the next 12 months. In the circumstances, the Committee did not find that it was precluded, under article 5, paragraph 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol, from considering the communication. As of October 1997, the situation remained the same. 2.7 The author does not state whether the same matter has been submitted to another instance of international investigation or settlement. The Committee has ascertained, however, that another case concerning the author’s husband was submitted to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, where it is registered as case 11.048 but is not currently under examination. 6.2 As to the complaint that Mr. Polay Campos had been tortured and subjected to treatment in violation of articles 7 and 10, the Committee considered that the facts as submitted appeared to raise issues under the Covenant, notably under articles 7 and 10 thereof. The complaint 3. The author submits that the above situation reveals that her husband is a victim of violations by Peru of article 2, paragraph 1, and articles 7, 10, 14 and 16 of the Covenant. 6.3 Concerning the claim that the death penalty might be applied retroactively to Mr. Polay Campos, no evidence had been adduced to the effect that the provisions of new Peruvian legislation expanding the application of the death penalty had been retroactively applied to him. Accordingly, the Committee deemed this allegation inadmissible pursuant to article 2 of the Optional Protocol. State party's information and observations and counsel's comments 4.1 By submission of 1 February 1995, the State party asked the Committee to cease considering the communication, observing that the author had been tried in accordance with the legislation relating to acts of terrorism, in total respect of his human rights. It added that the author was being treated correctly by the prison authorities, as attested to by the periodic visits carried out by delegates of the International Committee of the Red Cross. 6.4 The Committee noted that the author had formulated detailed allegations about her husband’s conditions of detention and the alleged incompatibility of the procedure before the Special Military Tribunal with article 14. It took further note of the State party’s contention that the criminal proceedings against Mr. Polay Campos had followed established procedures under current Peruvian antiterrorist legislation. It concluded that this contention was to be examined on the merits. 4.2 The State party further submitted, in a note verbale dated 1 February 1995, that, with respect to the alleged ill-treatment of the author's husband, he had been visited by delegates of the Red Cross and on 20 December 1994 by the District Attorney and a court-registered doctor. Neither had found any traces of ill-treatment of Mr. Polay Campos, and the muscular contraction condition and the emotional stress he was suffering were described as normal symptoms of incarceration. 6.5 On 15 March 1996, therefore, the Committee declared the communication admissible. The State party was requested, in particular, to forward to the Committee copies of the relevant reports of delegates of the International Committee of the Red Cross on their visits to Mr. Polay Campos and of the District Attorney and the doctor who had visited and examined Mr. Polay Campos on 20 December 1994, as well as reports of subsequent visits. The State party was urged to provide Mr. Polay Campos with adequate medical treatment at his place of detention. The State party was further requested to provide detailed information about the operation of special tribunals established under Peruvian anti-terrorist legislation, and about the victim’s current conditions of detention. 4.3 In a further submission dated 21 March 1995, the State party stated that the author had not submitted any new arguments and did not challenge the State party's submission. The State party did not, however, specifically address or refute the author's allegations of ill-treatment and torture of her husband. 5. The author commented on this submission but did not provide new evidence. The State party’s merits observations The Committee’s admissibility decision 7.1 In three submissions dated 27 August, 12 and 28 November 1996, the State party provided copies of some of the reports requested by the Committee, as well as information about the medical treatment given to Mr. Polay Campos and his current conditions of detention. It did not, however, provide information about Mr. Polay Campos' conditions of detention at the Castro Castro prison at Yanamayo, or about the allegation that he was ill-treated during 6.1 During its 56th session in March 1996, the Committee considered the admissibility of the communication. It noted that a case concerning Mr. Polay Campos had been referred to the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights, where it had been registered as case No. 11.048 in August 1992, but that the Commission had indicated that it had no plans to prepare a report on the case within 118