occurred after 23 March 1976 (the date' on which the Covenant entered into force in respect of Uruguay), dis­ close a violation of article 12 (2) of the Covenant, be­ cause Sophie Vidal Martins was refused the issuance of a passport without any justification, thereby prevent­ ing her from leaving any country including her own. 10. Accordingly, the Committee is of the view that the State party is under an obligation pursuant to article 2 (3) of the Covenant to provide Sophie Vidal Martins with effective remedies which would give her the possibihty of enjoying the rights under article 12 of the Covenant, including a passport vahd for travel abroad. Communication No. 61/1979 Submitted by: Leo R. Hertzberg, Ulf Mansson, Astrid Nikula and Marko and Tuovi Putkonen, represented by SETA, on 7 August 1979 Alleged victims: The authors State party: Finland Date of adoption of views: 2 Aprh 1982 (fifteenth session) Concept of victim—No in abstracto review of national legislation—Homosexuality—Freedom of expression and information (radio and television)—Protection of public morals—Margin of discretion Article of Covenant: 19 Articles of Optional Protocol: 1 and 2 Views under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol' 1. The authors of this communication (initial letter dated 7 August 1979) are five individuals, who are represented by a Finnish organization, SETA (Organ­ ization for Sexual Equality). 2.1 The facts of the five cases are essentially un­ disputed. The parties only disagree as to their evalua­ tion. According to the contentions of the authors of the communication, Finnish authorities, including organs of the State-controhed Finnish Broadcasting Company (FBC), have interfered with their right of freedom of ex­ pression and information, as laid down in article 19 of the Covenant, by imposing sanctions against par­ ticipants in, or censoring, radio and TV programmes deahng whh homosexuahty. At the heart of the dispute is paragraph 9 of chapter 20 of the Finnish Penal Code which sets forth the fohowing: If someone publicly engages in an act violating sexual morality, thereby giving offence, he shall be sentenced for publicly violating sex­ ual morahty to imprisonment for at most six months or to a fine. Anyone who publicly encourages indecent behaviour between per­ sons of the same sex shall be sentenced for encouragement to indecent behaviour between members of the same sex as decreed in subsec­ tion 1. 2.2 In September 1976, Leo Rafael Hertzberg, a lawyer, was interviewed for the purposes of a radio pro­ gramme enthled "Arbetsmarknadens uteslutna" ("The Outcasts of the Labour Market"). In the interview, he asserted on the strength of his knowledge as an expert that there exists job discrimination in Finland on the ground of sexual orientation, in particular, to the detri­ ment of homosexuals. Because of this programme ' The text of an individual opinion submitted by a Committee member is appended to these views. criminal charges were brought against the editor (not Mr. Hertzberg) before the Helsinki Municipal Court and, subsequently, before the Helsinki Court of Ap­ peals. Ahhough the editor was acquitted, Mr. Hertz­ berg claims that through those penal proceedings his right to seek, receive and impart information was cur­ tailed. In his view, the Court of Appeals (decision No. 2825 of 27 February 1979) has exceeded the hmits of reasonable interpretation by construing paragraph 9 (2) of chapter 20 of the Penal Code as implying that the mere "praising of homosexual relationships" con­ stituted an offence under that provision. 2.3 Astrid Nikula prepared a radio programme con­ ceived as part of a young listeners' series in December 1978. This programme included a review of the book, "Pojkarskall inte grata" ("Boys must not cry") and an interview whh a homosexual about the identity of a young homosexual and about hfe as a homosexual in Finland. When it was ready for broadcasting, it was censored by the responsible director of FBC against the opposition of the editorial team of the series. The author claims that no remedy against the censorship decision was available to her. 2.4 Ulf Mansson participated in a discussion about the situation of the young homosexual depicted in Mrs. Nikula's production. The discussion was designed to form part of the broadcast. Like Mrs. Nikula, the author states that no remedy was available to him to challenge the censorship decision. 2.5 In 1978, Marko and Tuovi Putkonen, together with a third person, prepared a TV series on different marginal groups of society such as Jews, gypsies and homosexuals. Their main intention was to provide fac­ tual information and thereby to remove prejudices against those groups. The responsible programme direc­ tor, however, ordered that all references to homosexuals be cut from the production, indicating that hs transmis­ sion in full would entail legal action against FBC under paragraph 9 (2) of chapter 20 of the Penal Code. 2.6 The authors claim that their case is an illustra­ tion of the adverse effects of the wide interpretation given to that provision,- which does not permit an objec­ tive description of homosexuality. According to their 124