nearly 10 months, while Uruguayan authorities denied his detention for more than 100 days. Only in June 1976 did his name appear on a list of detained persons, but still his family was not informed about his place of detention, the prison of "La Paloma" in Montevideo. During this period of 10 months, he suffered severe tor­ ture, and was most of the time kept blindfolded with his hands tied together. In addition, like all other prisoners, he was forced to remain every day during 14 hours sit­ ting on a mattress. He was not allowed to move around, nor to work or read. Food was scarce (a piece of bread and thin soup twice a day without any meat). When his family was allowed to visit him after 10 months, serious bodily harm (one arm paralysed, leg injuries, infected eyes) could be seen. He had lost 25 kgs and showed signs of application of hallucinogenic substances. At the end of 1976 or early 1977, he was transferred to the prison of "Libertad" in the Province of San José, where he received better treatment. 4. On 26 July 1978, the Human Rights Committee decided to transmit the communication to the State party, under rule 91 of the provisional rules of pro­ cedure, requesting information and observations rele­ vant to the question of admissibility. 5. By a note dated 29 December 1978, the State party objected to the admissibility of the communica­ tion on three grounds: (a) That the case had been considered by the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights (No. 2134) which had decided to shelve it when the complaint had been withdrawn by its author; Ф) That the date of the alleged violation of human rights (Ismael Weinberger was arrested on 18 January 1976) preceded the date of the entry into force for The author further states that Ismael Weinberger was brought before a military judge on 16 December 1976 and charged with having committed offences under ar­ ticle 60 (V) of the Mihtary Penal Code ("subversive association") with aggravating circumstances of con­ spiracy against the Constitution (asociación para delin­ quir con el agravante de atentado a la Constitución). Only then could he avail himself of the assistance of legal counsel. Characterizing these accusations as a mere pretext, the author alleges that the real reasons for his brother's arrest and conviction were his pohtical opinions, contrary to the official ideology of the present Government of Uruguay. He asserts that Ismael Weinberger was prosecuted solely for having con­ tributed information on trade union activities to a newspaper opposed to the Government, i.e., for the ex­ ercise of rights expressly guaranteed by the Constitution of Uruguay to all citizens. Furthermore, he alleges that to be tried on a charge of "asociación para delinquir" amounted to prosecution for membership in a political party which had been perfectly lawful at the time when Ismael Weinberger was affiliated with it, and which had been banned only afterwards. In addition, he maintains that his brother did not have a fair and public hearing, since the trial of first instance was conducted in writing, military judges are subordinated to the military hierar­ chy and lack the required qualities of impartiality and independence, and his brother only had the assistance of ' Institutional Act N o . 4 of 1 September 1976: "[...] The Executive Power, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by the institutionalization of the revolutionary process, "DECREES: ' 'Art. 1. The following shall be prohibited, for a term of 15 years, from engaging in any of the activities of a political nature authorized by the Constitution of the Republic, including the vote: "(a) All candidates for elective office on the lists for the 1966 and 1971 elections of the Marxist and pro-Marxist Political Parties or Groups declared illegal by the resolutions of the Executive Power No. 1788/67 of 12 December 1967 and N o . 1026/73 of 26 November 1973; "(b) All persons who have been tried for crimes against the na­ tion. "Art. 2. The following shall be prohibited, for a term of 15 years, from engaging in any of the activities of a political nature authorized by the Constitution of the Republic, except the vote: "(a) All candidates for elective office on the lists for the 1966 and 1971 elections of the Political Organizations which were electorally associated with the organizations mentioned in the preceding article, subparagraph (e), under the same coincidental or joint slogan or subslogan; [...]" 58