The author ot this commun1cation (in1tial letter dated IJ August 1~79 and a turther letter dated 7 March 1981) is Sophie Vidal Martins, a Uruguayan nat10na1 residing in Mexico. She works as a journa11st and subm1ts the communicat10n on her own behalf.
She states that she is holding a Uruguayan passport Wh1Ch was 1ssued by the Uruguayan consulate in Stockholm (Sweden) 1n l~nl with a lU years' val1d1ty upon condition that its validity would be confirmed atter tive years, 1.e. on l8 January 1976. The author alleges that, 11ving 1n France at that t1me, She applied to the Uruguayan conSUlate in Paris 1n June 197~ tor renewal ot her passport (renovacion). She claims ~hat uruguayan cit1zens 11v1ng abroad could obtain a passport without any ditticult1es unt11 August 19-/4, when a Government decree came into torce which provided that the issuance of a passport was SUbJect to the approval ot the Min1stry ot Defence and the Minlstry ot the Int~rior. She turther states that, not having received any reply to her tirst application tor renewal of her passport wh1Ch She had submltted 1n Paris 1n June 1975, upon her arrival 1n Mexico in october 1975 as correspondent ot the Fr~nch periodical Temoignage chretien, she submitted an application t.o the Uruguayan conSUlate in )
The author considers the Uruguayan authorities' refusal tu issue a passport to her was a "punitive measure" taken against her because of her former employment by the Uruguayan weekly, Marcha, which, together with 30 other newspapers, was prohibited by the authorities and whose director was living as a political refugee in Mexico. She claims that this constitutes a violation of articles 12 (2) and 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The author adds that, according to her knowledge, she was never charged with any offence, either in Uruguay or abroad g and that she has never belonged to any political party.
The author does not mention whether she has had recourse to any further domestic remedy.
By its decision of 10 October 1979 the Working G~oup of the Human Rights Committee transmitted the communication under rule 91 of the provisional rules of procedure to the State party concerned requesting information and observations relevant to the question of admissibility. No such reply was received from the State party to this request.
The Human Rights Committee ascertained that the same matter had not been submitted to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.
Consequently the Committee found, on the basis of the information before it, that it was not precluded by article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol from considering the communication. The Committee was also unable to conclude that, in the circumstances of the case, there was any effective domestic remedy available to the alleged victim which she had failed to exhaust. Accordingly, the Committee found that the communication was not inadmissible under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol.
On ~ April 1980, the Human Rights Committee therefore decided: (a) That the communication was admissible, (b) That, in accordance with article 4 (2) of the Protocol, the State party should be requested to submit to the Committee, within six months of the date of the transmittal to it of this decision, written explanations or statements clarifying" the matter and the remedy, if any, that may have been taken by it, (c) That the State party be informed that the written explanations or statements submitted by it under article 4 (2) of the Protocol mus~ primarily relate to the substance of the matter under consideration, and in particular the specific violations of the Covenant alleged to have occurred. -158- Ic~ea Martins de Vidal, which occurred on ~2 December ~919 in uruguay, she and her brother became the so~e helrs to their mother'S estate and that the ~ega~ formalities in this ~espect have been completed before the appointed jUdge. NOt being able to trave~ to Uruguay herse~t, she lnstructed a Mexlcan notary to take a number ot necessary steps ln order to terminate the regime of community property existing between her brother and herse~t. Fer thiS purpose, she requested the uruguayan consul in Mexico to certity the signature of the competent Mexican official, Mr. Luis de~ Va~~e Prieto which the consu~ al~eged~y retused and sti~~ retuses to do, thus making it impossible for her and her brother to pursue the separation procedures turther. The author points out that her request lS covered by national legislation (Act No. 14,534 ot 24 June ~976), in conformity with a treaty between uruguay and Mexico signed in Panama on 29 January ~975 and ratitied by the Government COunci~ ot uruguay. She conc~udes that despite the eftorts and demarches made, inclUding those by the Mexican consul in MonteVideo, it has not so tar been possib~e for her and her brother to change the situatlon, adding that her brother, who lives in Uruguay, is in no way involved in any activity that might be held against her.
A copy of the author'S submlSS10n ot 1 March ~9H~ has been torwarded to the State party. No comments have been received t~om the State party in this respect either.
The Committee has conSldered the present communlcatlon ln the ~ight ot a~l intormation made available to it, as prOVided in article 5 (1) of the Optiona~ Protoco~. The Commlttee notes that no SUbmlSS10ns nave been recelved trom the State party in this case, particularly as to the reasons tor retusal tor an ordinary passport or the reasons tor the otter ot on~y a restricted trave~ document. b. The Committee decides to base its Views on the fOl~owing tacts that can be deduced trom the author'S submlssions WhlCh a~so lnC~Ude ottlcia~ documents issued by the uruguayan authorities in the case: Sophie Vidal Martlns, a Uruguayan Citizen residlng at present in Mexlco, and holder ot a passport.; lssued ln ~9'1! in Sweden with a lU years' validity upon condition that its validity be contirmed after tive years, was retused such confirmation by the uruguayan authoritles without explanation severa~ times between ~975 and ~977. In ~978 the author then, applied tor a new passport at the uruguayan consu~ate ln Mexlco. Accordlng to the author, ,issuance of a passport is SUbject to the approval of the Ministry ot Defence and the Minlstry ot the Interior. Two months atter her application, sophie Vidal Martins was informed that the Ministry of the Interior had retused to approve the issue to her ot a new passport. She then appea~ed agalnst this decision which later was otticially recontlrmed by the Uruguayan Foreign Mlnlstry without any reasons glven. The author was ottered a document which would have entitled her to travel to Uruguay, but not to leave the co~ntry again. The author declined this otter tor reasons ot personal securlty. unresolv~d, to the author's detriment and the detriment of her brother• .I
The Human Rights Committee has examined, !!-pfficio, whether the fact that Sophie Vidal Martins resides abroad affects the competence of the Committee to receive and consider the communication under article 1 of the Optional Protocol, taking into account the provisions of article 2 (1) of the CoV'enant. Article 1 of , t~e Optional Protocol applies to individuals subject to the jurisdictton of the State concerned who claim to be victims of a violation by that State of any of the OCYenant rights. The issue of a passport to a Uruguayan citizen is clearly a matter within the jurisdiction of the Uruguayan authorities and he is "subject to the jurisdiction" of Uruguay for that purpose. Moreover, a passport is a means of enabling him "to leave any country, including his own", as reqUired by article 12 (2) of the Covenant. It therefore follows from the very nature of the right that, in the case of a citizen resident abroad it imposes obligations both on the State of residence and on the State of nationality. Consequently, article 2 (1) of the CCvenant cannot be interpreted as limiting the obligations of Uruguay under article 12 (2) to citizens within its own territory.
As to the allegations made by the author with regard to a breach of article of the COVenant, they are in such general terms and seem to be of such secondary nature in the case that the Committee makes no finding in regard to them.
The Human Rights Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is of the view that the facts as found by it, 1n so far as they have occurred after 23 March 1976 (the date on which the Covenant entered into force in respect of Uruguay), disclose a violation of article 12 (2) of the Covenant, because Sophie Vidal Martins was refused the issuance of a passport without any justification therefor, thereby preventing her from leaving any country including her own.
Accordingly, the Committee is of the view that the State party is under an obligation pursuant to article 2 (3) of the COvenant to provide SophieVidal Martins with effective remedies which would give her the possibility of enjoying the rights under article 12 of the Covenant, including a passport valid for travel abroad. -160-