The oriqinal author of the communication (initial letter dated 5 J~ly 1983 and further letters of 26 September 1983, 20 "arch ann 15 September 1984) is Felicia Gilboa de neverdito, a Uruauaval'l national livina in Prance at the time of submission and now re.idina aaain in Uruauav. She submitted the communication on behalf of her niece, Lucb "rauaaa Gilboli, III 26-year-old uruauayan c· then IIlnd univ\lrsity student., who 'la. detained in Uruauay from 15 Junft 1983 until 3 SeDtemhwr 1984 and who wa. at the ti.. of submission not in a position to oreRent her case herself before the Human Riqhts Committee. She joined as co-author of the communication IIlf~er her relea.e (letter. of 2 March and 14 Oc-tobltr 1985). Pelicia Gi1hoa de Reverdito a11eaed that her niece 'la. a victim of violations of the fo11owina article. of the Internation"l Covenant on Civil and Political Riahto,
9, paraaraph. 1 and 4, 10, paraaraphs 1, 2 (b) and 3, 14, parlllaraohB 1, 2 and 3 (a), (c), (d) and (q), 1'), oaraaraph 1J 17, parllaraph lP, oarllaraph 1,
PlllraqraphR 1 and 2, 22, oaraqraphft 1 and 2, 25 and 26.
P'e1icia Gilboa de Reverdito deRcribec' the relevant factB ad fOUOl.'" her niec@ wall IIlrr"sted in Montevideo on 15 June 1983. She was kept incommunicado until 30 June 1983 and durina that period her whereabouts were unknown. On 30 J~ne 1~8] Rhe reappeared ... ::. 'the Polic. Headquarters in Montevideo, havtnq been brouaht to trial (orocesada) on charae. of "subver.ive asftociation".
Reaacdinq the circumstances of her niece'. arreBt, MrB. Reverdito pointed out that Rhe had heen involved in studentll' activitie., ~hat since June 19~3 many -128-
'J Mrs. Reverdito at.alert that I,uc{a Arzullgll GiLhoa Rufferf'd from the connequenceFl of meningitis ~ontr<t· tect in 1982 and required f1pecial medical treatment.
Mrs. Reverdito further claimed that there were no effecti~e domestic remedie~ IlIvailable to her niece because, (al Habeas cor,eua was not available for those drrested under the "prompt aecurity measures", (bl The entire procedure before the military courtB waa in violation of article 14 of the Covenant ,1nd therefore remedies available under criminal military law were equally defective, (cl The remedy of appeal against the indictment (a~laci6n contra el auto de procesamiento) was in fact Inapplicable since the Supreme Court of Justice had never accepted such an appeal. 2.'5 Mrs. Reverdito finally stated that her niece's CAse had not been s'Jbmitted to another procedure of international investigation or settlement.
By its decision of 27 July 1983, the ~orking Group of the Human Rights Committee transmitted the communication under rule 91 of the prOVisional rules of procedure to the State party requesting information and observations relevant to the admissibility of the communic~tion and asking the State party to provide the Committee with copies of any COli it orders or decisions releva.lt to the case and to inf(-~ the Committee of the otate of health of Luc{a Arzuaga Gilboa. The authol was a~80 requested to furnish detailed information in 9upport of her allegations of violations of the Cove~ant, inclUding the comp14int that "the entire procedure before the military courts is in violation ot article 14 of the Covenant and therefore remedies available under military criminal law are equally defective".
In re&ponse to the Working Group's request, Mrs. Reverdito, on 26 September 1983, furnished additional information which she claimed had not been in her poosession at the time when she had submitteu the initial letter.
with respect to ~rticle 14 of the Covenant, Mrs. Reverdito made detailed submission3 on the provisions which she claimed were violated by proceedings before Uruguayan military courts. Mvreover, she claimed tllat pursuant to a decree of June 1973 the publication of any judgementR of military courts was expressly proh1bited.
With respect to alleged violations of articles 7 and 10, paragraph 1, of the Covenant, Mrs. Reverdito claimed that her niece had been SUbjected to torture and vl'lriouR forms of cruel and degrading treatment: "This happenerl almoat continuously during the period when she was held incommunicado, Le., from her arrest until the Submission of her caRe to the military court" a per iod of L5 days. This per iad was devoted wholly to subjecting the l.uge group of young university studentI!' rrested with my niece to the mo8t cruel treatment, with a view to extracting 'confessions' concernin') political .lctivities or concerning adherence to persecuted -129- "(11) P,",Y8iclllI violence W/lA 11 conlltllnt p.ut of the treatment, heqtnnln<l lit the time of arrest. My niece was brutllllv heaten lit that time, In the strf'f't it8elf IIncl In full view of passers-by, "(h) The 'electric prod', pllrtlculllrly In the Qenlt/ll reqlon, "(c) StrlnQlna up. My niece wtlS strunQ up, hlln(kuffel1, hy the chilln of her hllrl(jclJffs. This waA carried out In an open yard, In mtd-wlnter, with the vlct.lm naked, line! happenee! only once. A8 a re8ult, Bhe loat cor., '.~lnUAneA , AO that Ahe is unllhle to SlilY how lonq Rhe was kept In that poslttonl "(d) Various forms of continuous cleqradlll ion and violence, f1uch liS 1I1ways h"vlnQ to remllin naked with the qUllr<'tR ancl to.turers, threats and inRlJltM ane! promiRes of further actR of cruelty. "I am unahle to atate specifically the effect and reBult 01 thlA treatment in the caRe of my niece, hecause it has not yet heen possible to ohtllin any clinical Informat"n or to have her examined by a rellllble rl<x~tor. However, there lire a number symptomB which qive caUAe for alarm in thiA reQard. After beinq lItrunq up, "8 deBcribed above, my niece Ruffert·d dttack8 of vomi tiOtl ancl other symptoms, illS a r"sult of which she wall taken on a number of occallions, after her trial and transfer to her current place of imprillonment, for examtnationll, the nature and results of which it hall not heen PQRsible to ascertain. It is known, however, that some nf the examinations involveO electro-encephaloqrams. In this reqard, it should he borne In mind th8t, as I IItateel in my initial communication, my niece contracted meninaitiR last year. The blows to the head which she received ~ere therefore particularly danaarous in her case."
ReverrHto further claimed thllt her niece was he1<1 at the poUticlIl pri"on for women at Punta de Rieles (Militllry Detention Establishment No. 2), 13 kilometres from Montevideo, that the treatment which she wall receivinq tllere WIIR in qross violation of the standard" provided for in the Covenant (and in the lIruquayan Conlltitution). The methods UfleO were alleqeclly intended qradually to detroy the personalitle" of detainees by continuously assaultina their psycholoqical equilibrium lind underminina their physical inteqritYI "The means employed there do not involve direct brutal torture, but are calculdt~ to work IIlowly, qradullllv IInd cumullltively. They involve deliberately arhitrary tr (·atment. continuous hllrallsment, inadequate nutrition, physical labour and other torms of h8r8h treatment. which produce Iona-term effects."
In its lIuhnlission under rule lII, dated 31 January 1984, the State party commented on the author'R initial communication and also on her furtht'Pr suhmi81'1lon of J Novemher 1983, ami in formed the Commi ttee that Luc ia Arzuaol~ r.ilboa had heen brouqht to trial for the offel'~e of "suhversive IIlRsociation", ,./l"\tided for I., article 60 (V) of the Milit.ary Criminal Code, and tbat no )udaement had yet heen rendered at first instance. "Consequently, the Government of Uruquay, in accordance with article 5, parllorllph 2 (h), of the Optional Protocol to th ... -130-
In IS further letter dated 20 Mar~h lQ84, MrR. Reverdito reiterated that there were nn intern<lll remedies which could hnve been applied effectively and that the military criminal proceedings themselvPl1 const.ituted a breach of: the guarantees laid down in article 14 of the Covenant.
When considerirg the question 01 admissibility of the communication, the Committee found, on the basis of the information before it, t.hat it was not precluded by article 5, paragraph 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol from considering the communication, as the author's indication that the same matter had not been submitted to another procedure of intt'rnation,\l investigation or settlement waR not contested by the State party.
With regard to article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol, the Committee took note of the State party's assertion that remedies were still available under the rell!lvant Uruguayan legislation. The Committee also noted however, that Mrs. Reverdito's allegations concerned not: only possible irregularities in the pending trial proceedings, but alsn instances of torture and ill-treatment as to which the State party had not contenut~d that there were available remedies. Moreover the Committee had established in numerous other cases that domestic remedies must be effective and "available" within the meaning of article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol (R.16/66, R.2l/84, etc.). This entails that procedural guarantees f0r "a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal" mURt he BcrupulouRly observed. With respect to alleged violations of. artl.cle 14 of the Covenant., the Comlnittee considered the <lIuthor's submissions in substantiation of her allegation that "the entire procedure before the military courta is in violation of article 14 ot the Cvvenant", but it found that, in view of the fact that the trial proceedings had not yet been completed, it could not be claimed at that stage that {,uefa Arzullga Gilboa had already personally become a victim of violations of that article. With respect to alleged violations of drticles 7 and 10, paragraph 1, of the Covenant, the Committee noted that Mrs. Reverdito had made specific allegations a8 to instances )f torture and ill-treatment which T,ucfa Arzuaga Gllboa had purportedly endured, in thls connection the Committee. recalled numeroua other cases where the authors ha~ made specific allegations of torture a"d the State party failed to 'stablish that there were effective remedies available. Similarly, in the instant. case, the State party had not informed the Committee which were the remediefJ avaiLable to Lucb Arzuago Gilboa wh.h renpect to ',er allegation of b'iltng a victim of torture. The Committee stressed, moreover, that it was implicit. in th~ Covenant and in the Optional Protocol that the State part.y had the duty to investigate in good f ..,ith all allegat.ions of violation of the Covenant madt> against it and itn authorities. Accordingly, with reRpect to the alLegations of violations of articles 7 and 10, paragraph 1, of the Covenant, the Committee found that the communication was not Inadmissible under article '>, paragraph 2 (b), of the Opt.ional ProtoCt-I. The Committee observed that ito decision could be reviewed in the light of further explanations which the State parly might submit under article 4, paragraph 2, of the Optional Pr 0 t<>co, , giving specific details of domestic remedieR claimed to hllve been availahle to the alleged victim, toqether wlth evidence t.l.at there would be a reasonable prospect that such rem"dies would be ·-131-·
'I'hlllt the communicllt: ion waB adm il'lsi hIe wi th r eRp~t to ItIlel1l'lt ion8 of violll1t ion8 of IHtir:le8 7 "n<1 10, plHllaraph 1, of the Coven~nt,
'rh'lt, in IIccordance with IIrtkle 4, oaraqcaph 2, of the Optionlll Protocol, the Stlllte pllIrty pe requested te submit to the Committee, within 8ix monthA of t.he date of trlllnsmittal 'to it ot' thi8 deci81on, written explanlltion8 or st.llItementl" clllrif'yinQ the mllltter in i~') far illS Illle<tationA of vlolllttons (,f Ilrt icles 7 and 10, pl\rlHlraph 1, of the Covenant are concerned /.Ind the remedy, if lIny, thlllt may have heen tltken by it,
By 11 letter dated 2 March 191\'), Lucla Arzuaqlll confirmed that it "'as her wish th/lt the Ccmmitl&e continue consideration of her case. In /I further letter, dated 14 October 1985, sha confirmed the de9criptton of the fllcts, set out in paraQraph9 2.1 to 2.4 and 4.2 to 4.4 above.
In ite submiflsion under article 4, parlllarlllph 2, of the Optional Protocol d/lt.ed 28 September 1Q84, the State partv confirmed th/lt Lucla ArzlIaqa had been orovisionllll1y relea8ed on 3 September 1984. It offered no further detllil!!.
When adoptinq its decision on acimia8ihil1ty on 12 April 1984, the Committee ohservect thl!lt. the docislon could be reviewed in the l1qht of further eXPlanations which the State party miaht Buhmit under a,·ticll!' 4, paraqrllph 2, of the Optionlll Peot.. ~ol with respect to thl! llllef1ations {·f viollltionR of "rtlele8 7 and 10, para'.!raph 1, of the Covenant. The Committee noteR in thin re<1 .... rd that no det/li1s have heen furnished to it of /Jny domestic remedies c1/1imed to have heen Ilv/lilah1e to the a11eaed victirll /It the mllterial time. The Committee therefore 8ees no reason for reviewinq ita deci9ion on ~dmi88ihility.
The Humlln Riqht9 Commi tt.ee, hl!lvinq eXllImined the present communication in the Uqht (If 1111 the informatlon m"de Ilvailahlp to it by th parties .~R provided in llrtic1e 5, paCl'l<lraph 1, of the Optionlll Protocol, hereby decides t.o base its views on the fo11owinq facta, which appear uncontested. l'L2 T,uela Arzuaaa Gi1boa was arrested in Montevideo on 15 ,Tune 1983 and kept ineommunicmk' I'It an unknown place of clptention until '10 ,June 198.1. DurinQ thi!l per iod she WlI!! sUhjected to torture (helttinaa, "electr ie prod", Atr·1.n<1inq up) Ilrlll -·1]2- Article 7, because Luc!a Arzuaga Gi1hoa was .ubjected to torture and to cruel and deg~ading treatment in the period bdtween 15 and JO June 1983, and Article 10, paragraph 1, because stle was held incommunicado for a period of 15 days and subjected to inhuman prison conditions for 14 months until her release in September 1984.
The Committee, accordingly, is of the view that the St~te party i~ under an obligation to take effective measure. to remedy the violation. which Luc!a Arzuaga has suffered and to grant her compensation.
The State party ha. provided the Com.tttee with a number of lists ind1.cating the names of persons released from pri.on since August 1984 and until the newly elected Government came to power on 1 March 1985. The Committ.e has further l.arned that, pursuant to an amne.ty law enacted ~v the new Government on 8 March 1985, all political pri.oner. have been relea.ed and all forms of political banishment have beon lifted. The Committee expr••••• it. satisfaction at the measures taken by the State party t(i~ard8 the ob••rvance of the Covenant and co-operation with the Committee. -1]3-