Uruguay of the Covenant and the Optional Protocol (23 March 1976); (c) That domestic remedies had not been exhausted (the State party enclosed an annex listing the domestic remedies in the Uruguayan legal system). 9. In his submission dated 18 August 1980, under rule 93 (3) of the provisional rules of procedure, the author comments upon the State party's reply of 10 July 1980. With regard to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the author reiterates that they are in practice in­ operative. In substantiation of this allegation he repeats the dates relating to his brother's arrest (25 February 1976), the day the Government alcnowledged that arrest (June 1976), the day charges were brought against him (16 December 1976), the day the indictment was pro­ nounced (September 1978), and the day he was sen­ tenced by a Military Court of First Instance (14 August 1979). The author points out that these dates and the fact that no final judgement has been pronounced in his brother's case more than four and a half years after his arrest prove that domestic remedies are not operating normally in Uruguay. 6. In a decision adopted on 24 April 1979, the Human Rights Committee concluded: (a) That it was not barred from considering the case after having ascertained that case No. 2134, concerning the alleged victim, was no longer under consideration by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights; Ф) That it was not barred from considering the case although the arrest of the alleged victim preceded the date of the entry into force for Uruguay of the Cov­ enant and the Optional Protocol, since the aUeged viola­ tions continued after that date; (c) That, with regard to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, on the basis of the information before it, there were no further remedies which the alleged victim could have pursued; The Committee therefore decided: (a) That the communication was admissible; Ф) That, in accordance with article 4 (2) of the Pro­ tocol, 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 observations or explanations concerning the substance of the matter under consideration and in particular on the specific violations of the Covenant alleged to have occurred. The State party was requested, in this connection, to enclose copies of any court orders or decisions of relevance to the matter under consideration; (c) That this decision be communicated to the State party and to the author of the communication. As regards the merits of the case, the author submits that the State party should have explained and specified in what subversive activities Ismael Weinberger has been involved. In substantiation of that allegation the State party should have comphed with the request of the Human Rights Committee to "enclose copies of any court orders or decisions of relevance to the matter under consideration". 10. The Committee has considered the present com­ munication in the light of aU information made available to it by the parties as provided in article 5(1) of the Optional Protocol. 11. With regard to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Committee has been informed by the Government of Uruguay in another case (No. 9/1977) that the remedy of habeas corpus is not applicable to persons arrested under "prompt security measures". The author as well as the State party have stated that an appeal was lodged on behalf of Ismael Weinberger with the Supreme Military Court on 19 August 1979. Up to date no final judgement has been rendered in the case of Ismael Weinberger, more than four and a half years after his arrest on 25 February 1976. The Committee concludes that in accordance with article 5 (2) ф) of the Optional Protocol, it is not barred from considering the case, as the application of the remedy is unreasonably prolonged. 7. The six-month time-limit referred to in the Committee's decision expired on 25 November 1979. By a note dated 10 July 1980, the State party submitted its written explanations under article 4 (2) of the Optional Protocol. 8. In this submission the State party repeats the views expressed in its earlier note of 29 December 1978 as to the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. The State party points out that the fact that Mr. Weinberger has not exhausted the available domestic remedies is proved by the appeal against the judgement of the court of first instance which the defence lodged with the Supreme Military Court on 19 August 1979 and which was brought before that Court on 29 September 1979. As far as the merits of the case are concerned, the State party submits that Ismael Weinberger was not ar­ rested because of his political beliefs or ideas or his trade-union membership, but for having participated directly in subversive activities. The State party further contests the allegation that Ismael Weinberger has not been afforded legal assistance. The State party submits that he had at all times access to the help of a defence lawyer of his choos­ ing. Dr. Moisés Sarganas. 12. The Committee therefore decides to base its views on the following facts which have either been essentiaUy confirmed by the State party or are un­ contested except for denials of a general character offer­ ing no particular information or explanation: Ismael Weinberger Weisz was arrested at his home in Montevideo, Uruguay, on 25 February 1976 without any warrant of arrest. He was held incommunicado at the prison of "La Paloma" in Montevideo for more than 100 days and could be visited by family members only 10 months after his arrest. During this period, he was most of the time kept blindfolded with his hands tied together. As a result of the treatment received dur­ ing detention, he suffered serious physical injuries (one 59