Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is of the view that these facts, in so far as they occurred after 23 March 1976 (the date on which the Covenant entered in­ to force in respect of Uruguay), disclose violations of the Covenant, in particular of: Article 9 (2), because Rosario Pietraroia Zapala was not duly informed of the charges against him; Article 9 (3), because he was not brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and because he was not tried within a reasonable time; Article 9 (4), because recourse to habeas corpus was not available to him; Article 10 (1), because he was held incommunicado for months; Article 14 (1), because he had no fair and public hearing and because the judgement rendered against him was not made public; Article 14 (3), because he did not have access to legal assistance during his detention incommunicado and was not tried in his presence; Article 15 (1), because the penal law was applied retroactively against him; Article 19 (2), because he was arrested, detained and tried for his pohtical and trade-union activities; Article 25, because he is barred from taking part in the conduct of public affairs and from being elected for 15 years, in accordance with Acta Institucional No. 4 of 1 September 1976. 18. The Committee, accordingly, is of the view that the State party is under an obligation to provide the vic­ tim with effective remedies, including his immediate release and compensation for the violations which he has suffered, and to take steps to ensure that similar violations do not occur in the future. Communication No. 58/1979 Submitted by: Anna Maroufidou on 5 September 1979 Alleged victim: The author State party: Sweden Date of adoption of views: 9 April 1981 (twelfth session) Expulsion of aliens—Refugee—Interpretation plication of domestic legislation counselling centre for persons seeking asylum. At first the author was held as a suspect under the Swedish law governing arrest and remand in custody in criminal cases (Rattengangsbalken 24/5) as it was suspected that information concerning acts of sabotage had been com­ municated to her. It seems that after a few days this allegation was dropped and that she continued to be de­ tained under the Swedish Ahens Act of 1954 (Utlanningslagen sec. 35, nom. 1). The Government, however, raised the issue of her expulsion as a presumed terrorist. A lawyer was appointed to represent her in that connec­ tion. Her expulsion was decided upon on 5 May 1977. The decision was immediately executed and she was transported, under guard, to Greece. In spite of a cer­ tificate, issued by the Swedish Embassy in Athens on 6 May 1977, that she was not being prosecuted for any punishable act in Sweden, her expulsion as a potential terrorist made it impossible for her to find any mean­ ingful employment in Greece. She was harassed and even physicaUy attacked by persons whom she assumed to be right-wing extremists. She returned illegally to Sweden at the end of 1978 in order to apply for recon­ sideration of her case, which seemed to her to be the only solution to her problems. A review of the case was granted, but on 14 June 1979 the Swedish Government confirmed its previous decision of 5 May 1977. and ap­ Article of Covenant: 13 Views under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol 1. The author of this communication (initial letter dated 5 September 1979 and further letters of 20 December 1979, 30 May 1980 and 20 January 1981) is Anna Maroufidou, a Greek citizen. She submitted the communication on her own behalf through her legal representative. 2.1 The author alleges that she is a victim of a breach by Sweden of article 13 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. She describes the relevant facts as follows: 2.2 In 1975 she came to Sweden seeking asylum. In 1976 she was granted a residence permit. Early in 1977 several aliens and Swedish citizens were arrested in Sweden on suspicion of being involved in a plan to ab­ duct a former member of the Swedish Government. This plan had allegedly been contrived by the aUeged terrorist Norbert Krôcher from the Federal Republic of Germany, who was at the time staying in Sweden il­ legally. He and other arrested foreigners were subse­ quently expelled from Sweden. 2.4 The Swedish Government based its decisions on the Ahens Act of 1954 which, since 1975, contains pro­ visions against terrorism. The relevant provisions ap­ plied in the author's case were in sections 20, 29, 30 and 31. Section 29 provides that an alien may be ex- 2.3 The author of the communication was arrested in connection with the foregoing events in April 1977, because she had met some of the suspects in the Refugee Council's office in Stockholm which was a meeting place for young people of many nationalities and also a 80