It is stated that I am suffering from gastro-enteritis but that this is now stabilized. This is only a half truth since I was only half-treated medically, i. e. in an inadequate manner. The fact is obviously concealed that I am suffering from nervous hypertension, which is of a serious nature because of its extreme variability and which is also inadequately controlled. Also concealed is the cardiac problem which has developed since I was tortured. No reference is made to the fact that, from the time I was first captured and during the interrogations leading to my indictment I was subjected to physical abuse such as beatings, stringing up, asphyxiation, electric shocks and long periods of forced standing in the cold without anything to drink or eat. None of this is mentioned. No reference is made either to the fact that, in the absence of firm evidence to convict me I was declared a "spy". On this ground, the procedure was drawn out indefinitely, as I was progressively sentenced to 12 months, then eight and a half years and finally 14 years of imprisonment, without any aggravating factor having intervened in the interim. The military court did not find any active participation in politics on my part and, acting solely on the basis of my ideology, it imposed on me the heaviest sentence possible, on grounds which were false . . . Libertad prison, in which I was held, was a place of genuinely repugnant and constant repression , carried out by specialized personnel who were rotated in order that they should not suffer the fatigue which this type of duty inevitably produces. The following provides evidence of the pleasure that was taken in carrying out torture at Libertad prison. It was a case of torture of the nerves, practised on me and my family, as on many others. On 7 September 1981, the day on which I had served exactly four years of detention, I was informed that I was to report to the warden's office. Also ordered to report were some of my companions who were informed of several decisions, some of them being told that they were to be released. As for me, I was informed that I had been granted freedom. I was informed of this by a military court established there and I was asked to give my address. This is a normal procedure when release is approved. I informed my family, which, when they sought confirmation of my release, were informed that there had been a mistake. In view of the foregoing, I have to make the following statement: (a) I wish my case to remain open because, in view of the treatment to which I was subjected, it is necessary to measure not only the moral damage caused to me and my family and the damage inflicted on the State by the de facto Government, but also the damage constituted by the fact that despite all the efforts I have made, I am still without work. In other words, I have so far not been reinstated in the School of Meteorology or in the Department of Meteorology and, at the age of 58, it is very difficult for me to obtain a position. (b) I wish my case to remain open in case it is possible to conduct further inquiries and because I shall continue to fight for the genuine welfare of mankind, for its rights and for the possibility for it to live in peace and freedom, as I believe this to be one of the aims man has always pursued. 6. Before considering any claims presented in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must, in accordance with rule 87 of its provisional rules of procedure, decide whether or not it is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. The Committee did not find that any of the procedural obstacles laid down in articles 2, 3 or 5 of the Optional Protocol existed in the present case. 7. On 11 July 1985, the Committee therefore decided: that the communication was admissible insofar as the facts submitted relate to events which allegedly took place after 23 March 1976, the date on which the Covenant and the Optional Protocol entered into force for Uruguay. The State party was requested, in accordance with article 4, paragraph 2, of the Optional Protocol, to submit written explanations or statements clarifying the matter and the measures, if any, that might have been taken by it and, again, to furnish the Committee with copies of all court orders and decisions relevant to the case. The Committee's decision was transmitted to the parties on 1 August 1985, together with an indication that the authors would be afforded an opportunity to comment on any submission received from the State party, as provided in rule 93, paragraph 3, of the Committee's provisional rules of procedure. 99