Communication No. 37/1978 Submitted by: Esther Soriano de Bouton on 7 June 1978 Alleged victim: The author State party: Uruguay Date of adoption of views: 21 March 1981 (twelfth session) Detention incommunicado—Habeas corpus—/// treat­ ment—Procedural delays—Continued detention des­ pite release order—Extension of time for State party's submission—State's duty to investigate—Derogation from Covenant centre, by the end of which she had completed eight months in detention, absolutely incommunicado, she was brought before a military court and the next day the incommunicado order was lifted. Nevertheless, it took the court another month to decide that the author was innocent of any offence and order her release. She was released on 25 January 1977, nearly one year after her arrest. 2.6 The author therefore alleges that in violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, she suffered arbitrary arrest, detention without charges and cruel and inhuman treatment. She further claims that during her detention she was kept incom­ municado, and thus deprived of any contact with her family, lawyers or other persons who could file a recourse on her behalf, and that the recourse of habeas corpus is not accepted by the Uruguayan courts under the régime of "prompt security measures". She claims that other recourses were not applicable, since once she was taken before a judge he ordered her release. Finally, she alleges that it is impossible to expect that under the present Uruguayan Government compensation for the wrongs inflicted on her would be granted. 2.7 The author maintains that although she was ar­ rested a few days before the entry into force of the Covenant for Uruguay, her detention and the alleged events took place for the most part after 23 March 1976. She states that she has not submitted her case to any other international body. Articles of Covenant: 4, 7, 9 (1), (3) and (4) and 10 (1). Article of Optional Protocol: 4 (2). Views under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol 1. The author of this communication, dated 7 June 1978, is Esther Soriano de Bouton, a Uruguayan na­ tional, residing in Mexico. She submitted the com­ munication on her own behalf. 2.1 The author alleges that she was arrested in Montevideo, Uruguay, on 19 February 1976 by members of the "Fuerzas Conjuntas" (Joint Forces), with no warrant of arrest being shown to her. She was allegedly kept in detention, without charges, for eight months and then taken before a military court which, within one month, decided she was innocent and ordered her release. However, the release was allegedly only effected one month later, on 25 January 1977. 2.2 The author claims that she was detained at three different places (one called "El Galpón", another "La Paloma", with the third one being not known to her by name) and that she was subjected to moral and physical ill-treatment during detention. 2.3 She states, inter alia, that once she was forced to stand for 35 hours, with minor interruptions; that her wrists were bound with a strip of coarse cloth which hurt her and that her eyes were continuously kept bandaged. During day and night she could hear the cries of other detainees being tortured. During interrogation she was allegedly threatened with "more effective ways than conventional torture to make her talk". 2.4 The author states that, due to the continuing threats and tension, she signed a paper which she could not read, apparently confessing that she had attended "certain meetings" in 1974. She was then transferred to a detention centre called "La Paloma" where she allegedly was told by an official that "people came to recover from the ill-treatment suffered at the first place" ("El Galpón"). She claims that at this second place of detention she and the other detainees continued to be subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment. 3. On 27 October 1978, the Human Rights Commit­ tee decided to transmit the communication to the State party, under rule 91 of the provisional rules of pro­ cedure, requesting information and observations rele­ vant to the question of admissibihty. No reply was received from the State party to this request. 4. The Committee found, on the basis of the infor­ mation before it, that it was not precluded by article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol from considering the communication. The Committee was also unable to conclude that there were effective domestic remedies, available to the alleged victim in the circumstances of her case, which she had failed to exhaust. Accordingly, the Committee found that the communication was not inadmissible under article 5 (2) ф) of the Optional Pro­ tocol. 5. On 24 April 1979, the Human Rights Committee therefore decided: 1. That the communication was admissible; 2. That, in accordance with article 4 (2) of the Pro­ tocol, the State party be requested to submit to the Committee, within six months of the date of the transmittal to it, written explanations or statements 2.5 In September 1976 the author, together with other women, was taken to a third place where condi­ tions grew worse. There she was allegedly kept sitting on a mattress, blindfolded, not ahowed to rnove, for many days. She was ahowed to take a bath every 10 or 15 days. After approximately one month at this detention 72