The initial author ot the communication, carmen Arnendola Massiotti (initlai letter dated 25 January 1978) is a 32-year-Old Uruguayan national residing in the Netherlands.
The·author alleges that she herself was arrested in Montevideo on 8 March 1975, that she was kept incommunicado until 12 September that year and SUbjected to severe torture (giving detailed descriptiOn) in order to make her contess membership in politicai organizations which had been declared illegal by the military regime. She states that on 17 April 1975 she was brought before a m11itary JUdge and that her family was only informed the tOliowing day about her detention which had been denied by the military authorities. On i2 september She was aga1n brought before a military judge and tried for "aSsi~tance to illegal -Ui7-
On 1 August the author was transferred to Pun~a Rieles prison. There she was kept in a hut measuring Srn by lOrn. The place was overcrowded with 100 prisoners and the sanitary conditions were insufficient (one washbasin and four toilets). The prisoners were constantly subjected to interrogations, harassment and severe punishment. The officers in charge of S2 - military intelligence inside the prison - Major Victorino Vazquez and Li~utenant Echeverria, themselves carried out the interrogations and also supervised torture. She also mentions that the prisoners were compelled to do hard labour which involved making roads inside the prison, putting up new prison buildings, mixing concrete, carrying heavy building materials, as well as gardening, cleaning and cooking for the detainees and the guards, i.e. a total of 800 persons, the last task being assigned to 10 women prisoners. The author points out that work was compulsory even for women who were ill or had physical infirmities. She adds that food was very poor (giving details).
The author further claims that, despite having served her sentence on 9 November 1977, she was kept in detention until 12 December lS77, when the choice was offered to her of either remaining in detention or of leaving the country. She opted for the latter and obtained political asylum in the Netherlands.
She alleges in this connexion that in the Paso de los Toros prison there were 17 women whose release had been signed by the military courts, but who continued to be imprisoned undar the prompt security measures. She mentions in particular the case of Graciela Baritussio de Lopez Mercado.
With respect to Graciela Baritussio, a 34-year-old Uruguayan national, the author states that she was informed by the alleged victim's former defence counsel that she approved the author's acting on her behalf. She claims that the alleged victim is not in a position to act on her own behalf since this was not possible for a person detained under the prompt security measures. She further claims that Graciela Baritussio had no defence counsel at the time of the submission of the cormnunication.
The Cormnittee subsequently as~ertained that Graciela Baritussio had been released from prison and lived in Sweden. She was contacted and informed the Cormnittee that she wished to join as a co-author of the communication submitted on her behalf by Carmen Amendola Massiotti. In addition, she furnished the following information (letter of 29 January 1981, enclosing a letter from her former defence lawyer, Mario Dell'Acqua): she was arrested on 3 Septemberl972, tried by a military judge on 5 February 1973 for ~c01'!'plicity in a subversive association" and brought in April 1973 to the Punta Rieles pri~on where she served her two year prison sentence. On 15 August 1974 she was brought to the same military court as before in order to sign the documents for her provisional release. She also mentions that she had qualified legal assistance from the time of her trial until 15 August 1974, her defence lawyer being Mario Dell'Acqua. The defence lawyer adds in his statement that the decision of 15 August 1974, granting her provisional release became enforceable and final in 1975. Graciela Baritussio continues that -188-
With respect to domestic remedies, Carmen Amendola Mass10tt1 cla1ms that they do not exist in uruguay for persons detained under the prompt security measures as they cannot act on their own behalf and lawyers cannot act without the risk of being themselves detained, as happened allegedly to one of Graciela Baritussio's lawyers. She further claims that copies ot deCisions of military tribunals are not made available to any person. This intormation was basically cont1rmed in the statement by the defence lawyer Mario A. Dell'Acqua (enclosed With Grac1ela Barituss10'S letter ot ~7 January 1981) whO adds that once the document tor Graciela Baritussio's provisional release had been signed and also atter the jUdgement 1n that respect had been rendered final and enforceable in 1975, he made numerous representations to the responSible military jUdges. He was intormed that 1t the prison authorities did not comply with the court's release order, ~he jUdges could dO no more.
carmen Amendola Massiotti does not specity Which articles of the International COVenant on CiV11 and Political Rights she alleges to have been violated in her own case, but claims that most of them have been v~olated. Regarding Graciela Baritussio, she alleges that articles ~, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14 and 15 ot the COvenant have been violated. She states that to her knOWledge, the same matter has not been submitted under another procedure of international investigat10n or settlement.
By its decision ot 26 JUly 1978, the Human Rights Committee, haVing declded that the author of the communication was also justified 1n acting on behalf of the second alleged victim, Graciela Barituss10, transmitted the communicat10n under rule 91 ot the provisional rules ot procedure to the state party concerned, requesting information and observations relevant to the question ot adm1ss1b111ty of the communication.
By a note dated 8 January 1979] the State party objected to the adm1SSibility ot the communicat10n on the tOllowing groundS: (a) that the date of arrest ot Carmen Amendola Massiotti preceded the entry into torce of the Covenant tor Uruguay on 23 March 1916, (b) that she did not apply for any remedy, and (c) with respect to Graciela Baritussio that she did not avail herselt of any ot the remed1es generally ava11able to persons lrnpr1soned 1n uruguay. b. On 24 April 1979, the Human Rights Committee decided: (a) That the communication was admissible, (b) That in accordance with article 4 (~) ot the ProtOCOl, the state party be -189- (c~ That the State party be informed that the written explanatl.Ons or statements submitted by it under article 4 (2) of the protocol must primarl.ly relate to the substance of the matter under cOnSl.derat10n, and 1n partiCUlar the specific violations of the COvenant alleged to have occurred. The State party was requested, in this connexion, to enclose copies of any court orders or deC1S10ns ot releva~ce to the matter under cons1derat10n.
In its sUbmission under article 4 (2) of the Optional ProtOCOl dated ~ OCtober 1980, the State party intorm~d the committee, inter alia, that carmen Amendola Massiotti had qualified legal assistance at all times, the defending counsel ot her choice being Milton Machado Mega, that, having served her sentence, she regained' her full freedom and left tor the Netherlands on 11 December 1977. With respect to Graciela Baritussio, the State party stated that she also received qualified legal assistance, the detend1ng counsel of her choice being Mario Dell'Acqua, that on l~ August 1974 she was granted proviSional release and left for Sweden on 10 July 1979. The State party turther contended. that there was no justit1cation tor the continued consideration ot the case. The alleged victims were not under the jurisdiction of the State accused. To consider the communication turther would theretore be incompatible With the purpose tor which the COvenant and its Protocol were established, namely, to ensure the ettect1ve protect10n ot human rights and to bring to an end any sltuation 1n Which these rights were violated. The state party concluded that 1n this case no de tacto sltuat10n eX1sted to warrant t1nd1ngs by the Committee, and that consequently, by 1ntervening, the Committee would not only be e:'ceed1ng 1tS competence but would also be departing from normally established legal procedures. By a note dated 23 July 1982, the State party reiterated its arguments with respect to Graciela Baritussio and stated that according to article 1 ot the Opt10nal Protocol, the Committee had competence to receive and cons1der commun1cat10ns trom 1ndiv1duals only 1t these 1ndiv1duals were subject to tne jUrisdiction of the State party which allegedly committed the violation of human rights. Gtac1ela Barituss10, however, had lett uruguay for Sweden and theretore d1d not fultil thiS requ1rement.
With respect to the State party's submiss10n under art1cle 4 (2) ot the Optional Protocol that consideration ot the communication should be discont1nUed, the Committee notes that the victims were under the jurisd1ct10n ot uruguay wh11e the alleged violations tOOk place. The Committee theretore reJects the content10n ot the State party that further considerat10n of the case would be beyond 1tS competence or contrary to the purposes ot the International Covenant on CiV11 and Political Rights and the Optional ProtOCOl thereto.
No turther submission was received trom the author ot the init1al communication, carmen Arnendola Massiotti, after her second commun1cat10n dated ~ May 1978.
The Human Rights Committee has conSidered the present commun1cat10n 1n the light of all intormation made available to lt by the part1es, as provided in article 5 (l) of the Optional Protocol.
The Committee decides to base its views on the tollow1ng tacts which are not 1n d1spute or which are unrepud1ated or uncontested by the State party except for denials of a general character offering no particular 1ntorrnatlon or explanatlon: -190- With respect to Graciela Baritussio:
Graciela Baritussio was arrested in Uruguay on 3 September 1972, tried by a military judge on 5 February 1973 for "complicity in a subversive association" and brought in April.1973 to the Punta Rieles prison where she served her two years prison sentence. On 15 August 1974 she was brought to the same military court as before in order to sign the documents for her provisional release. The decision granting her provisional release became enforceable and final in 1975. Graciela Baritussio, however, remained in detention. On 6 October 1977 she was transferred to another military establishment in the interior of the country which was being used as a prison for women detained under the security measures. On 8 August 1978 the governor of the establishment informed her that she was going to be released. Her release took place on 12 August 1978. Once the document for Graciela Baritussio's provisional release had bee~ signed and after the decision became final and enforceable in 1975, her defence lawyer had made numerous representations to the military jUdges responsible for her case. He was informed that, if the prison authorities did not comply with the court's release order, the judges could do no more.
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 the Committee, in so far as they continued or occurred after 23 March 1976 (the date on which the Covenant and the Optional Protocol entered into force for Uruguay) disclose the following violations of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: In the case of Carmen Amendola Massiotti of articles 7 and 10 (1), because the conditions of her imprisonment amounted to inhuman treatment, of article 9 (1), because she continued to be detained after having served her prison sentence on 9 November 1977, -191- of article 9 (4) in conjunction with article 2 (3), because there was no competent court to which she could have appealed during her arbitrary detention•
'!'he Committee, accordingly, is of the opinion that the State party is under an obligation to provide the victims with effective remedies, including compensation, for the violations they have suffered. ;rhe State party is also urged to investigate the allegations of torture made against named persons in the case. -192-