clarifying the matter and the remedy, if any, that may have been taken by it; 3. That the State party be informed that the written explanations or statements submitted by it under article 4 (2) of the Protocol must primarily relate to the substance of the matter under consideration, and in par­ ticular the specific violations of the Covenant alleged to have occurred. The State party was requested, in this connection, to enclose copies of any court orders or decisions of relevance to the matter under considera­ tion. was arrested on 12 February 1976, allegedly without any warrant. Although her arrest took place before the com­ ing into force of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and of the Optional Protocol thereto on 23 March 1976 in respect of Uruguay, her detention without trial continued after 23 March 1976. Following her arrest, Esther Soriano de Bouton was de­ tained for eight months incommunicado, before she was taken before a military court which, within one month, decided that she was innocent and ordered her release. Her release was effected one month later on 25 January 1977. 6.1 On 23 November 1979, two days before expiry of the six-month time-hmit, the State party informed the Human Rights Committee, through its Chairman, that its submission under article 4 (2) of the Optional Protocol would be presented "as soon as possible". 6.2 On 13 February 1980, the State party, again through the same channels, informed the Committee that, due to reasons of a technical nature, its submission was not ready and requested " a reasonable" extension of time for its submission. 11. As regards the serious allegations of illtreatment made by Mrs. Soriano de Bouton, the State party has adduced no evidence that these allegations have been investigated. A refutation of these ahegations in general terms, as contained in the State party's sub­ mission of 10 July 1980, is not sufficient. 12. The Human Rights Committee has considered whether acts and treatment, which are prima facie not in conformity with the Covenant, could for any reasons be justified under the Covenant in the circumstances. The Government, in its submission, has referred to the pro­ visions of Uruguayan law, such as the "prompt security measures". However, the Covenant (art. 4) does not allow national measures derogating from any of its pro­ visions except in strictly defined circumstances and the Government has not made any submissions of fact or law to justify such derogation. Moreover, some of the facts referred to above raise issues under provisions from which the Covenant does not allow any derogation under any circumstances. 7. On 10 July 1980, the State party submitted its observations under article 4 (2) of the Optional Pro­ tocol. It informed the Committee that Mrs. Soriano de Bouton was arrested on 12 February 1976 under the "prompt security measures" because of "presumptive connections with subversive activities"; that on 2 December 1976 a military judge ordered her "condi­ tional" release {"libertad con carácter de emplazada") of which Mrs. Soriano was informed the same day. The State party further submits that, on 11 February 1977, Mrs. Soriano applied for authorization to leave Uruguay for Mexico, which was granted to her the same day. It categorically refuted the ahegations of mistreat­ ment made by the author of the complaint, declaring that in all Uruguayan prisons the personal integrity of all detainees is guaranteed. In this connection, the State party asserted that members of diplomatic missions in Uruguay as well as members of international humanitarian organizations are free to visit any de­ tainee, without any witnesses, and it referred, for ex­ ample, to a recent visit by the International Committee of the Red Cross. 13. The Human Rights Committee, acting under ar­ ticle 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol to the International Coyenant on Civil and Political Rights, is of the view that the facts as found by it, in so far as they have oc­ curred after 23 March 1976 (the date on which the Cove­ nant entered into force in respect of Uruguay), disclose violations of the Covenant, in particular of: Articles 7 and 10 (1), on the basis of evidence of in­ human and degrading treatment of Esther Soriano de Bouton; Article 9 (1), because she was not released until one month after an order for her release was issued by the military court; Article 9 (3), because she was not brought before a judge until eight months after she was detained; Article 9 (4), because recourse to habeas corpus was not available to her. 8. The Committee has been informed by the Government of Uruguay in another case (No. 9/1977) that the remedy of habeas corpus is not applicable to persons arrested under "prompt security measures". 9. The Committee has considered the present com­ munication in the hght of all information made available to it by the parties, as provided in article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 14. Accordingly, the Committee is of the view that the State party is under an obligation to provide Esther Soriano de Bouton with effective remedies, including compensation, for the violations which she has suffered and to take steps to ensure that similar violations do not occur in the future. 10. The Committee decides to base its views on the foUowing facts which have either been essentially con­ firmed by the State party or are uncontested except for denials of a general character offering no particular in­ formation or explanation: Esther Soriano de Bouton 73