The author of the communication (initial letter dated 10 June 1982 and further letter dated 11 February 1983) is a Uruguayan national, residing at present in France. He submitted the communication on behalf of his father, Jorge Manera Lluberas, alleging that he is imprisoned in Uruguay and that he is a victirn of a breach by Uruguay of several articles (specified by the author) of the International Covenant on Civil and political Rights.
The author describes the background to the case as follows: Jorge Manera Lluberas (barn on 18 November 1929), a civil engineer, was a principal founder of the Movimiento de Liberaci6n Nacional-Tuparnaros (MLN-T).
Jorge Manera Lluberas was arrested in Uruguay for the third time in July 1972. He was kept incommunicado during the first 195 days of his detention and allegedly subjected ta severe torture. The author further states that in Septernber 1973 his father was transferred as "hostage" from Libertad prison to the Batal16n de Ingenieras No. 3 in Paso de los Taros and he alleges that up ta the present his father continues to he held as "hostage". This status has caused hirn -175-
Concerning the events that took place after 1976, the author states that from January to September 1976 his father was held at the Pavilion of Cells at the Batal16n de Infanteria No. 4 -Colonia-. He states that the cells measured 1.60 x 2 m, that the electric light was continuously on, that the only piece of furniture was a mattress provided at night and that detainees had to remain in the cells 24 hours per day in solitary confinement.
From 8eptember 1976 to August 1977, Mr. Manera was held at Trinidad prison. Concerning this period of imprisonment, two statements are enclosed: (a) from David Campora who Alleges that he was held at Trinidad from March 1975 to August 1977 and (b) from Waldemir Prieto, allegedly held there from June 1976 to March 1977. They bath state that prison conditions were inhuman (dirty cells, without light, without furniture, extreme temperatures, very hot in the summer, very cold in the winter, lack of food, no medical attention). In particular, they state that Jorge Manera was in poor health (glaucoma, infected tooth) and that he did not receive Adequate medical treatment. They point out that Manera, even more than other detainees, was continuously subjected to harassment by the guards and they give the names of several prison officials. For instance, they mention that Manera's cell was searched almost every night by the prison guards. W. Prieto adds that detainees were often beaten by the guards without Any reason or subject to ·plantones~ for 10 to 12 hours.
From August 1977 to April 1978, Jorge Manera was kept at the Regimiento de Infanteria No. Durazno. The author mentions that he has no first-hand information (by former detainees) on his father's conditions of imprisonment for the last five years. In April 1978, Jorge Manera was transferred to Colonia where he remained until March 1980. The author Alleges that at Colonia his father was again subjected to tq~ture, that he was kept for six months in complete isolation and that between May and November 1980 he was not allowed to sleep more than two hours at a time. In ~ay 1980, Jorge Manera was transferred to the Batal16n de Ingenieros No. 3 in Paso de los Toros where he ls detalned at present. The author states that his father is kept 24 hours a day in a cell wlth electric llght only, without Any daylight, and that his state of health ls extremely POOr. (He lists his father's illnesses.)
with respect to the judicial proceedlngs against his father, the author states that on 12 January 1973 his father was brought before a military judge and charged with the following offencesl ~~tempt to subvert the Constitution, production, trading in and storage of explosive substances, manslaughter, association to break the law and escape from prison. He further states that six years later, in 1979, his father was sentenced to the maximum penalty of 30 years of imprisonment and 15 additional years of precautionary detention (medidae de seguridad eliminativas) by a military tribunal of first instance. The author claims that his father's trial was not public and that he was not given the opportunity to call his own witnesses. In his further submission of 11 February 1983, the author mentions that his fal~er has been sentenced by the court of second instance, without givlng furthel: details. -176-
The author claims that his father is a victim of violations of the following articles of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rightsl of articles 2 and 26, because he was discriminated against and treated worse than a common criminal because of his political ideas, of article 6, because he is held as a "hostage" and bis life is in danger, of articles 7 and 10, because he has been subjected to torture, he has been detained under inhuman prison conditions and he is denied proper medical attention, and of article 14, because he did not have a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal since a military tribunal does not fulfil these criteria, he was not presumed innocent, he could never communicate with counsel of his own choosing and he had no facilities for the preparation of his defence, he was not tried without undue delay and he was denied the opportunity to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his own behalf or to dispute the evidence against him, often obtained under torture.
The author claims that domestic remedies have been exhausted. He maintains that the domestic remedies which are provided for in the uruguayan legislation cannot protect his father, because none of them is allegedly applicable in practice, if the human rights violation has been committed by military personnel or by mernbers of the police in connection with State security as interpreted by the military forces.
The author states that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. He encloses a copy of a letter dated 9 February 1982 addressed by Olga Johnson de Manera to the Executive Secretary of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), requesting that consideration of case No. 1872 concerning Jorge Manera Lluberas should be discontinued before that body.
By its decision of 7 July 1982 the working Group of the Human Rights Committee decided that the author was justified in acting on bahalf of the alleged victim and 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 of the communication. The working Group also requested the State party to transmit to the Committee any copies of court decisions against Jorge Manera Lluberas, to give the Committee information on his state of health and to ensure that he rece1ves adequate med1cal care.
By a note dated Il OCtober 1982 the State party 1nformed the Comm1ttee that, notwithstanding the fact that it remained ta be determ1ned whether the communication was admissible, the Governrnent of Uruguay wished to make the following comments with respect to Mr. Manera Lluberasl "This communication is further praof that, even today, instead of the truth about the situation in Uruguay ga1n1ng ground, the real situation rema1ns unknown, with a di~torted picture prevailing 1n the international sphere, where there has been exploitat10n of manifestly untrue and -177- s~""'bH i!i&' " "'~"" "' " ,~~_."' """""'''''' ''''J' ;;( ~r. Manera Lluberas is described in the communication as a 'hostage'. The Government of Uruguay rejects the use of that term to describe someone who has treacherously indulged in the kidnapping of foreign diplomats and in depriving them of their liberty in an attempt to put pressure on the legitimate Goverl~ent of the Republic in order to attain his objectives, and has thereby jeopèlrdized the lives of the human beings taken as hostages and undermined th~ ralations of sincere friendship and co-operation with countries which are traditionally friends of Uruguay. Kr. Manera Lluberas is not in any Sense of the term a hostage, since he enjoys the same rights as any other prisoner. The only circumstance which distinguishes his situation from that of others imprisoned for crimes of subversion is that he is being held in a different place of detention, a matter with regard to which the Government of Uruguay reserves the right of decision since it falls exclusively within its domestic jurisdiction. -... -The Government of Uruguay rejects the whole series of accusations contained in the communication, such as the allegations of torture and ill-treatment, failure to provide medical care, inadequate food, lack of medicines and so on. It should be emphasized in this connection that Kr. Kanera Lluberas, like all prisoners, is subjected to periodic medical examinations and that, in the specifie case of the urinary infection and bilateral lumbar myalgia from which he has recently suffered, he was given adequate medical care and the necessary medicines by the official health services, he is at present in good health. -The author of the communication has resorted to false evidence to assemble a set of truthless accusations with the aim of compiling a document that, by its excessive length, would impress the Committee and lead it astray in its decisions. Koreover, the similarities between paragraphs contained in the communication to which this reply relates and expressions used in other communications provide clear proof of the existence of an apparatus which has been established for the sole purpose of drawing up complaints to be submitted for the consideration of relevant international organizations.- s. Comaenting on the State party's submission, the author reiterates, in his letter of 11 February 1983, that his father has been subject~d to torture and inhwsan treatment for the last 10 years, that his trial of both first and second -178-
The Committee has noted that the observations submitted by the State party on 11 OCtober 1982 did not affect the question of the admissibility of the communication under the terms of the Optional Protocol.
On the basis of the information before it, the Committee found that it was not precluded by article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol from considering the communication, as the case submitted to IACHR on behalf of Jorge Manera had been withdrawn and the same matter was not being examined under Any other procedure of international investigation or settlement. The Committee was also unable to conclude that in the circumstances of this case there were effective remedies available to the alleged victim which he had failed to exhaust. Accordingly, the Committee found that the communication was not inadmissible under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol.
On 25 March 1983, the Human Rights Committee therefore decided~
That the communication was admissible in so far as it related to events which allegedly continued or took place after 23 March 1976, the date on which the Covenant and the Optional Protocol entered into force for Uruguay,
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 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 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 observations contained in the State party's note of 11 october 1982, to the extent that it contained only refutations of these allegations in general terms, were deemed insufficient for this purpose,
That the State party again be requested to furnish the Committee with (a) information on the present state of health of Jorge Manera and (b) copies of AnY court decisions taken against Jorge Manera, including the decision of the military court of fi~st and second instance. -179-
The tlme-l1mit for the State party's sUII.-"lission under article 4 (2) of the Optional Protocol expired on 28 OCtober 1983. The Committee has not received any further explanations or specific responses to the author's allegations, as requested in operative paragraph 3 of the Committee's decision on admissibility. Moreover, the State party has not fUl~ished the Committee with copies of any relevant court decisions, as requested in operative paragraph 4 of the decision on ac:blissibility.
No further submissions have been received from the author.
The Human Rights Committee, having examined the present communication in the light of al1 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, except for denials of a general character offering no particular information or explanations.
Jorge Manera Lluberas was a civil engineer and a principal founder of the Movimiento de Liberaci6n Nacional-Tupamaros (MLT-T). He was arrested in July 1972, fram January to September 1976 he was held at the Pavilion of Cella at the Batal16n de Infanteria No. 4 "Colonia-, where cells measure 1.60 x 2 m, electric lights were kept continuously on, the only piece of furniture was a mattress provided at nights and where detainees had to remain in the cells 24 hours per day in solitary confinement. From September 1976 to August 1977 he was held at Trinidad prison, where prison conditions were described by two witnesses as being characterized by dlrty cells wlthout light, without furniture, very hot in the summer and very cold ln the winter. In April 1978, he was transferred to Colonia, where he was kept in complete isolation for six months, in May 1980 he was transferred to the Batal16n de Ingenieros No. 3, were he is detained at present.
Mr. Manera was indicted on 12 January 1973. Six years later, in 1979, he was sentenced to the maximum penalty of 30 years' imprisonment and 15 additional years of precautionary detention (medidas de seguridad eliminativas) by a military tribunal of first instance, he was subsequently sentenced by the court of second instance. From March 1975 to mid 1977 Mr. Manera was not a110wed to see his defence lawyer.
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 Yiew that the facts as found by the Committee, in so far as they continued or occurred after 23 March 1976 (the date on whicn the Covenant and the Optional Protoco1 entered into force for uruguay), disclose violations of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, particularly of: Article 10 (1), because Jorge Manera Lluberas has not been treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person, -180-
The Committee, according1y, is of the view that the 5tate party is under an obligation to provide Jorge Manera Lluberas with effective remedies and, in particular, to ensure that he is treated with humanity, and to transmit a copy of these views to him. -181-