The author of the communication (initial letter dated 12 August 1981 and further submissions dated 26 OCtober 1981, 27 September 1982 and 11 June and 22 November 1983) is a Uruguayan national, residing at present in Sweden. He submits the communication on his own beha1f.
The author (born on 30 OCtober 1949) describes the background to the case as fo110ws. Between 1969 and 1971 when he worked for Senator Ze1mar Michelini of the Uruguayan opposition party Frente Amp1io he was arrested severa1 times on the suspicion of association with subversive movements but no charges were ever retained against him. After the defeat of Senator Miche1ini's party in the e1ections of November 1971, he 1eft Uruguay with his family for Buenos Aires, Argentina. He continued to work for Ze1mar Miche1ini, most1y as a journ~li~t.
The author a11eges that on 24 February 1974 he was kidnapped by a join~ Uruguayan-Argentinian commando at his home in Buenos Aires, Argentina. AfteE having been subjected to severe torture at severa1 places of detention and interrogated with a view to making him admit that he had been involved in the -169-
The author claims to have been held at the following detention places in Uruguay: Batallon de Infanteria No. 12, where he allegedly was tortured for two months in 1974, and Batallon de Infanteda No. Il, where he wns also subj~cted to torture of which he gives a detai1ed description. On 23 December 1974 he was taken to Libertad prison, where he remained until his "adv..;.nced release" on 13 February 1981. On 24 OCtober 1974 he was brought before a judge to be indicted. Subsequently his wife was released. The background to the case, as described above, relates to events said to have taken place prior to the entry into force of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights for Uruguay on 23 March 1976.
On 26 April 1976 the author was taken before a military tribunal of first instance (Juzgado Militar de Primera Instancia, 5 Turno). There he replied to a questionnaire prepared by his defence lawyer, Dra. Maria Elena Martinez Salgueiro. The military judge, Colonel Eduardo Silva, listened to his replies but no witnesses were heard. The ~~thor then was taken back to Libertad prison and held there incommunicado. nis defence lawyer was informed two weeks later that he indeed was at Libertad prison but that no visits were allowed. Before the tribunal of first instance the author was charged with subversive association and sentenced to seven y~ars' imprisonment.
On 18 April 1977 the author was taken before the Supreme Military Tribunal and new charges were brought against him, such as attempting to subvert the Constitution at the level of conspiracy followed by preparatory acts, possession of arma and explosives and use of false identity papers. On that date the author was sentenced to 14 years' imprisonment.
The author states that both his first and second defence lawyers, Dr. Martinez Salgueiro and Dra. Susana Andreasen, had to renounce his defence in 1976 and later to leave the country. Before the Supreme Military Tribunal the author had to accept a military ex officio counsel, Colonel otto Gilomen, although a civilian defence lawyer, José Korsenak FUks, was ready to take up his defence.
The author alleges that in 1976 he was subjected to psychiatrie experiments (giving the name of the do~tor) and that for three years, against his will, he was injected with tranquilizers every two weeks. He alleges in this connection that in May 1976 when he put up resistance to the injections, Captain X (name is given) ordered a group of soldiers to subdue him forcibly in order to inject the drug and that he was subsequently held incommunicado in a punishment cell for 45 days. He further claims, without providing any detail, that on 14 and 15 April 1977 he was interrogated and subjected to torture at Libertad prison, that on 22 November 1978 he was again subjected to torture (giving the names of his torturers in both instances), that he started a hunger strike protesting against this ill-treatment and that in retaliation he was heId incommunicado in a punishment ceIl for 45 days without any medical attention. He claims that in April 1980 he was againheld incommunicado because he had spoken with members of the International Red Cross visiting Libertad prison. The author lists the names of several Uruguayan officiaIs who allegedly practised torture. -170-
with regard to the question of admissibility, the author states that he has not submitted his case to another procedure of international investigation or settlement. He further alleges that, because of the state of 1awlessness prevailing in Uruguay with regard to cases submitted to military jurisdiction, there·are no further domestic remedies which could be invoked.
The author claims that he i5 a victim of violations of articles 7, 8, 9, 10 Ipdras. l, 2 and 3), 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19 (paras. 1 and 2), 21, 22, 25 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and political Rights.
By its decision of 16 March 1982 the working Group of the Human Rights Committee decided to transmit the communication under rule 91 of the Committee's provisional rules of procedure to the state party concerned, requesting information and observations relevant to the question of admissibility of the communication.
By a note dated 18 August 1982 the State party informed the Committee that the Government of Uruguay wished to state that, in view of article l of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which provides that a State party to the Covenar.t recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications "from individuals subject to its jurisdiction", it considered the communication in question to be inadmissible. Mr. Viana Acosta was not entitled to request the implementation of the machinery provided for in the Covenant because, once he was unconditionally released on
April 1981, he left the country to live abroad and he was therefore not subject to the jurisdiction of the Uruguayan State. The Government of Uruguay nevertheless wished to explain that the author of the communication was not a "political prisoner" but, rather a common criminal who was connected with the seditious "Tupamaros" movement and was tried for the offence of "aiding and abetting a conspiracy to subvert".
Commenting on the State party's submission, the author argued, in his letter of 27 September 1982, that it was impossible for him to submit the communication from his own country, since no individual guarantees existed there.
When discussing the admissibi1ity of the communication the Human Rights Committee observed that the events complained of allegedly occurred in Uruguay while the author was subject to the jurisdiction of Uruguay. The Committee recalled that, by virtue of article 2, paragraph l of the Covenant, each state party undertakes to respect and to ensure to "all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction" the rights recognized in the Covenant. Article l of the Optional Protocol was clearly intended to apply to individuals subject to the jurisdiction of the State party concerned at the time of the alleged violation of the Covenant. This was manifestly the object and purpose of article 1.
On the basis of the information before it, the Committee found that it was not precluded by article 5, paragraph 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol from considering the communication, as there was no indication that the same matter had been submitted to another procedure of international investigation or settlement. The Committee was also unable te conclude that in the circumstances of this case there -171-
That the communication was admissible in 50 far as it related to events which allegedly continued or took place after 23 March 1976, the date on which the Covenant and the Optiondl Protocol entered into force for Uruguay;
That the author be requested to submit to the Committee, within six weeks of the date of transmittal of this decision, further, more precise information (together with any relevant medical reports) concerning the psychiatrie experiments to which he alleged that he was subjected (see para. 2.7 above),
That any information received from the author be transmitted as soon as possible to the State party to enable it to take such information into account in the preparation of its submission under article 4, paragraph 2, of the Optional Protoco!,
That, in accordance with article 4, paragraph 2, of the Opticnal Protocol, the State party be requested to submit to the Committee, within six months of the date of 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,
That the State party be informed that the written explanatiQns or statements submitted by it under article 4, paragraph 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 requested, in this connection, to enclose copies of any court orders or decisions of relevance to the matter under consideration.
By a note dated 5 April 1983, the Government of Uruguay repeated "what it stated in the reply given to the Committee in its note dated 18 August 1982 concerning the same case" (see para. 4 above).
In a letter dated 11 June 1983 the author regrets not being able to provide the Committee with the requested precise information concerning the psychiatrie experiments he allegedly had been subjected to during his detention. He explains that all information of this kind remained in the hands of the doctors, sorne of whom he iden~ifies by name, who belonged to the military health establishment in Uruguay. He repeats his earlier allegations that every fortnight for more than three years he was injected against his will with a psychotropic drug. He claims that.the doctors stopped administering th~ drug after he had informed the Chief of the Red Cross mission which visited Libertad prison in April 1980. The author alleges that no competent medical supervision was exercised when the drug was administered to him and he lists in this connection several members of the Armed Forces Health Corps, who allegedly collaborated in the psychological and physical destruction of detainees. He further completes his earlier list of names of -172-
In its submissions under article 4 (2) of the Option~l protoco1 dated 27 September and 4 OCtober 1983, the State party reiterates its views previous1y expressed ta the Committee (see para. 4 above).
Commenting on the State partyls submissions, the author in a 1etter dat~d 22 November 1983 points out that the Government of Uruguay, despite the Committee's requests, has fai1ed ta respond in substance and ta provide the Committee with copies of court orders or decisions of re1evance ta his case. He further disputes the State partyls contention that he was "unconditiona11y" re1eased.
The cornmittee decides ta base its views on the fo11owing facts which have been either essentia11y confirmed by the State party or are uncontested except for denia1s of a genera1 character offering no particu1ar information or exp1anation. However, it fo11ows from the Committee's decision on the admissibi1ity of the communication that the c1aims re1ating ta events said ta have taken place before 23 March 1976 (see paras. 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 above) are inadmissible for the purpose of any finding by the Committee.
Antonio Viana Acosta was seized by a joint uruguayan-Argentinian commando on 24 February 1974 at his home in Buenos Aires, Argentina, and was f1.own on 4 April 1974 ta Uruguay, where he was detained in custody. He was subsequent1y held at various places of detention in Uruguay unti1 23 December 1974 when he was taken ta Libertad prison where he remained unti1 his re1ease from prison on 13 February 1981. On 26 April 1976 he was taken before a mi1itary tribunal of first instance where he rep1ied ta a questionnaire prepared by his defence 1awyer in the presence of a judge. He was thereafter taken back ta Libertad prison and he1d incommunicado for severa1 weeks. He was charged with subversive association and sentenced by the mi1itary tribunal of first instance ta seven years l imprisonment. On 18 April 1977, Antonio Viana Acosta was brought before the Supreme Mi1itary Tribunal where new charges were brought against him. He was forced ta accept a mi1itary ex-officia counse1, Colonel Otto Gi1omen, a1though a civi1ian defence 1awyer, José Korsenak Füks, was ready ta take up his defence. He was sentenced ta 14 years l imprisonment. On three occasions, one starting in May 1976, one in November 1978 and one in April 1980, he was he1d incommunicado in a punishment ce11. He was re1eased from detenti - 13 February 1981. On
April 1981 he 1eft Uruguay.
Concerning the author's a11egations of torture, the Committee notes that the periods of torture, except for 14 and 15 April 1977 and 22 Ne Tember 1978, (see para. 2.7 above) occurred before the entry into force of the Covenant and the Optiona1 Protoco1 thereto for Uruguay, and that regarding torture a11eged ta have occurred after 23 March 1976 no detai1s have been provided by the author. These al1egations are therefore, in the opinion of the Committee, unsubstantiated. Neverthe1ess, the information before the Committee evidences that Antonio Viana Acosta was subjected ta inhuman treatment. -173- articles 7 and 10 (1) because Antonio Viana Acosta was subjected ta inhuman treatment) article 14 (3) (b) and (d) because before the Supreme Military Tribunal he did not have counsel of his own choosingJ article 14 (3) (c) because he was not tried without undue delay.
The Committee, accordingly, is of the view that the State party is under an obligation to provide Antonio Viana Acasta with effective remedies and, in particular, with compensation for physical and mental injury and suffering caused to him by the inhuman treatment to which he was subjected. -174-