Communication No. 57/1979 Submitted by: Sophie Vidal Martins on 13 August 1979 Alleged victim: The author State party: Uruguay Date of adoption of views: 23 March 1982 (fifteenth session) Journalist—Freedom of movement—Right to leave any country—Renewal of passport—Jurisdiction of State party—Competence of Committee Articles of Covenant: 2 (1) and 12 (2) Articles of Optional Protocol: 1 Views under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol 1. The author of this communication (initial letter dated 13 August 1979 and a further letter dated 7 March 1981) is Sophie Vidal Martins, a Uruguayan national residing in Mexico. She works as a journalist and sub­ mits the communication on her own behalf. employment by the Uruguayan weekly Marcha, which, together with 30 other newspapers, was prohibited by the authorities and whose director was living as a political refugee in Mexico. She claims that this con­ stitutes a violation of articles 12 (2) and 19 of the Inter­ national Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The author adds that, according to her knowledge, she was never charged with any offence, either in Uruguay or abroad, and that she has never belonged to any political party. 2.3 The author does not mention whether she has had recourse to any further domestic remedy. 3.1 By its decision of 10 October 1979 the Working Group of the Human Rights Committee transmitted the communication under rule 91 of the provisional rules of procedure to the State party concerned requesting infor­ mation and observations relevant to the question of admissibUity. No such reply was received from the State party to this request. 2.1 She states that she holds a Uruguyan passport which was issued by the Uruguyan consulate in Stockholm (Sweden) in 1971 with a 10 years' vahdity upon condition that its validity would be confirmed after five years, i.e. on 28 January 1976. The author alleges that, living in France at that time, she apphed to the Uruguayan consulate in Paris in June 1975 for renewal of her passport {renovación). She claims that Uruguayan citizens living abroad could obtain a passport without any difficuhies until August 1974, when a Government decree came into force which pro­ vided that the issuance of a passport was subject to the approval of the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of the Interior. She further states that, not having received any reply to her first apphcation for renewal of her passport which she had submitted in Paris in June 1975, upon her arrival in Mexico in October 1975 as cor­ respondent of the French periodical Témoignage chré­ tien, she submitted an application to the Uruguayan consulate in Mexico on 16 November 1975. One month later she was informed orally that the consul had re­ ceived a communication requesting him to "wait for in­ structions". He sent two cables in order to obtain these instructions in January and March 1977, but without resuh. In October 1978 the author apphed to the Uruguayan consulate in Mexico for a new passport. Two months later she was informed orally that the Uruguayan Ministry of the Interior had refused to give its approval. She appealed against this decision on 13 December 1978 to the Minister of the Interior through the Uruguayan Embassy in Mexico. The Ambassador offered her a document which would have entitled her to travel to Uruguay but not to leave the country again. She did not accept this for reasons of personal security. On 28 February 1979 she received an official note from the Uruguayan Foreign Ministry refusing, without giv­ ing any reasons, to issue her a passport. 3.2 The Human Rights Committee ascertained that the same matter had not been submitted to the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights. 3.3 Consequently the Commhtee found, on the basis of the information before it, that it was not precluded by article 5 (2) {a) of the Optional Protocol from considering the communication. The Committee was also unable to conclude that, in the circumstances of the case, there was any effective domestic remedy avaüable to the aheged victim which she had fahed to exhaust. Accordingly, the Commhtee found that the communication was not inadmissible under article 5 (2) {b) of the Optional Protocol. 3.4 On 2 Aprh 1980, the Human Rights Committee therefore decided: {a) That the communication was admissible; {b) That, in accordance whh article 4 (2) of the Pro­ tocol, the State party should be requested to submh 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; (c) That the State party be informed that the written explanations or statements submitted by it under article 4 (2) of the Protocol must primarily relate to the substance of the matter under consideration, and in par­ ticular the specific violations of the Covenant alleged to have occurred. 4. On 29 October 1980 the time-hmit for the obser­ vations requested from the State party under article 4 (2) of the Optional Protocol expired. However, no submission has yet been received from the State party. 2.2 The author considers the Uruguayan auth­ orities' refusal to issue a passport to her was a "punitive measure" taken against her because of her former 122