not intended to leave the very existence of the right of review to the discretion of the States parties, since the rights are those recognized by the Covenant, and not merely those recognized by domestic law. Rather, what is to be determined "according to law" is the modalities by which the review by a higher tribunal is to be carried out. It is true that the Spanish text of article 14 (5), which provides for the right to review, refers only to "un delito", whüe the Enghsh text refers to a "crime" and the French text refers to "une infraction". Never­ theless the Committee is of the view that the sentence of imprisonment imposed on Mrs. Consuelo Salgar de Montejo, even though for an offence defined as "con­ travención" in domestic law, is serious enough, in ah the circumstances, to require a review by a higher tribunal as provided for in article 14 (5) of the Cove­ nant. 11. The Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, is therefore of the view that the facts as set out in paragraph 9 above, disclose a violation of article 14 (5) of the Covenant because Mrs. Consuelo Salgar de Montejo was denied the right to review of her conviction by a higher tribunal. 12. The Committee accordingly is of the view that the State party is under an obligation to provide ade­ quate remedies for the violation which Mrs. Consuelo Salgar de Montejo has suffered and that it should adjust its laws in order to give effect to the right set forth in ar­ ticle 14 (5) of the Covenant. Communication No. 70/1980 Submitted by: Eisa Cubas on 3 May 1980 Alleged victim: Mirta Cubas Simones State party: Uruguay Date of adoption of views: 1 April 1982 (fifteenth session) Exhaustion of domestic remedies—Detention incom­ municado—Access to counsel—Fair trial—Presence of accused at trial Articles of Covenant: 10 (1) and 14 (1) and (3) Article of Optional Protocol: 5 (2) (b) Views under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol 1. The author of the communication (initial letter dated 3 May 1980 and further submissions dated 14 July and 22 December 1980) is a Uruguayan national at present living in Canada. She submitted the com­ munication on behalf of her sister, Mirta Cubas Simones, a 37-year-old Uruguayan national, alleging that she is imprisoned in Uruguay without any justifiable reason. 2.1 The author states that Mirta Cubas Simones was arrested without a warrant in her home on 27 January 1976, that she was held incommunicado unth Aprh 1976 and that during this period her detention was denied by the authorities ahhough her mother and a sister were present at the time of her arrest. The author further states that in July 1976 her sister was brought to trial and charged whh the offence of "aiding a conspiracy to violate the law" {Asistancia a la asociación para delin­ quir) and that a three-year prison sentence was re­ quested by the pubhc prosecutor. Upon appeal to the Supreme Military Tribunal in August 1978, she was charged in addhion with the offence of "subversion", and the public prosecutor asked for the sentence to be increased to six years. In November 1979 a plea was made on the sister's behalf that the sentence asked for be reduced, but the author states that this plea has been rejected by the Supreme Military Tribunal, and adds that no more domestic remedies are available to her sister because all cases concerning political prisoners are under military jurisdiction. The author alleges that her sister had no fair and public hearing as the proceedings have taken place before a closed military tribunal and that she had no effective access to legal assistance as she had never been able to communicate with her courtappointed defence lawyer, Dr; Pereda. The author states that because of the absolute inaccessibihty of the court records she is not in a position to provide more detahed information about the judicial proceedings con­ cerning her sister. The author further alleges that since mid-1976 her sister has been subjected to severe and in­ human prison conditions, such as lack of food and solitary confinement in small cells over long periods of time, at Punta de Rieles, Montevideo. 2.2 The author declares that the same matter has not, to her knowledge, been submitted to another pro­ cedure of international investigation or settlement, and claims that her sister is a victim of violation of ar­ ticles 7, 9, 10, 14, 15, 17 and 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 3. By hs decision of 11 July 1980, 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 in­ formation and observations relevant to the admissibility of the communication. 4. By a note dated 17 October 1980, the State party objected to the admissibility of the communication on the ground that it did not fulfil the requirements of ar­ ticle 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In this connection, the State party asserts that "although the appeals procedure which culminated in the judge­ ment of the second instance pronounced on 2 October 130