tained in her apartment in Porto Alegre. The children were separated from their mother and were kept for several days in the office of the Brazihan political police. The mother and the children were then driven together to the Uruguayan border where they were separated again. The children were brought to Montevideo (Uruguay) where they remained for 11 days in a place together with many other children before be­ ing handed over on 25 November 1978 by a judge to their maternal grandparents. Mrs. Cehberti was forcibly abducted into Uruguayan territory and kept in detention. On 25 November 1978 the Fuerzas Conjuntas of Uruguay publicly confirmed the arrest of Mrs. Celiberti, her two chhdren and Mr. Universindo Rodriguez Diaz, alleging that they had tried to cross the Brazilian-Uruguayan border secretly with subversive material. Until 16 March 1979, Mrs. Celiberti was held incommunicado. At that time she was detained in Military Camp No. 13, but neither her relatives nor other persons, including representatives of the Italian Consulate, were allowed to visit her. On 23 March 1979, it was decided to charge her with "subversive associa­ tion", "violation of the Constitution by conspiracy and preparatory acts thereto" and with other violations of the Military Penal Code in conjunction with the or­ dinary Penal Code. She was ordered to be tried by a Military Court. It was further decided to keep her in "preventive custody" and to assign an ex officio defence lawyer to her. 5. On 2 April 1980, the Human Rights Committee, (а) Having ascertained from the secretariat of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights that a case concerning Lilian Celiberti was submitted by an unrelated third party and opened on 2 August 1979 under No. 4529, (б) Concluding that it is not prevented from con­ sidering the communication submitted to it by Mrs. Celiberti's legal representative on 17 July 1979 by reason of the subsequent opening of a case by an unrelated third party under the procedure of the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights, (c) Being unable to conclude that, with regard to ex­ haustion of domestic remedies, on the basis of the infor­ mation before it, there were any further remedies which the alleged victim should or could have pursued. Therefore decided: {a) That the communication was admissible; (6) That, in accordance with article 4 (2) of the Op­ tional Protocol, the State party be requested to submit to the Committee, within six months of the date of the transmittal to it of this decision, written explanations or statements clarifying the matter and the remedy, if any, that may have been taken by it. 6. The time-limit for the State party's submission under article 4 (2) of the Optional Protocol expired on 29 October 1980. Up to date no such submission has been received from the State party. 2.3 The author claims that the following provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Pohtical Rights have been violated by the Uruguayan authorities in respect of Lilian Celiberti de Casariego: articles 9, 10 and 14. 7. The Human Rights Committee notes that it has been informed by the Government of Uruguay in another case (No. 9/1977, Edgardo D. Santullo Valcada V. Uruguay) that the remedy of habeas corpus is not ap­ plicable to persons detained under the "prompt security measures". 3. On 10 October 1979, the Human Rights Commit­ tee decided to transmit the communication to the State party, under rule 91 of the provisional rules of pro­ cedure, requesting information and observations rele­ vant to the question of admissibility. 8. The Human Rights Committee, considering the present communication in the light of all information made available to it by the parties as provided in article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol, hereby decides to base its views on the following facts as set out by the author in the absence of any comments thereupon by the State party. 4.1 By a note dated 14 December 1979 the State party objected to the admissibihty of the communica­ tion on the ground that the same matter had been sub­ mitted to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and referred to case No. 4529, dated 15 August 1979. 9. On 12 November 1978 Lihan Celiberti de Casariego was arrested in Porto Alegre (Brazil) together with her two children and with Universindo Rodriguez Diaz. The arrest was carried out by Uruguayan agents with the connivance of two Brazilian police officials. From 12 to 19 November 1978, Mrs. Cehberti was de­ tained in her apartment in Porto Alegre and then driven to the Uruguayan border. She was forcibly abducted into Uruguayan territory and kept in detention. On 25 November 1978 the Fuerzas Conjuntas of Uruguay publicly confirmed the arrest of Mrs. Celi­ berti, her two children and Mr. Universindo Rodriguez Diaz, alleging that they had tried to cross the BrazilianUruguayan border secretly with subversive material. Until 16 March 1979, Mrs. Celiberti was held incom­ municado. On 23 March 1979, she was charged with "subversive association", "violation of the Constitu­ tion by conspiracy and preparatory acts thereto", and 4.2 In a further submission dated 5 March 1980, the author states that, as the legal representative of Lilian Celiberti de Casariego, he cannot rule out the possibility of her case having been submitted to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. He claims, however, that the Human Rights Committee's competence is not excluded for the following reasons: {a) the communica­ tion relating to Mrs. Celiberti was submitted to the Human Rights Committee on 17 July 1979, i.e., before the matter reached the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights; (b) if the case was submitted to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights by a third party, this cannot prejudice the right of the legal representative of Mrs. Celiberti to choose the interna­ tional body to protect her interests. 93