The author of the communication (initial letter dated 17 August 1981, further letters dated 20 November 1981 and 18 September 1982) is Maria Dolores pérez de G6mez, a uruguayan national living in Montevideo, Uruguay, writing on behalf of her daughter, Teresa G6mez de Voituret, who is allegedly detained in Uruguay and is not in a position to present her case herself to the Human Rights Committee. Mrs. pérez de G6mez clairn8 that her daughter is a victim of a breach by Uruguay of article 10 (1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The author states that Teresa G6mez de Voituret, a medical doctor, was arrested on 27 November 1980 at the airport of Carrasco, Uruguay, upon her retu~n from a medical seminar held in Buenos Aires, Argentina, from 24 to 27 November 1980.
The author submits that her daughter was arrested by plainclothes men without any warrant and taken to Military Unit No. 1 of the Artillery in the area of Cerro, where she allegedly was he1d in solitary confinement in a cell almost without natural light and which she was not allowed to leave until she was brought to trial -164-
Mrs. pérez de Gémez states that at her first visit in the Military Unit she could observe that her daughter's state of health had visibly deteriorated since the time before her arrest. She claims, based upon information she received from a person who had been detained for sorne time in the same place as Teresa Gémez de Voituret and who had later been released, that her daughter was subjected to torture during interrogation in order to extract confessions from her.
'l'hus, Teresa Gémez de Voituret falsely confessed t.hat she was a member of a political group which kept close links with persons in and outside Libertad prison where her husband has been detained since 27 December 1974. Teresa Gémez de Voituret later revoked this statement in h~~ written declarations before the court. She further admitted during interrogation that she had tried to mobilize international human rights bodies and related religious institutions, inside and outside Uruguay, drawing their attention to the critical situation of her husband and other prisoners in Libertad prison, claiming thereby that her husband's life was in grave danger because of death threats he allegedly had received from prison personnel.
The author claims that the Uruguayan authorities perceived her daughter's efforts before these human rights bodies as a threat to the country's image abroad.
In June 1981, Teresa Gémez de Voituret was charged with "subversive association and attempt against the Constitution followed by preparatory acts".
The author alleges that the proceedings in her daughter's case before the military court of first instance do not provide the necessary guarantees for a fair judicial process as they do not permit her daughter to be brought before the judge in person, but provide only for written statements by her daughter which are taken by a court clerk. The author further alleges in this connection that, although her daughter had been given the possibility to appoint a defence lawyer of her own choice, in reality she can expect only very little assistance from him because she is prevented from consulting him freely. The conversations have to take plac~ by telephone, while the defence lawyer and ber daughter are separated by a glass wall and continuously watched by guards standing at their side.
The author maintains that there ar6 no domestic remedies which could be effectively pursued in her daughter's case. The author also submits that to her knowledge the same matter has not been submitted to the Inter-American Commission for Human Rights.
Finally, the author states that she submits the case of her daughter to the Human Rights Committee with the request that the Comm~tt~e take appropriate action to secure a fair trial for her daughter and her subsequent release.
By a note dated 24 June 1982 the State party informed the Committee that Teresa G6mez de Voituret was tried on 23 March 1982, charged with the offence of Nsubversive associationN under article 60 (V) of the Military Criminal Code. The State party adds that Teresa G6mez de Voituret had been accused of this offence "on the basie of evidence confirming her active participation in the subversive movement known as 'Seispuntismo', which sought to reactivate MLN and about which the Committee has already been informedN• The State party stresses that "Teresa G6mez de Voituret was a member of the most active centre of agitation and propaganda and [that] her primary task was to try to recruit new members for this seditious organization".
The State party did not however submit copies of any court orders or decisions of relevance to the case or reply to the specifie questions set out in paragraph 3 above.
On 18 September 1982, the author of the communication forwardeà her comments in reply to the State party's submissi~n of 24 June 1982. She rejects the State party's contention that her. daughter ever was an active mernber of MLN. She claims, in this connection, that ~the Military Government of Uruguay simply invented the subversive movement known as 'Seispuntismo' in order to bring to tzial once again a group of prisoners who had completed or almost completed their sentences in Libertad prisor.N•
Mrs. pérez de G6mez asserts that her daughter merely reported to the Red Cross and to the organization NJusticia y Paz" in Buenos Aires the physical, psychological and moral pressure that was being exerted at that time in Libertad prison against her husband Jorge Voituret Pazos and other political prisoners. She maintains that acting thus in defence of her husband was the only offence her daughter committed.
In reply to the author's comments and observations on its submission of 24 June 1982, the State party, in a further note dated 28 December 1982, reaffirms its statement on the case as contained in its note of 24 June 1982.
On 3 May 1983 the State party was again requested to furnish additional information inter alia as to whether judgement of first instance had already been rendered in the case. The time-limit for the State party's response expired on 2Q June 1983. No such additional information had been received from the State party when the Committee decided on the admissibility of the communication in July 1983.
With regard to article 5 (2) (a), the author's assertion that the same matter had not been submitted to Any other procedure of international investigation or settlement was not contested by the State party. As to the question of exhaustion of domestic remedies, the State party did not contest the author's statement -166-
On 22 July 1983 the Human Rights Committee therefore decideds
That the communication was admissibleJ
That, in accordance with article 4 (2) of the Optional Protocol, the State party be requested to submit to the Committee, within six months of the date of transmittal to it of the decision, written explanations or statements clarifying the matter and the remady, if any, that might have been taken by itJ
That the State party be informed that the written explanations or statements submitted by it under article 4 (2) of the Optional Protocol must relate primarily to the substance of the matter under consideration. The Committee stressed that, in order to perform its responsibilities, it required specifie responses to the allegations which had been made by the author of the communication and the State party's explanations of the actions taken by it. The State party was again requested (a) to enclose copies of any court orders or decisions of relevance to the matter under consideration, (b) to inform the Committee whether the alleged victim was brought before the military judge of first instance in person and what were the relevant laws and practices in that respect, and (c) to inform the Cornrnittee as to the outcome of th~ trial at first instance of Teresa G6mez de Voituret and whetber the judgement of the court of first instance was subject to appea1.
By a note of 22 August 1983 in response to the Cornrnittee's request of 3 May 1983, the State party submitted the fo11owing additiona1 informationz ~In the proceedings against Teresa Gamez de voituret, the accused was sentenced at first instance on 28 September 1982 to five years' rigorous imprisonment on conviction of the offences of 'subversive association' and 'conspiracy to undermine the Constitution fo11owed by cr.imina1 acts'. "On 15 June 1983 judgement was given at second instance confirming the sentence. The proceedings were conducted with al1 the guarantees provided for under the Uruguayan legal system, including that relating to the right of the accused to appropriate legal assistance."
In its submission under article 4 (2) of the Optional protocol, dated 14 December 1983, the State party addedz "In all cases the legally established trial procedures are observed, which includes appearance befora the competent judge. with respect to the -167- Il. No furtber submission has been received from the author.
The Hu~~n Rights Committee, having examined the present communication in the light of aIl the information made available to it by the parties as provided in article 5 (1) of the Optional protocol, hereby decides to base its views on the following facts, which appear uncontested.
Teresa G6mez de Voituret was arrested on 27 November 1980 by plainclothes men without any warrant and taken to Military Unit No. l, where she was held in solitary confinement in a cell almost without natural light and which she was not allowed to leave until she was brought to trial in June 1981. She was subsequently transferred to Punta de Rieles prison, where she is still detained. In June 1981 she was charged with "subversiv~ association and attempt against the Constitution followed by preparatory acts". Ber trial at first instance began on 23 March 1982 and she was sentenced on 28 September 1982 to five years' rigorous imprisonment. On 15 June 1983 judgement was given at second instance confirming the sentence.
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 disclose a violation of article 10 (1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, because Teresa Gémez de Voituret was kept in solitary confinement for several months in conditions which failed to respect the inherent dignity of the human persen.
The Committee, accordingly, is of the view that the State party is under an obligation to ensure that Teresa G6mez de Voituret is treated with humanity and to transmit a copy of these views to her. -168-