Communication No. 196/1985 Submitted by: Ibrahima Gueye et al (represented by counsel) Date of communication: 12 October 1985 Alleged victim: The authors State party: France Date of adoption of Views: 3 April 1989 (thirty-fifth session) on 1 July 1989 (general readjustment of 8 per cent); 1 January 1993 (readjustment of 8.2 per cent for Senegalese citizens); 1 September 1994 (general readjustment of military invalidity pensions by 4.75 per cent); 1 January 1995 (general readjustment of certain types of military invalidity pensions by 20 per cent). The State party further indicated that an association of former Senegalese soldiers of the French Army had filed a request for a readjustment of military pensions before the Administrative Tribunal in Paris. Response, dated 30 January 1996, of the Government of France to the Committee’s Views* On 30 January 1996, the French Government indicated that the pensions of former Senegalese soldiers of the French Army and those of former soldiers of the French Army who were citizens of other former French colonies had been readjusted on several occasions since the adoption of the Committee’s Views. These adjustments had taken effect __________ * For the Committee’s Views, see Selected Decisions, vol. 3, p. 89. _______________ Communication No. 202/1986 Submitted by: Graciela Ato del Avellanal Date of communication: 13 January 1986 Alleged victim: The author State party: Peru Date of adoption of Views: 28 October 1988 (thirty-fourth session) recently established Consejo Nacional de Derechos Humanos, created to improve respect for human rights in Peru. The State party failed to indicate what measures, if any, had been taken to implement the Committee’s recommendations. The author of the communication subsequently submitted various complaints indicating that the State party had not implemented the recommendations. __________ Response, dated 24 September 1996, of the Government of Peru to the Committee’s Views* In a submission dated 24 September 1996, the State party informed the Committee of investigations carried out in respect of the current situation of the case, including a meeting held with the victim’s lawyer, who had expressed surprise at the actions taken by the Supreme Court. The case had been considered by the * For the Committee’s Views, see Selected Decisions, vol. 3, p. 104. _______________ 128