families to arrange for their children to receive religious education in keeping with their faith, educational plans at the primary and secondary level shall include religious education and training in official establishments in accordance with the teaching of the church. In order to put this right into practice, it falls to the competent church authority to supply curricula, approve religious education texts and verify how such education is provided. The civil authorities shall take into consideration certificates of suitability for teaching religion issued by the competent church authority. The State party submits the text of the agreement of 31 July 1986 between the Ministry of Education and the Colombian Episcopal Conference, without , however, showing the relevance of this Concordat to the case of Mr. Delgado, whose resignation had already been accepted on 9 July 1986. 4.7 The State party does not address the author's allegations concerning death threats against himself and other teachers, the alleged assault on his person on 7 May 1986, nor the general situation of persecution against named journalists and intellectuals, amounting to a violation of the right of security of the person. The issues and proceedings before the Committee 5.1 When considering the communication at its thirty-second session, the Committee concluded, on the basis of the information before it, that the conditions for declaring the communication admissible had been met. The Committee noted in particular that while the State party had claimed that there was no violation of the Covenant, it had not argued that the communication was inadmissible. 5.2 On 4 April 1988, the Committee declared the communication generally admissible, without specifying articles of the Covenant. The Committee, however, requested the State party to address the issues raised in one of the author's submissions which focused on the right of security of the person. 5.3 The Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information provided by the parties. It has taken note of the State party's contention that domestic remedies have not been exhausted and that actions are still pending. The Committee finds, however, that, in the particular circumstances of the author's case, the application of domestic remedies has been unreasonably prolonged and, for purposes of article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol, they need therefore not be further pursued. 5.4 Although the author has not specifically invoked article 9 of the Covenant, the Committee notes that his submission of 14 September 1987, which was transmitted to the State party prior to the adoption of the Committee's decision on admissibility, raised important questions under this article. The Committee recalls that on declaring the communication admissible, it requested the State party to address these issues. The State party has not done so. 5.5 The first sentence of article 9 does not stand as a separate paragraph. Its location as a part of paragraph one could lead to the view that the right to security arises only in the context of arrest and detention. The travaux préparatoires indicate that the discussions of the first sentence did indeed focus on matters dealt with in the other provisions of article 9. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in article 3, refers to the right to life, the right to liberty and the right to security of the person. These elements have been dealt with in separate clauses in the Covenant. Although in the Covenant the only reference to the right of security of person is to be found in article 9, there is no evidence that it was intended to narrow the concept of the right to security only to situations of formal deprivation of liberty. At the same time, States parties have undertaken to guarantee the rights enshrined in the Covenant. It cannot be the case that, as a matter of law, States can ignore known threats to the lives of persons under their jurisdiction, on the grounds that they are neither arrested nor otherwise detained. States parties are under an obligation to take reasonable and appropriate measures to protect them. An interpretation of article 9 which would allow a State party to ignore threats to the personal security of non-detained persons within its jurisdiction would render totally ineffective the guarantees of the Covenant. 139