de Netto to furnish detailed information on the grounds and circumstances justifying her acting on behalf of the alleged victims. 7. By its decision of 18 April 1979, the Committee: (c) Informed the State party of the Committee's con­ cern that the State party had failed to fulfil its obliga­ tion to submit written explanations or statements under article 4 (2) of the Optional Protocol; (b) Requested the State party, although the sixmonths' time-hmit, estabhshed by article 4 (2) of the Optional Protocol, had expired on 3 September 1978, that a submission from the State party pursuant to that article should be made without further delay and should, in any event, reach the Human Rights Commit­ tee not later than six weeks from the date of the transmittal of the decision. 4. By letter dated 21 October 1977 the initial author explained that the alleged victims were unable to act on their own behalf and that she was acting on their behalf as their close relative, believing, on the basis of her per­ sonal acquaintance with them, that the alleged victims would agree to lodging a complaint. 5. By letter dated 27 October 1977 the State party objected to the admissibility of the communication on two grounds: (o) That the same matter was already being examined by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights; (¿7) That the alleged victims had not exhausted all available domestic remedies. 8. The time-limit set by the Committee in its deci­ sion of 18 April expired on 2 July 1979, at which time no further submission had yet been received. However, in a note dated 8 October 1979 the Government submit­ ted, in the first place, that the Committee should review its decision regarding the admissibility of the com­ munication, because domestic remedies had not been exhausted. It attached a summary of available remedies, noting that the authors had not indicated that they had actually applied for any remedies; furthermore, the Government stated that the effectiveness of the remedies was not for the Government to prove and that it could not be argued hypothetically that they were in­ effective. Notwithstanding these contentions, however, the Government gave the following information: 6. On 1 February 1978, the Human Rights Commit­ tee, (a) Having ascertained that the case concerning Beatriz Weismann de Lanza, which had been before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, had been withdrawn and was no longer under active con­ sideration by that body, (6) Having further ascertained that the cases con­ cerning Alcides Lanza Perdomo were submitted to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in November 1974 and February 1976 respectively, (c) Concluding that these two cases cannot relate to events alleged to have taken place on or after 23 March 1976 (the date on which the Covenant and the Optional Protocol entered into force for Uruguay), (d) Further concluding that, with regard to exhaus­ tion of domestic remedies, on the basis of the informa­ tion before it, there were no further remedies which the alleged victims should or could have pursued, Mr. Alcides Lanza was arrested for investigation o n 2 February 1976 and detained under the prompt security measures. Subsequently, on 21 September 1976, he was charged by the military examining judge of fifth sitting with the offence of 'subversive association' re­ ferred to in article 60 (VI) of the Military Penal Code. On 26 October 1977 he was sentenced to three years' severe im­ prisonment less the period spent in custody pending trial. On comple­ tion of his sentence, he was granted unconditional release o n 2 February 1979 and left Uruguay for Sweden on 1 July 1979. It should be noted that the appropriate legal assistance was available to Mr. Lanza at all times, his defence counsel being Dr. Juan Barbé. Therefore decided: (c) That the author of the communication was justified by reason of close family connection in acting on behalf of the alleged victims; (b) That the communication was admissible; (c) That the text of this decision be transmitted to the State party together with the text of the relevant documents and to the author; (d) That, in accordance with article 4 (2) of the Op­ tional Protocol, the State party be requested to submit 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. With regard to the exhaustion of domestic remedies the Committee said that its decision "may be reviewed in the light of any further explanations which the State party may submit giving details of any domestic remedies which it claims to have been available to the alleged victims in the circumstances of their cases, together with evidence that there would be a reasonable prospect that such remedies would be effective". Mrs. Weismann de Lanza was arrested for investigation on 17 February 1976 and detained under the prompt security measures. Subsequently, o n 28 September 1976, she was charged by the military examining judge of first sitting with the offence of 'assistance to association' referred to in article 60 (VI) of the Military Penal Code. She was sentenced on 4 April 1978. Her offence was deemed to have been purged by the period spent in custody pending trial, and she was released. She left Uruguay for Sweden on 11 February 1979. It Stated that it was clearly demonstrated by the plain statement of facts given above that the accusations of violations of the Covenant were "fallacious". "Although such accusations, being groundless, ir­ responsible and unaccompanied by the least shred of evidence, are not worthy of any further comment" some were referred to by way of example: It is obvious that both of these persons were afforded all guarantees of due process, for they were brought before a competent judge in public proceedings, had the appropriate legal assistance from their defence counsel and were presumed innocent until proved guilty (ar­ ticle 14, paragraph 1, paragraphs 3 (b) and 3 (e) and paragraph 2). The charges of alleged ill-treatment and torture suffered by the de­ tainees are mere figments of the author's imagination; she is appar­ ently unaware of Uruguay's long tradition in the matter, which has, throughout its history, earned it the recognition of the international 46