24 October 1980

 

Communication No. 73/1980

 
     

human rights committee

  Eleventh Session  
  20-31 October 1980  
     
     

Aria Maria Teti lzquierdo and Mario Alberto Teti Izquierdo

 

v.

Uruguay

     
     
 

DECISION

 
     
  Return Home
 
 
     
     
 
BEFORE: CHAIRMAN: Mr. Andreas Mavrommatis (Cyprus)
VICE-CHAIRMEN: Mr. Bernhard Graefrath (German Democratic Republic)
Mr. Julio Prado Vallejo (Ecuador), Mr. Christian Tomuschat (Federal Republic of Germany)
RAPPORTEUR: Mr. Rajsoomer Lallah (Mauritius)
MEMBERS: Mr. Andres Aguilar (Venezuela), Mr. Mohammed Al Douri (Iraq), Mr. Nejib Bouziri (Tunisia),Mr. Abdoulaye Dieye (Senegal), Mr. Felix Ermacora (Austria), Sir Vincent Evans (United Kingdom), Mr. Vladimir Hanga (Romania), Mr. Leonte Herdocia Ortega (Nicaragua), Mr. Dejan Janca (Yugoslavia), Mr. Anatoly Petrovich Movchan (Soviet Union), Mr. Torkel Opsahl (Norvay), Mr. Waleed Sadi (Jordan), Mr. Walter Tarnopolsky (Canada).


All the members, except Mr. Ganji, Mr. Kelani, Mr. Lallah, Mr. Movchan and Mr. Uribe Vargas, attended the eleventh session of the Committee.

   
PermaLink: http://www.worldcourts.com/hrc/eng/decisions/1980.10.24_Teti_Izquierdo_v_Uruguay.htm
   
Citation: Teti Izquierdo v. Uruguay, Comm. 73/1980, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/OP/1, at 7 (HRC 1980)
Publications: Office of the U.N. High Comm'r for Human Rights, Human Rights Committee: Selected Decisions under the Optional Protocol, Vol. I, at 7, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/OP/1, U.N. Sales No. E.84.XIV.2 (1985)
 
     
 
 
     
  The Human Rights Committee decides:

1. That the author of the communication is justified in acting on behalf of the alleged victim;

2. That the communication be transmitted, 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. If the State party contends that domestic remedies have not been exhausted, it is requested to give details of the effective remedies available to the alleged victim in the particular circumstances of his case, and, in particular, to specify which of the alleged violations could be effectively remedied within the purview of the established military judicial process. If the State party objects that the same matter is being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement, it should give details including information on the stage reached in those proceedings;

3. That the State party be requested to provide the Committee with copies of any court orders or decisions relevant to this case, including the decision of the Supreme Military Tribunal, referred to in the communication;

4. That the State party and the author of the communication be informed that, as a rule, the Committee can only consider an alleged violation of human rights occurring on or after 23 March 1976 (the date of entry into force of the Covenant and the Protocol for Uruguay) unless it is an alleged violation which, although occurring before that date, continues or has effects which themselves constitute a violation after that date;

5. That the State party be informed that its information and observations pursuant to paragraphs 2 and 3 above should reach the Human Rights Committee, in care of the Division of Human Rights, United Nations Office at Geneva, within two months of the date of the request;

6. That the Secretary-General transmit any information or observations received pursuant to paragraphs 2 and 3 above to the author of the communication as soon as possible to enable her to comment thereon if she so wishes. Any such comments should reach the Human Rights Committee, in care of the Division of Human Rights, United Nations Office at Geneva, within four weeks of the date of the transmittal;

7. That, in view. of the telegram received from the author of the communication on 9 October 1980, informing the Committee that her brother had disapppeared Libertad prison and expressing, in that context, fear for his physical safety, the State party be requested to furnish without delay information concerning the present whereabouts and state of health of Mario Alberto Teti Izquierdo;

8. That the information received pursuant to paragraph 7 above be communicated to the author of the communication without delay, for information;

9. That this decision be communicated to the State party and the author.
 
     

 

 

home | terms & conditions | copyright | about

 

Copyright 1999-2011 WorldCourts. All rights reserved.