1. Decides, pursuant to rule 88, paragraph 2 of its rules of procedure, to deal jointly with these communications; 2. Further decides that this decision shall be communicated to the State party and the authors of the communications. B. DECISION ON ADMISSIBILITY 1. The authors of the communications are Argentine citizens residing in Argentina, writing on behalf of their deceased and/or disappeared relatives, Argentine citizens formerly resident in the Province of Córdoba who died or disappeared in 1976, before the entry into force of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Optional Protocol for Argentina on 8 November 1986. 2.1 The authors claim that the enactment of Law No. 23,521 of 8 June 1987 (known as the Due Obedience Law (Ley de Obediencia Debida))and its application to the legal proceedings in the cases of their relatives constitute violations by Argentina of articles 2, 3, 4, 6, __________ * The text of an individual opinion submitted by Mr. Bertil Wennergren pursuant to rule 92, paragraph 3 of the Committee's rules of procedure is appended. 9, 14 and 24 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. They are represented by counsel. 2.2 It is claimed that law No. 23,521 is incompatible with Argentina's obligations under the Covenant. The law presumes, without admitting proof to the contrary, that those persons who held lower military ranks at the time the crimes were committed were acting under superior orders; the law therefore exempts them from punishment. This immunity also covers senior military officers who did not act as commander-in-chief, chief-of-zone or chief-ofsecurity police or penitentiary forces, provided that they did not themselves take decisions or that they did not participate in the elaboration of criminal orders. 2.3 With regard to the application of the Covenant to the facts of the cases, the authors acknowledge that their relatives were either killed or disappeared in 1976, under the prior Argentine Government, before the entry into force of the Covenant and of the Optional Protocol for Argentina. They challenge, however, the compatibility of the Due Obedience Law with article 2 of the Covenant, which provides, inter alia, that States parties should adopt the necessary legislative measures to give effect to the rights recognized in the Covenant. They claim that by adopting legislation which effectively guarantees the impunity of military officials responsible for disappearances, torture and murder, the Argentine Government has violated its obligations under the Covenant. 2.4 As to the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies, the authors point out that, with respect to the disappearance or death of the alleged victims, the matter was brought before the competent Argentine courts. However, by virtue of law No. 23,521, the pending criminal cases were shelved in June 1987 and May 1988, and the accused were accordingly set free. The authors conclude that domestic remedies have been exhausted. 21