tion of the communication in the absence of a reply from the authors, Considering that repeated reminders addressed to the authors pursuant to the Committee's decisions of 19 July 1978 and 18 April 1979 have been returned by the postal services after unsuccessful delivery, 2. That this decision be transmitted to the State party and, if possible, to the authors of the communica­ tion; 3. That an effort be made, at the same time, to transmit to the authors for information the text of the State party's submission of 5 October 1979 under rule 91 of the Committee's provisional rules of procedure. Therefore decides: 1. That consideration of the communication be suspended; NINTH SESSION Communication No. 31/1978 Submitted by: Guillermo Waksman on 25 May 1978 Alleged victim: The author State party: Uruguay Date of decision: 28 March 1980 (ninth session) Effective remedy provided by State party cordance with article 4 (2) of the Protocol, requested the State party to submit to the Committee, within six months of the transmittal to it of the decision, written explanations or statements clarifying the matter and the remedy, if any, that may have been taken by it. Articles of Covenant: 12, 19 The author of the communication (dated 25 May 1978), Guillermo Waksman, is a Uruguayan citizen, journalist and translator, who for a number of years has lived outside Uruguay. In response to this decision, the State party informed the Committee that it had, on 16 August 1979, in­ structed its Consulate in the district where the author was at that time living, to renew his passport. This in­ formation was later confirmed by the author, who ad­ vised the Committee that he had received a new Uruguayan passport on 4 October 1979. On 27 September 1977, upon expiry of his Uruguayan passport, he submitted an appHcation for renewal of his passport at the Uruguayan Consulate in the city where he lived. He was subsequently informed that, after con­ sultation with the Uruguayan Government, the Con­ sulate was not authorized to renew his passport. The Committee notes with satisfaction that the State party has taken appropriate steps to remedy the matter complained of. He maintained that this constituted a violation of ar­ ticles 12 (2) and 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Human Rights Committee therefore decides: 1. To discontinue consideration of the communica­ tion; 2. That this decision be communicated to the State party and the author of the communication. By a decision of 24 April 1979 the Human Rights Committee declared the communication to be admis­ sible under the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and, in ac­ 36