have defence counsel of his own choice, asserting that he was not prevented from having one. 7.2 As to the circumstances under which Mr. López Burgos' jaw was broken, the State party quotes from the "relevant medical report": tion made available to it by the parties, as provided in article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. The Committee bases its views inter alia on the following undisputed facts: 10.2 Sergio Rubén López Burgos was living in Argentina as a political refugee until his disappearance on 13 July 1976; he subsequently reappeared in Montevideo, Uruguay, not later than 23 October 1976, the date of his purported arrest by Uruguayan authorities, and was detained under "prompt security measures". On 4 November 1976 pre-trial proceedings commenced when the second military examining magistrate charged him with the offence of "subversive association", but the actual trial began in April 1978 before a military court of first instance, which sentenced him on 8 March 1979 to seven years' imprisonment; upon appeal the court of second instance reduced the sentence to four years six months. López Burgos was treated for a broken jaw in a military hospital from 5 February to 7 May 1977. On 5 February 1977 he entered the Armed Forces Central Hospital with a fracture of the lower left jaw caused when he was engaged in athletic activities at the prison (Military Detention Estabhshment N o . 1). H e was treated by the dental surgery service of the hospital for the fracture of the jaw with which he entered the hospital. He was discharged on 7 May 1977 with the fracture knitted and progressing well. 7.3 Whereas the author claims that her husband was kidnapped by members of the Uruguayan security and intelligence forces on 13 July 1976, the State party asserts that Mr. López Burgos, was arrested on 23 October 1976 and claims that the whereabouts of Mr. López Burgos have been known since the date of his detention but no earlier information is available. 7.4 As to the right to have a defence counsel, the State party generally asserts that accused persons themselves and not the authorities choose from the list of court-appointed lawyers. 11.1 In formulating its views the Human Rights Committee also takes into account the following con­ siderations: 11.2 As regards the whereabouts of López Burgos between July and October 1976 the Committee re­ quested precise information from the State party on 24 March 1980. In its submission dated 20 October 1980 the State party claimed that it had no information. The Committee notes that the author has made precise allegations with respect to her husband's arrest and detention in Buenos Aires on 13 July 1976 by the Uruguayan security and intelligence forces and that witness testimony submitted by her indicates the in­ volvement of several Uruguayan officers identified by name. The State party has neither refuted these allega­ tions nor adduced any adequate evidence that they have been duly investigated. 11.3 As regards the allegations of iU-treatment and torture, the Committee notes that the author has sub­ mitted detailed testimony from six ex-detainees who were held, together with López Burgos, in some of the secret detention places in Argentina and Uruguay. The Committee notes further that the names of five Uruguayan officers allegedly responsible for or personaUy involved in the ill-treatment are given. The State party should have investigated the ahegations, in ac­ cordance with its laws and its obligations under the Covenant and the Optional Protocol. As regards the fracture of the jaw, the Committee notes that the witness testimony submitted by the author indicates that the fracture occurred upon the arrest of López Burgos on 13 July 1976 in Buenos Aires, when he was physically beaten. The State party's explanation that the jaw was broken in the course of athletic activities in the prison seems to contradict the State party's earlier statement that the injury occurred prior to his "reclusión". The State party's submission of 14 December 1979 uses "reclusión" initiaUy to mean imprisonment, e.g. "Establecimiento Militar de Reclusión". The term reap­ pears six lines later in the same document in connection with "Antecedentes personales anteriores a su 8.1 In her submission under rule 93 (3) dated 22 December 1980 the author indicates that since accused persons can only choose their lawyers from a hst of military lawyers drawn up by the Uruguayan Govern­ ment, her husband had no access to a civihan lawyer, unconnected with the Government, who might have provided " a genuine and impartial defence" and that he did not enjoy the proper safeguards of a fair trial. 8.2 With regard to the State party's explanations concerning the fractured jaw suffered by López Burgos, the author claims that they are contradictory. The transcript of the medical report in the State party's note of 14 December 1979 hsts the fracture in the paragraph beginning "Medical history prior to 'reclusión' " and goes on to the paragraph beginning "Medical record 'de reclusión' " to state that López Burgos was "treated by the dental surgery service of the Armed Forces Central Hospital for the fracture of the jaw with which he entered the establishment". In other words, the fracture occurred prior to his imprisonment. However, the note of 20 October 1980 states that he entered the hospital with a fractured jaw caused "when he was engaged in athletic activities at the prison". She reiterates her allegation that the fracture occurred as a consequence of the tortures to which López Burgos was subjected bet­ ween July and October 1976, when he was in the hands of the Uruguayan Special Security Forces. 9. The State party submitted additional comments under article 4 (2) of the Covenant in a note dated 5 May 1981, contending that there is no contradiction between the medical reports, because the State party used the term "reclusión" to mean "internación en el estableci­ miento hospitalario" (hospitalization), and reasserts that the fracture occurred in the course of athletic ac­ tivities in the prison. 10.1 The Human Rights Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all informa­ 90