CCPR/C/114/D/2395/2014 nearly died following three syncopal episodes due to a lack of immediate medical assistance and proper medical equipment. As regards his state of health, the author maintains that he has various conditions, including ischaemic heart disease, prostatitis, acute urinary infections, renal insufficiency, chronic liver disease, Parkinson ’s disease, trunk melanoma, scotoma in the left eye, muscle disease, diverticular colopathy, cervical and lumbar spinal degeneration, carpal tunnel syndrome and pansinusitis. Lastly, he points out that, because of his age, a 25-year prison sentence amounts, in practice, to life imprisonment. 3.8 In relation to article 15 of the Covenant, the author claims that he was accused of acts that were not considered criminal offences at the time they occurred. The author emphasizes that the non-applicability of the statute of limitations to war crimes and crimes against humanity is regulated by Act No. 18026, which entered into force on 25 September 2006. The Act cannot therefore be applied to events that occurred before that date. 3.9 Lastly, the author argues that Acts Nos. 15737 and 15848 are applied differently by the State party, in violation of his rights under article 26 of the Covenant. In the author’s view, Act No. 15848, whatever its title, should be seen as an amnesty law that is generally applicable. However, unlike Act No. 15737, which is applied across the board, Act No. 15848 is not considered an amnesty law and requires the executive branch to determine whether or not a fact under investigation falls within the scope of the Act. State party’s observations on admissibility 4.1 On 24 July 2014, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility of the communication. The State party maintains that the communication should be declared inadmissible because it is manifestly unfounded and is an abuse of the right to submit a communication ratione materiae. 4.2 The State party asserts that the author was given a criminal trial in accordance with all due process guarantees, by independent and impartial courts and with full respect for the rule of law. 4.3 The author was deprived of liberty under a warrant issued by a duly authorized judge, in accordance with the law, and had access to counsel of his own choosing 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 As to his conviction, the State party points out that, although the prosecutor sought to have the author tried for the offence of enforced disappearance, the judgement handed down by Court No. 19 found him guilty only of homicide under especially aggravated circumstances against 28 persons, in repeated offences. The judgement was subsequently upheld by the Court of Appeal. Moreover, the Supreme Court denied the author ’s appeal in cassation, finding no violation or erroneous enforcement of the legal standards applicable in the case. The Supreme Court also found that the evidence had “duly attested to the defendants’ participation in a coordinated punitive action, kidnapping, torture and 28 homicides under especially aggravated circumstances, against Uruguayan citizens — very serious acts that clearly reflect[ed] the defendants’ extreme dangerousness”. Every court found that the offence of enforced disappearance was not applicable in the author ’s case. 4.5 The State party informs the Committee that the author had been prosecuted for homicide in connection with other acts by first-instance Trial Court No. 1 in Paso de los Toros and by first-instance Criminal Trial Court No. 1 (Second Rota) and had been acquitted in the first trial. It cannot therefore be asserted that the author was GE.15-13662 7/13