Article 9 (1), because she continued to be detained after having served her prison sentence on 9 November 1977; Article 9 (4) in conjunction with article 2 (3), because there was no competent court to which she could have appealed during her arbitrary detention. In the case of Graciela Baritussio Article 9 (1), because she was subjected to arbitrary detention under the "prompt security measures" un­ til 12 August 1978 after having signed on 15 August 1974 the document for her provisional release; 14. The Committee, accordingly, is of the opinion that the State party is under an obhgation to provide the victims with effective remedies, including compensa­ tion, for the violations they have suffered. The State party is also urged to investigate the allegations of tor­ ture made against named persons in the case. Communication No. 46/1979 Submitted by: Orlando Fais Borda et al. on 6 February 1979, represented by Pedro Pablo Camargo Alleged victims: Orlando Fais Borda and his wife, Maria Cristina Salazar, Justo Germán Bermúdez and Martha Isabel Valderrama State party: Colombia Date of adoption of views: 27 July 1982 (sixteenth session) Derogation from Covenant—State of emergency— Constitutionality of Legislative Decree No. 1923 of 6 September 1978—Arbitrary arrest and deten­ tion—Habeas corpus—Fair trial—Delay in pro­ ceedings—Retroactivity of State's laws—Heavier penalty—Allegations introduced after communica­ tion declared admissible of Security. Dr. Fais was detained incommunicado without judicial guarantees, such as legal assistance, at the Cuartel de Infantería de Usaquin, from 21 January to 10 February 1979, when he was released without charges. His wife continued to be detained for over a year. A court martial then found that there was no justification for detaining Mrs. Fais Borda. 1.4 Concerning the cases of Justo Germán Bermúdez and Martha Isabel Valderrama Becerra, the author describes the relevant facts as follows: On 3 Aprh 1979, the President of the Summary Court Mar­ tial (First Battalion of Military Police, Brigade of Military Institutions) found Justo Germán Bermúdez Gross guihy of the offence of rebelhon (article 7 of the judgement) and sentenced him to a principal penalty of six years and eight months' rigorous imprisonment and interdiction of public rights and functions, as weh as the accessory penalty of loss of patria potestas for the same period. In the same judgement it sentenced Martha Isabel Valderrama Becerra to six years' rigorous im­ prisonment and interdiction of pubhc rights and func­ tions for the offence of rebelhon. Thejudgement states: "In conclusion, the sentences to be passed on the ac­ cused who have been declared guilty of the offence of 'rebelhon' shah be those contained in article 2 of Decree No. 1923 of 6 September 1978, known as the Statute of Security". Articles of Covenant: 4, 9 (1), (2), (3) and (4). 14 (1), (2), (3) and (5) and 15 (1) Article of Optional Protocol: 5 (2) (b) Views under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol 1.1 The communication (initial letter dated 6 February 1979 and further letters dated 26 June 1979, 2 June, 20 October and 31 October 1980, 30 September 1981 and 19 June 1982) was submitted by Pedro Pablo Camargo, Professor of International Law of the Na­ tional University of Colombia, at present residing in Quito, Ecuador. He submitted the communication on behalf of Orlando Fais Borda and his wife, Maria Cristina Salazar de Fais Borda, Justo Germán Bermúdez and Martha Isabel Valderrama Becerra. They are all Colombian nationals. 1.2 The author aheges that by enacting Legislative Decree No. 1923 of 6 September 1978 (Statute of Security)' the Government of Colombia has violated ar­ ticles 9 and 14 of the Covenant and he claims that the four persons he represents are victims of these viola­ tions. 1.3 Concerning the cases of Orlando Fais Borda and his wife, the author describes the relevant facts as follows: On 21 January 1979, Dr. Fais Borda, a Colom­ bian sociologist and professor, and his wife, Maria Cristina Salazar de Fais Borda, were arrested by troops of the Brigada de Institutos Militares under the Statute 1.5 The author alleges that by application of Decree No. 1923 Dr. Fais Borda and his wife were arbitrarily detained, that Mr. Bermúdez and Miss Valderrama are subjected to arbitrary imprisonment, that Mr. Bermúdez and Miss Valderrama's sentences were il­ legally increased, that is, their sentences are more severe than the maximum penalty stipulated by the Colombian Penal Code, and that they all have been victims of viola­ tions of article 14 (1), (2), (3) and (5) of the Interna­ tional Covenant on Civil and Political Rights because they have been brought before military tribunals which were not competent, independent and impartial, and ' See the text of Legislative Decree N o . 1923 in the appendix below. 139