Decision on merits; Substantive issues: accused persons / convicted persons arbitrary detention - arrest effective remedy fair trial fair trial - undue delay liberty of person pre-trial detention promptly brought before a judge right to life; Articles: 2 (3) (a) 6 (1) 9 (3) 9 (4) 14 (3) (c); Procedural issues: exhaustion of domestic remedies same matter - another procedure of international investigation or settlement victim status; [CCPR: UNO-Pakt II, Internationaler Pakt über bürgerliche und politische Rechte; Pacte international relatif aux droits civils et politiques; Patto II]
Volltext (verifizierbarer Originaltext)
ANNEX IX
Viewe of the Human Rights Committee under article 5 (4)
of the Qptional Protocol to the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights
concerning
Communication No. 84/1981
Su~itted bYI
Hugo Gilmet Der.it, on behalf of his cousins, Guillereo Ignacio
Dermit Barbato and Hugo Haroldo Dermit Barbato
Alleged victimsl
Guillermo Ignacio Dermit Barbato and Hugo Haroldo Dermit Barbato
State party concerned:
Uruguay
Date of communication:
27 February 1981 (date of initial letter)
Dete of decision on admissibility:
28 October 1981
The Buman Rights Committee, established under article 28 of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:
Meeting on 21 October 1982,
Baving concluded its consideration of cuommunication No. 84/1981 submitted to
the Co.mittee by Hugo Gilmet Dermit under the Optional Protocol to the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
Having taken into account all written information made available to it by the
author of the communication and by the State party concerned,
adopts the followingl
VIEWS UNDER ARTICLE 5
(4)
OF THE OPrIONAL PRa.rocO!.
1.1
The author of the communication (initial letter dated 27 Pebruary 1981 and
further letters dated 30 September 1981 and 28 July 1982) i8 a Uruguyan citizen at
~resent living in Sweden.
He submitted the communication on behalf of his cousins,
Rugo Raroldo Dermit Barbato and Guillermo Ignacio Dermit Barbato, alleging that
Rugo Dermit died in detention in Uruguay between 24 and 28 December 1980 and that
Guillermo Dermit is at present imprisoned in Uruguay.
1.2
The author states that his cousin, Guillermo nermit, a 30-year old Uruguayan
medical doctor disappeared on 2 December 1980.
His abandoned car was found in a
street, with wide open doors.
All attempts to find out his whereabouts were in
vain for 17 days. in partiCUlar, no confirmation could be obtained from the
authorities as to whether he was detained.
On 19 December 1980, an official
cc.munique was published in Montevideo announcing Guillermo Dermit's detention.
-124-
He was described as belonging to a group of relati"'es of prisoners who had carried
out -agitation and propaganda activities".
The alleged victim's place of detention
was not disclosed in the communique and he continued to be detained incommunicado.
For some time his closest relatives did not know where he was being detained.
The
author claims that the real motive for Guillermo Dermit's arrest was the fact that
he was the brother of a political prisoner, Hugo Dermit, and that no illegal
activities could be imputed to him.
1.3
The author claims that Guillermo Dermit is a victim of violations of a number
of provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Folitical Rights,
including article 9 (1), because he was arbitrarily arrestedJ
article 9 (2),
because he was not promptly informed of the reasons for his arrestJ article 9 (3),
because he was not brought promptly before a judge, within the period of 10 days
laid down in Uruguayan lawJ article 9 (4), because he was kept incommunicado and
was thus unable to take his case before any judicial authority and because his
family could not make use of the recourse of habeas corpusJ article 10, because the
treatment of detainees in Uruguay did not conform to this provision of the
Covenant, more detailed information not being available because of
Guillermo Dermit's being incommunicadoJ article 14, because he was not brought
before a court, and that if and when this happened, it would be before a military
tribunal lacking in procedural guarantees and impartiality.
1.4
As to Hugo Dermit, a 32-year old Uruguayan student of medicine at the time of
his death, the author states that he
~~as arrested in 1972, that he came under the
jurisidiction of the military courts and that, after lengthy proceedings,
h~ was
sentenced to eight years' imprisonment.
He had served his sentence in July 1980
but was not released.
Instead, he was informed that he would be released only if
he left the country, a condition which, according to the author, was not mentioned
in the judgemeLt, nor was it based on any rule of law.
After he had obtained an
entry visa from
th~ Swedish Government, the authorities informed him that he was
due to be released on 11 December 1980.
In September 1980, Hugo Dermit was
transferred from the Establecimiento 14ilitar de Reclusion No. 1 (Libertad prison,
Department of San Jose) to the barracks of the Fourth Mechanized Cavalry Regiment
situated in Montevideo (Camino Mendoza and Avenida de las Instrucciones).
On
13 November 1980, he signed the option to leave the country for Sweden.
At the end
of that month, he was transferred to the Montevideo Bolice Headquarters.
On
9 December 1980, the police authorities made it known that he would not be granted
permission to leave the country.
His whereabouts were unknown to his relatives
until 28 December 1980.
The author alleges that, during the period in question,
HU9~ Dermit was once more transferred to the quarters of the Fourth Mechanized
Cavalry Regiment,
wh(~~ he was seen by other prisoners and was reported to have
been in good spirits, in spite of the interruption of the preparations for his
release and departure from Uruguay.
He was last seen alive on 24 December 1980.
On 28 December 1980, his mother was called to the Military Hospital without any
explanation.
There she was shown the dead body of her son for identification
purposes.
The death certificate stated as cause of death "acute haemorrhage
resulting from a cut of the carotid artery" and his mother
~as told that he had
committed suicide with a razor blade.
The writer claims that this explanation is
false and that Hugo Dermit died as a consequence of the mistreatment and torture to
which he had allegedly been subjected.
1.5
The author claims tt . Hugo Dermit was a victim of violations of articles 6,
7, 9, 10, 12, 14 and 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rightso
-125-
1.6
with regard to the question of admissibility, the author stated that he had
not submitted either case to another procedure of international investigation or
settlement.
He alleged there were no further domestic remedies which could be
invoked.
In the case of Hugo Dermit, the remedies through proceedings before the
Military Tribunals had been exhausted.
The eight years' sentence imposed on him
resulted from a decision of the Supreme Military Tribunal.
His continued detention
after completion of his sentence was based on "prompt security measures".
The
author claims that the only remedy available in that situation was the option to
leave the country.
He alleges that no procedural possibilities existed to oblige
the authorities to respect this constitutional option.
The author further claims
that although the alleged violations of human rights in the case of Hugo Dermit
commenced before 23 March 1976, they continued to occur after that date.
2.
By its decision of 18 March 1981, the Working Group of the Human Rights
Committee 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.
It alao requested
the State party to provide the Committee with (a) copies of any court orders or
dcisions relevant to the case, and (b) copies of the death certificate and medical
report and of the report of whatever inquiry had been held in connection with the
death of Hugo Dermit.
3.
In a note dated 24 August 1981, the State party disputed the admissibility of
the communication on the grounds that:
(a) concerning Hugo Dermit, the same matter
had been submitted to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights as case
No. 7710, and (b) with regard to Guillermo Dermit, the remedies available under
domestic law had not yet been exhausted, and the State party had repeatedly
informed the Committee of all the remedies available
~o everyone in Uruguayan
territory.
The Government did not furnish the Committee with copies of any court
orders or decisions relevant to the case of Guillermo Dermit nor did it mention any
proceedings pending against the alleged victim, any specific remedies available to
him, or refer to any other facts concerning his case.
4.
In his letter of 30 September 1981, the author informed the Committee that the
case of Hugo Dermit had been submitted to the Inter-American Commission on Human
Rights by a third party.
He attached a copy of a letter dated 25 September 1981,
sent by the person responsible for submitting case No. 7710 to the Inter-American
Commission requesting its withdrawal.
With regard to the case of Guillermo Dermit,
the author asserted once again the lack of any domestic remedies that could have
been exhausted.
He informed the Committee that Guillermo has been SUbjected to
military jUdicial proceedings.
He again claimed that Guillermo is a victim of
violations of article 14 of the Covenant and alleged that the military judges are
neither independent nor impartial.
5.1
with regard to article 5, paragraph 2 (a), the Human Rights Committee
noted that case No. 7710, concerning Hugo Dermit, had been withdrawn from the
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR).
This had been confirmed by
the secretariat of IACHR.
The Committee also notes that, with regard to
Guillermo Dermit, the State party has not disputed the
auth~r's contention that
the case has not been submitted to any other procedure of international
investigation or settlement.
5.2
with regard to article 5, paragraph 2 (b), the Human Rights Committee took
note of the State Party's assertion that Guillermo Detmit had not yet exhausted the
-126-
domestic remedies available to him.
However, the State party did not give details
of the remedies which may be invoked in the particular circumstances of this caseJ
nor did it specify which of the alleged violations could have been effectively
remedied within the established military judicial process.
On the basis of the
information before it, the Committee was unable to conclude that there were
remedies available to Guillermo Dermit which he should have pursued.
5.3
On 28 October 1981, the Human Rights Committee therefore decided:
(a)
That the communication was admissibleJ
Cb)
That, in accordance with article 4 (2) of the Optional Protocol, the
State party should be requested to submit to the Committee, within six months of
the date of the transmittal to it of this decision, written explanations or
statements clarifying the matter and to enclose copies of any court orders or
decisions of relevance to the matter under consideration, and, in the case of
Hugo Dermit, to
encl~se copies of the death certificate and medical report and of
the reports on whatever enquiries were held into the circumstances surrounding his
death.
6.1
In its submission under article 4 (2) of the Optional Protocol, dated
1 June 1982, the State party fowarded a transcript of the autopsy report concerning
Hugo Dermit which reads as follows:
"Death certified on 28 December 1980.
Cause:
suicide.
Result of the
autopsy:
on 28 December 1980, an autopsy was carried out on the body of
Hugo Dermit Barbato, white, male, 32 years old, general health good, thin.
Blood on the face, neck, front of the thorax and upper limbs, mainly on the
left side.
On the left-hand side of the neck, a clean cut 40 mm long with
sanguineous infiltration at the edges.
The wound runs obliquely from the
thyroid cartilage outwards and downwards to the middle of the external
cleidomastoid muscle.
Immediately above it, another clean cut 10 mm long with
sanguineous infiltration at the edges.
On the right forearm, 4 cm from the
wrist joint, a 30 mm oblique cut running from the outer edge to the middle of
the forearm (and being, at this point, 6 cm from the wrist).
On the left
forearm, a similar, but shorter (20 mm) wound.
The remainder of the external
examination showed no special peCUliarities.
"Internal examination:
neck - dissection of the areas corresponding to
the wound in the left side of the neck showed that the internal jugUlar vein
was completely severed, with a wound 1 mm in diameter in the left common
carotid artery.
Recent sanguineous infiltration in adjacent areas.
The upper
wound showed that the middle thyroid artery had been severed.
Thorax and
abdomen - pleura and lungs:
lungs normal, with collapsed alveoli.
Abdomen:
normal.
General paleness of the viscera.
Upper limbs:
the wounds in both
i~rearms show that the middle veins had been partly severed.
Summary:
from
the preceding study, it is evident that the cause of death was anaemia as a
result of acute haemorrhage caused by the severing of the left carotid
vessels.
By the pathological anatomy service, Haydee Klempert First
Lieutenant, Medical Corps."
6.2
with respect to Guillerrno Dermit, the State party asserts that he was brought
to trial because "it was proved that he had been involved in the offences of
conspiracy to subvert and action to upset the Constitution in the degree of
-127-
7.2
With respect to Hugo Dermit, the author states in particUlar:
7.1
In a further letter dated 28 July 1982, the author refers to the State party's
submission under article 4 (2) and claims that it does not answer the specific
complaints of violations raised in his communication.
"The Government of Uruguay states that the victim's death was certified
on 28 December 1980.
It provides
n~ explanation of the circumstances in which
the death was certified (place, hour, who found the body, whether or not the
sharp object or objects with which the victim supposedly committed suicide
were found in the same place).
The Government of Uruguay has not provided the
Committee with any information concerning any investigation into the
circumstance~ of the death.
In view of this and the fact that the victim was
seen alive as late as 24 December, in circumstances which in no way indicated
that he had even the slightest intention of committing suicide, particu1ary
since he should have been happy and optimistic about his situation and the
prospect of his forthcoming release, the official explanation is implausible
and unacceptable.
The complete absence of any investigation into the
responsibility of the officials who held him in their custody, of any
"In its sUbmission, the Government of Uruguay gives no explanations
concerning the complaints I made in my communication of 27 February 1981 to
the effect that my cousin was arbitrarily deprived of his right to life, was
treated not with humanity and respect for his dignity, but, rather, sUbjected
to torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, was, without any doubt,
unlawfully deprived of his liberty after he had served his sentence and was
denied the constitutional right to choose to leave the national territory, was
sUbjected to criminal proceedings riddled with procedural errors constituting
violations of article 14 of the Covenant, to arbitrary interference with his
family and to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation.
"With regard to the merits of the case, the Government of Uruguay merely
states that it is 'transmitting the report on the autopsy carried out on the
body of the victim on 28 December 1980 ••••
The results of the autopsy in no
way indicate beyond any doubt that the cause of my cousin's death was
'suicide', as the Government of Uruguay claims.
The autopsy was carried out
by military medical personnel before the victim's relatives were informed of
his death and they had no opportunity to have the autopsy carried out by
doctors of their own choice.
The victim's body, which was handed over to his
relatives in the afternoon of 28 December 1980, showed signs of having
undergone a tracheotomy, as well as signs that it has been kept refrigerated,
since it was initially bloated and then deflated, with a substantial loss of
water during the period preceding burial.
conspiracy, followed by criminal preparations on 23 March 1981.
The aforementioned
person was one of the subversive members of the so-called 'seispuntista' movement,
which tried to reactivate the subversive 'Tuparnaros' movement from within the
prison, with the help of elements outside it."
The Government reiterated its
rejection of the admissibility of this case on the grounds of non-exhaustion of
internal remedies available under criminal military law.
These remedies are:
-appeal against the decision to refuse to allow a trial, application to set aside
the ordinary appeal for review, remedy of appeal, complaint
f~r refusal of leave to
appeal, appeal for annulment and the special remedies of appeal to vacate a
jUdgement and appeal for review."
-128-
-129-
reference to possible penalties resulting therefrom and of any inquiry into
the circumstances and the way in which the death occurred show that, instead
of seeking clarification and justice, the authorities are trying to cover up
the violent acts committed in their name.
I must repeat that, even if the
victim did actually commit suicide, the most serious responsiblity would heve
been incurred:
the only possible reason why he might have decided to commit
suicide is that he was
fo~ced to do so by threats or violence, with the result
that he found any thought of the future unbearable, when, in fact, he had
every reason to be optimistic about it.
And the fact that he might actually
have committed suicide while under arrest would have called for an
investigation and the punishment of those who were responsible, except that it
is the authorities themselves who are responsible."
"The Government attaches no copies of the court orders and decisions
relating to the case under consideration.
Since the Government has failed to
provide any evidence to the contrary, I wish to repeat my assertion that the
real motive for the arrest of Guillermo Ignacio Dermit Barbato is that he is
the brother of a political prisoner, Hugo Haraldo Dermit Barbato, and that
there are no grounds for the proceedings against him.
"The Government of Uruguay has given no explanation concerning the
complaints made in the first communication of 27 February 1981 to the effect
that the violations which occurred included the following:
the victim's
arrest was arbitrary; he was not allowed to take legal action or proceedingsJ
he was not promptly informed of the charges against him; he was not brought
promptly before a jUdge within the maximum time-limit of 10 days:
he was held
incommunicado with no possibility of appealing to any judicial authority on
his own initiative; he was not treated with due respect for the inherent
dignity of the human person; and he was denied the constitutional rights to
choose to leave the national territory.
with regard to the merits of the
case, the Government of Uruguay merely reports that the victim 'was brought to
trial because it was proved that he had been involved in the offences of
conspiracy to subvert, and action to upset, the Constitution in the degree of
conspiracy, followed by criminal preparations on 23 March 1981'.
It is also
claimed that the victim was 'one of the subversive members of the so-called
'Seispuntista' movement, which tried to reactivate the subversive 'Tupamaros'
movement from within the prison, with the help of elements outside it'.
III 'Appeal against a decision to refuse to allow ia tr ial ' •
Like all other
remedies in question, this one is totally inapplicable to the victim's case.
Article 178 of the Code of Organization of the Military Courts
(COTM) provides
"The fact that the military courts have been involved makes it necessary
to state again that this procedure is still in violation of article 14 of the
Covenant because these courts do not provide the guarantees stipulated in that
article, since they lack independence and impartiality, and also because of
the shortcomings in the procedure which they apply."
7.3
With
~espect to Guillermo Dermit, the author states in particular:
7.4
With respect to the admissibility of the communication relative to
Guillermo Dermit, the author disputes the State party's assertion that the
defendant did not exhaust the internal remedies purportedly available under
criminal military law and examines said remedies as follows:
"The 'appeal for annulment' is not applicable in my cousin's case because
it also assumes that a decision has been made (article 503)J it must be lodged
together with the appeal - somethig that is, as has been seen, quite
impossible.
that an appeal may be lodged against a decision to refuse to allow a trial.
It will, however, be quite clear to the Committee that this has nothing to do
with my cousin's case, in which there was no refusal to allow a trial.
As
shown in the report itself, he was actually brought to trial.
There is,
moreover, no point in referring to this possible remedy.
It is the public
prosecutor's department that can, as stated in article 178, lodge 3uch an
appeal, whose object is to bring a person to trial when a military court has
refused to do so and has released the person.
"In any event, it is not this remedy, but, rather, the remedy of appeal
against the indictment, to which the Government might justifiably have
referred.
The Government report does not mention the latter remedy, which is
entirely theoretical and has proven to be totally ineffective because it has
never, since it was provided for by law, been used in any caseJ and
b~cause
the proceedings never take less than one year and often quite a bit more and,
during that time, it is, in practice, impossible to obtain a decision on any
application for pre-trial release.
·'Application to set aside and ordinary appeal for review'.
These are
remedies against specific court decisions, as clearly stated in COTM,
article 475.
The Government does not say which decisions were not appealed in
the victim's case and, in fact, there were no such decisions:
the only
decision in his case was the one ordering him to be brought to trial, in
accordance with the special regime provided for in article 178.
·The 'remedy of appeal' is inappropriate in this case because it applies
only to final decisions (COTM, article 481).
There has been no decision even
in first instance, in the victim's case, as shown in the report.
"'Special remedies of appeal to·vacate a judgement and appeal for
review'.
• •• These are remedies.against decisions by a court of second
instance (article 507) and, in the victim's case, there still has been no
decision by the court of first instance.
According to article 460, these
remedies still do not prevent the decision that is being contested from
becoming a final decision:
'Decisions are final and enforceable:
1.
When
the law allows no other
in~tance or ordinary appeal in the case'.
·'Complaint for refusal of leave to appeal'.
• •• This remedy is, as
its name indicates, one that is available in the particular situation when
a decision has been appealed and the court which made it considers that it
cannot be appealed.
Its object is to obtain a decision from a higher court
concerning the admissibility of the appeal (COTM, article 492).
Since there
has been no decision in my cousin's case, he could hardly have appealed
against it.
Consequently, there could have been no 'complaint' for refusal
of leave to appeal when no appeal could be lodged.
"It may be said that, although these remedies are totally inapplicable at
this time and at this stage in the proceedings, they might be applicable later
on and that they may therefore be regarded as 'remedies that have not been
exhausted' •
WThis view does not apply to the first of the above-mentioned remedies
since there has never been a decision 'to refuse to allow a trial'.
The other
remedies on the list, which are not applicable now, may, however, be used in
future.
WIt is, therefore, essential to look at the entire procecure and to see
whether, for the Committee's purposes, it will be necessary to wait until the
proceedings have been completed.
Since the remedies in question are available
only in respect of the final decision or the decision of second instance, it
would be essential to await the outcome of the proceedings if they had to be
exhausted before the Committee could act.
In fact, there was a four-month
delay before the victim's case was brought before a 'judicial authority'.
He
has been detained for 20 months and it will be a long time before a decision
is made by the court of first instance.
There are prisoners in Uruguay who
have neen waiting for as long as eight years for their decisions of second
instance.
WAccordinglr, to claim that the proceedings must be comleted in order to
apply for - and exhaust - the remedies that are theoretically available would
mean postponing action by the Committee for an unacceptable amount of time,
particularly since failure to make a decision within a reasonable time is one
of the violations that has been reported and one of the most obvious causes of
what has happened.
In other words, the possibility of instituting
unacceptably lengthy proceedings, which is in itself a violation of the
Covenant, would make the Government think that it was not SUbject to the
Committee's jurisdiction.
This can hardly be the intention of the Covenant."
8.1
The Human Rights Committee has the obligation under article 5 (1) of the
Optional Protocol to consider this communication in the light of all written
information made available to it by the author and the State party.
It therefore
bases its views on the following facts, which have not been contradicted by the
State party.
8.2
Hugo Haraldo Dermit Barbato was arrested in 1972 and subsequently sentenced to
eight years' imprisonment.
He completed serving his sentence in July 1980 and
thereafter was kept in detention pursuant to the "prompt security measures".
He
was informed that he would be released only if he left the country, a condition
which was not mentioned in the judgement against him.
After he had obtained an
entry visa from the Swedish Government, the Uruguayan authorities informed him that
he was to be released on 11 December 1980.
Yet, on 9 December 1980, he was told
that he would not be granted permission to leave the country.
His whereabouts were
unknown to his relatives until 28 December 1980, when his mother was called to the
Military Hospital to identify his body.
His mother was told that he had committed
suicide.
8.3
Gui1lermo 19nacio Dermit rlarbato, Hugo's younger brother, disappeared on
2 December 1980.
His detention was officially acknowledged on 19 tecember 1980,
but he continued to be held incommunicado.
He was not brought before a judicial
authority until 23 March 1981
~~en he was brought before a military tribunal.
After some 20 months, there
doe~ not appear to have been any decision taken and the
State party gives no evidence of any such decision.
9.1
In formulating its views, the Human Rights Committee also takes into account
the following considerations, which reflect a failure by the State party to furnish
-131-
the information and clarifications necessary for the Committee to formulate final
views on a number of important issues.
9.2
In operative paragraph 2 of its decision of 28 October 1981, the Committe'e
requested the State party to enclose copies of the death certificate and medical
report and of the reports on whatever inquiries were held into the circumstances
surrounding the death of Hugo Dermit.
Only a transcript of the autopsy report has
been submitted.
The State party has not submitted any report on the circumssances
in which Hugo Dermit died or any information as to what inquiries have been made or
the outcome of such inquiries.
Consequently, the Committee cannot help but give
approriate weight to the information submitted by the author, indicating that a few
days before Hugo's death he had been seen by other prisoners and was reported to
have been in good spirits, in spite of the interruption of
thE~ preparations for his
release and departure from Uruguay.
While the Committee cannot arrive at a
definite conclusion as to whether Hugo Dermit committed suicide, was driven to
suicide or was killed by others while in custody; yet, the inescapable conclusion
is that in all the circumstances the Uruguayan authorities either by act or by
omission were responsible for not taking adequate measures to protect his life, as
required by artcile 6 (1) of the Covenant.
9.3
In the same operative paragraph, the Committee requested the State party to
furnish copies of any relevant court orders or decisions.
The Committee is
seriously concerned by the fact that, in this case and in a number of other cases,
the State party has failed to furnish the texts of court decisions.
9.4
As to the question of exhaustion of domestic remedies in the case of
Guillermo Dermit, the Committee also takes into account the following
considerations:
the remedies listed by the State party as unexhausted, cannot
be considered available to the alleged victim in the circumstances of his case.
They are either inapplicable de
ju~ or de facto and do not constitute an effective
remedy, within the meaning of article 2 (3) of the Covenant, for the matters
complained of.
There are therefore no grounds to alter the conclusion reached
in the Committee's decision of 28 October 1981, that the communication in not
inadmissible under article 5 (2)
(b) of the Optional Protocol.
9.5
No attempt has been made by the State pclrty to show that the delay in trying
Guillermo Dermit could be justified by the dJLfficulties of the case.
9.6
With regard to the burden of proof, the Committee has already established in
.its views in other cases (e.g., R.7/30) that said burden cannot rest alone on the
author of the communication, especially conal.dering that the author and the State
party do not always have equal access to the evidence and that frequently the State
party alone has access to relevant information.
It is implicit in article 4 (2) of
the Optional Protocol that the State party has t6e duty to investigate in good
faith all allegations of violation of the Covenant made against it and its
authorities.
10.
The Human Rights Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional
Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Bolitica1 Rights is of the
view that the communication discloses violations of the Covenant, in particular:
(a)
With respect to Hugo Haro1do Dermit Barbato:
of article 6, because the Uruguayan authorities failed to take
appropriate measures to protect his life while he was in custody»
-132-
(b)
With respect to Guillermo Ignacio Dermit Barbato:
of
arti~le 9 (3), because he was not promptly brought before a judge,
of article 9 (4), because he was held incommunicado and effectively
barred from challenging his arrest and detentionJ
of article 14 (3) (c), because he has not been tried without undue delay.
11.
The Committee, accordingly, is of the view that the State party is under an
obligtion to take effective steps (a) to establish the facts of Hugo Detmit's
death, to bring to justice any persons found to be responsible for his death and to
pay appropriate compensation to his family,
(b) with respect to Guillermo Dermit,
to ensure strict observance of all the procedural guarantees prescribed by
article 14 of the Covenant as well as of the rights of detained persons set forth
in artciles 7, 9 and 10 of the Covenant,
(c) to transmit a copy of these views to
Guillermo Dermit, and (d) to take steps to ensure that similar violations do not
occur in the future.
-133-