CCPR/C/115/D/2358/2014 4.2 The State party asserts that the author was given a criminal trial in accordance with due process, by independent and impartial civil courts, within the framework of the rule of law. 4.3 The author was deprived of his liberty under a court order issued by a competent judge, in accordance with the law; he had access to counsel of his choice with all necessary guarantees in order to prepare and conduct his defence, submit evidence and review the evidence submitted by the prosecution. He also had the opportunity to exercise all the remedies available under the State party’s legislation. 4.4 The State party refers to all the various positions the author had held in the Armed Forces since 1971. It stresses that he was a member of the civilian-military Government and was responsible for the most serious and systematic human rights violations, including enforced disappearances, torture, extrajudicial killings, and arbitrary and unlawful detentions committed in the State party under a civilianmilitary dictatorship between 1973 and 1985. 4.5 The State party notes that it implemented special measures to protect the life and physical integrity of the author on every occasion he was brought before the competent courts, and also when he was ordered to serve his sentence in prison. In the interests of his personal safety, the Ministry of the Interior decided that he should serve his sentence in a special prison facility. 4.6 The State party argues that the author is not a political prisoner and that he was convicted of homicide under especially aggravated circumstances in repeated offences committed against 37 persons. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility 5.1 On 16 June 2014, the author replied to the State party’s observations on the admissibility of the communication. The author states that the communication meets the admissibility criteria, reiterates his allegations and submits that these are not refuted by the State party in its observations. 5.2 The author claims that the State party is holding him responsible for all human rights violations committed in Uruguay during the civilian -military administration and that this attests to the political nature of his prosecution and conviction. Furthermore, the events were not brought to trial during the 20 years of democracy that lasted until 2007, when a Government took office that was composed principally of members of the movements opposed to the regime that had governed the Stat e party in the 1970s. 5.3 The author claims that he has been held responsible for the homicide of 37 persons, even though most of those persons were detained in Buenos Aires in 1977 and 1978 by persons who were not under his command. In this connection, th e author submits that the judicial authorities did not take account of the rules of military administration and discipline and the responsibilities corresponding to each rank. 5.4 The author maintains that the principles of due process were not respected. The prosecutor assigned to his case was not impartial because she had had ties with the movements opposed to the regime that had governed the State party in the 1970s and obstructed the efforts of his defence team, leading his lawyers to resign in December 2007. The author also emphasizes that the offences for which he was tried had become time-barred and that the provisions of criminal law were applied to his case retroactively. During his trial, members of the Executive celebrated the author ’s prosecution and issued statements accusing him of having primary responsibility for the worst human rights violations committed by the State party. 5.5 The author is of the view that his communication does not constitute an abuse of the right of submission, since he has exhausted domestic remedies and meets the GE.15-21845 7/11