429. A country-by-country breakdown of follow-up replies received or requested and outstanding as at 26 July 1996 provides the following picture:

Uruguay: Forty-five views finding violations; 43 follow-up replies received. During consultations on 5 July 1996, a State party representative promised a satisfactory solution of the two outstanding cases for which no follow-up replies had been received (see para. 454).

454. Finally, on 5 July 1996, the Special Rapporteur met with a representative of the Government of Uruguay, to discuss, inter alia, issues of follow-up on views adopted by the Committee in respect of Uruguay. On two views on which no follow-up replies had so far been received from the Government, the Special Rapporteur suggested that the State party might consider awarding ex gratia compensation to the victims. The State party representative replied that he would endeavour to seek an equitable solution for the victims in those cases.

463. In spite of the progress in collecting follow-up information since the adoption of the last annual report, the Committee and the Special Rapporteur note with concern that a number of countries did not provide any follow-up information within the deadlines established by the Committee or have not replied to reminders or requests for information from the Special Rapporteur. The States that have not replied to requests for follow-up information are the following:

464. The Special Rapporteur urges these States parties to reply to his requests for follow-up information within the imparted deadlines.

524. A country-by-country breakdown of follow-up replies received or requested and outstanding as of 30 June 1997 provides the following picture (Views in which the deadline for receipt of follow-up information had not yet expired have not been included):

Uruguay: 45 Views finding violations: 43 follow-up replies, dated 17 October 1991, received but unpublished. Follow-up replies on two Views remain outstanding: 159/1983 - Cariboni (Selected decisions, vol. 2);13/ 322/1988 - Rodriquez (1994 Report);9/ see also 1996 Report,10/ para. 454.

554. In spite of some progress in collecting follow-up information since the adoption of its 1996 Report, the Committee and the Special Rapporteur note with concern that a number of countries did not provide any follow-up information within the deadlines established by the Committee or have not replied to reminders or requests for information from the Special Rapporteur. Those States which have not replied to requests for follow-up information are the following (in alphabetical order):

555. The Committee urges those States parties to reply to the Special Rapporteur's requests for follow-up information within the deadlines that have been set.

13/ [International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Human Rights Committee. Selected decisions under the Optional Protocol], (CCPR/C/OP/2) (United Nations publication, Sales No. 89.XIV.1), vol. 2.

9/ Official Records of the General Assembly, forty-ninth Session, Supplement No. 40 (A/49/40).

486. The Committee's previous report (A/52/40) contained a detailed country-by-country breakdown of follow-up replies received or requested and outstanding as of 30 June 1997. The list that follows shows the additional cases in respect of which follow-up information has been requested from States (Views in which the deadline for receipt of follow-up information had not yet expired have not been included). It also indicates those cases in which replies are outstanding. In many of these cases there has been no change since the previous report. This is because the resources available for the Committee's work were considerably reduced in the current year, preventing it from undertaking a comprehensive systematic follow-up programme.

Uruguay: 45 Views finding violations: 43 follow-up replies received, dated 17 October 1991, unpublished. Follow-up replies on two Views remain outstanding: 159/1983 - Cariboni (Selected decisions, vol. 2);1/ 322/1988 - Rodriquez (1994 Report (A/49/40)); see also 1996 Report (A/51/40), para. 454.

510. The Committee again expresses its regret that its recommendations, formulated in its 1995, 1996 and 1997 Reports, to the effect that at least one follow-up mission per year be budgeted by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, have still not been implemented. Similarly, the Committee considers that staff resources to service the follow-up mandate remain inadequate, despite the Committee’s repeated requests, and that this prevents the proper and timely conduct of follow-up activities, including follow-up missions. In this context, the Committee expresses serious concern that, because of the lack of staff, no follow-up consultations could be organized during its sixty-second session or at its sixty-third session. It is for this reason that the Committee is unable to include in the present report a complete list of States which have failed to cooperate under the follow-up procedure. States listed in the previous year’s report for which replies are still outstanding are: ... Uruguay ...

1/ The mandate is spelled out in the Committee’s 1990 Report to the General Assembly. See Official Records of the General Assembly, Forty-fifth session, Supplement No. 40 (A/45/40), annex XI.

461. The Committee's previous report (A/53/40) contained a detailed country-by-country breakdown of follow-up replies received or requested and outstanding as of 30 June 1998. The list that follows shows the additional cases in respect of which follow-up information has been requested from States (Views in which the deadline for receipt of follow-up information had not yet expired have not been included). It also indicates those cases in which replies are outstanding. In many of these cases there has been no change since the last report. This is because the resources available for the Committee's work have been considerably reduced preventing it from undertaking a comprehensive systematic follow-up programme.

Uruguay: Forty-five Views finding violations: 43 follow-up replies received, dated 17 October 1991, unpublished. Follow-up replies on two Views remain outstanding: 159/1983 - Cariboni (in Selected Decisions, vol. 2) and 322/1988 -Rodríquez (A/49/40); see also A/51/40, para. 454.

596. The Committee’s previous report (A/54/40) contained a detailed country-by-country breakdown of follow-up replies received or requested and outstanding as of 30 June 1999. The list that follows shows the additional cases in respect of which follow-up information has been requested from States. (Views in which the deadline for receipt of follow-up information had not yet expired have not been included.) It also indicates those cases in which replies are outstanding. In many of these cases there has been no change since the last report. This is because the limited resources available for the Committee’s work prevent it from undertaking a comprehensive or systematic follow-up programme.

180. The Committee’s previous annual report (A/55/40, vol. I, chap. VI) contained a detailed country-by-country survey on follow-up replies received or requested and outstanding as of 30 June 2000. The list that follows updates that survey, indicating those cases in which replies are outstanding, but does not take into account the Committee’s Views adopted during the seventy-second session, for which follow-up replies are not yet due. In many cases there has been no change since the previous report.

Uruguay: Forty-five Views finding violations: 43 follow-up replies received, dated 17 October 1991, unpublished. Follow-up reply, dated 31 May 2000, concerning case No. 110/1981 Viana Acosta, granting payment of US$ 120,000 to Mr. Viana. Follow-up replies on two Views remain outstanding: 159/1983 - Cariboni (in Selected Decisions, vol. 2) and 322/1988 - Rodríguez (A/49/40); see also A/51/40, paragraph 454.

228. The previous annual report of the Committee (A/56/40, vol. I, chap. VI) contained a detailed country-by-country survey of follow-up replies received or requested and outstanding as of 30 June 2001. The list that follows updates that survey, indicating those cases in which replies are outstanding, but does not include responses concerning the Committee’s Views adopted during the seventy-fourth and seventy-fifth sessions, for which follow-up replies are not yet due. In many cases there has been no change since the previous report.

43 follow-up replies received, dated 17 October 1991, unpublished. Follow-up reply, dated 31 May 2000, concerning case No. 110/1981 Viana Acosta, granting payment of US$ 120,000 to Mr. Viana. Follow-up replies on two Views remain outstanding: 159/1983 - Cariboni (in Selected Decisions, vol. 2) and 322/1988 - Rodríguez (A/49/40); see also A/51/40, paragraph 454.

229. For further information on the status of all the Views in which follow-up information remains outstanding or in respect of which follow-up consultations have been or will be scheduled, reference is made to the follow-up progress report prepared for the seventy-fourth session of the Committee (CCPR/C/74/R.7/Rev.1, dated 28 March 2002), discussed in public session at the Committee’s 2009th meeting on 4 April 2002 (CCPR/C/SR.2009). Reference is also made to the Committee’s previous reports, in particular A/56/40, paragraphs 182 to 200.

223. The previous annual report of the Committee¹ contained a detailed country-by-country survey of follow-up replies received or requested and outstanding as of 30 June 2002. The list that follows updates that survey, indicating those cases in which replies are outstanding, but does not include responses concerning the Committee’s Views adopted during the seventy-seventh and seventy-eighth sessions, for which follow-up replies are not yet due in the majority of cases. In many cases there has been no change since the previous report.^*

43 follow-up replies received, dated 17 October 1991, unpublished. Follow-up reply, dated 31 May 2000, concerning case No. 110/1981 (Viana Acosta), granting payment of US$ 120,000 to Mr. Viana. Follow-up replies on two Views remain outstanding: 159/1983 - Cariboni (in Selected Decisions, vol. 2) and 322/1988 - Rodríguez (A/49/40); see also A/51/40, paragraph 454.

1. [Official Records of the General Assembly], Fifty-seventh Session, Supplement No. 40(A/57/40), vol. I, chap. VI.

* The document symbol A/[Session No.] /40 refers to the Official Record of the General Assembly

230. The previous annual report of the Committee¹ contained a detailed country-by-country survey of follow-up replies received or requested and outstanding as of 30 June 2003. The list that follows updates that survey, indicating those cases in which replies are outstanding, but does not include responses concerning the Committee’s Views adopted during the eightieth and eighty-first sessions, for which follow-up replies are not yet due in the majority of cases. In many cases there has been no change since the previous report.^*

1/ Ibid., Fifty-eighth Session, Supplement No. 40 (A/58/40), vol. I, chap. VI.

* The document symbol A/[session No.]/40 refers to the Official Records of the General Assembly in which the case appears; annex IX refers to the present report, volume II.

224. In July 1990, the Committee established a procedure for the monitoring of follow-up to its Views under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol, and created the mandate of the Special Rapporteur for the follow-up on Views to this effect. Mr. Ando has been the Special Rapporteur since March 2001 (seventy-first session).

225. In 1991, the Special Rapporteur began to request follow-up information from States parties. Such information has been systematically requested in respect of all Views with a finding of a violation of Covenant rights. A total of 391 Views out of the 503 Views adopted since 1979 concluded that there had been a violation of the Covenant.

228. In many cases, the Secretariat has also received information from complainants to the effect that the Committee’s Views have not been implemented. Conversely, in rare instances, the petitioner has informed the Committee that the State party has in fact given effect to the Committee’s recommendations, even though the State party did not itself provide that information.

229. The present annual report adopts a different format for the presentation of follow-up information compared to previous annual reports. The table below displays a complete picture of follow-up replies from States parties received as of 28 July 2005, in relation to Views in which the Committee found violations of the Covenant. Wherever possible, it indicates whether follow-up replies are or have been considered as satisfactory or unsatisfactory, in terms of complying with the Committee’s Views, or whether the dialogue between the State party and the Special Rapporteur for follow-up on Views continues. The notes following a number of case entries convey an idea of the difficulties in categorizing follow-up replies.

230. Follow-up information provided by States parties and by petitioners or their representatives since the last annual report is set out in a new annex VII, contained in Volume II of the present annual report. This, more detailed, follow-up information also indicates action still outstanding in those cases that remain under review.

State party and number of cases with violation	Communication number, author and location^a	Follow-up response received from State party and location	Satisfactory response	Unsatisfactory response	No follow-up response	Follow-up dialogue ongoing
...
Uruguay (45)	A. [5/1977, Massera Seventh session 43/1979, Caldas Nineteenth session 63/1979, Antonaccio Fourteenth session 73/1980, Izquierdo Fifteenth session 80/1980, Vasiliskis Eighteenth session 83/1981, Machado Twentieth session 84/1981, Dermis Seventeenth session 85/1981, Romero Twenty-first session 88/1981, Bequio Eighteenth session 92/1981, Nieto Nineteenth session 103/1981, Scarone Twentieth session 105/1981, Cabreira Nineteenth session 109/1981, Voituret Twenty-first session 123/1982, Lluberas Twenty-first session]	X 43 follow-up replies received in A/59/40*	X (relating to cases D and G)	X (relating to cases A, B, C, E, F)		X
	B. [103/1981, Scarone 73/1980, Izquierdo 92/1981, Nieto 85/1981, Romero]
	C. [63/1979, Antonaccio 80/1980, Vasiliskis 123/1982, Lluberas]
	D. [57/1979, Martins Fifteenth session 77/1980, Liechtenstein Eighteenth session 106/1981, Montero Eighteenth session 108/1981, Nuňez Nineteenth session]
	E. [4/1977, Ramirez Fourth session 6/1977, Sequeiro Sixth session 8/1977, Perdomo Ninth session 9/1977, Valcada Eighth session 10/1977, Gonzalez Fifteenth session 11/1977, Motta Tenth session 25/1978, Massiotti Sixteenth session 28/1978, Weisz Eleventh session 32/1978, Touron Twelfth session 33/1978, Carballal Twelfth session 37/1978, De Boston Twelfth session 44/1979, Pietraroia Twelfth session 52/1979, Lopez Burgos Thirteenth session 56/1979, Celiberti Thirteenth session
	66/1980, Schweizer Seventeenth session 70/1980, Simones Fifteenth session 74/1980, Estrella Eighteenth session 110/1981, Viana Twenty-first session 139/1983, Conteris Twenty-fifth session 147/1983, Gilboa Twenty-sixth session 162/1983, Acosta Thirty-fourth session]
	F. [30/1978, Bleier Fifteenth session 84/1981, Barbato Seventeenth session 107/1981, Quinteros Nineteenth session]
	G. 34/1978, Silva Twelfth session
	*Note: Follow-up information was provided on 17 October 1991, but was unpublished. The list of cases under A: the State party submitted that on 1 March 1985, the competence of the civil courts was re-established. The amnesty law of 8 March 1985 benefited all the individuals who had been involved as authors, accomplices or accessory participants in political crimes or crimes committed for political purposes committed from 1 January 1962 to 1 March 1985. The law allowed those individuals held responsible for intentional murder to have either their sentence reviewed or their conviction reduced. Pursuant to article 10 of the Law on National Pacification, all the individuals imprisoned under “measures of security” were released. In cases subjected to review, appellate courts either acquitted or convicted the individuals. By virtue of law 15.783 of 20 November, all the individuals who had previously held public office were entitled to resume their jobs. On cases under B: the State party states that these individuals were pardoned by virtue of law 15.737 and released on 10 March 1985. On cases under C: these individuals were released on 14 March 1985; their cases were included under law 15.737. On cases under D: from the date on which it entered into force, the amnesty law ended the regimes for the surveillance of individuals, pending arrest warrants; the restrictions on entering or exiting the country; and every official inquiry into crimes covered by the amnesty. From 8 March 1985, the issuance of travel documents was no longer subjected to any restriction. Samuel Liechtenstein, after his return to Hungary, resumed his position as the Head of the University of the Republic. On cases under E: from 1 March 1985, the possibility of filing an action for damages was open to all of the victims of human rights violations that had occurred during the de facto Government. From 1985 to date, 36 suits for damages have been filed, 22 of them related to arbitrary detention and 12 to the restitution of property. The Government settled Mr. López’s case on 21 November 1990 by paying him US$ 200,000. The suit filed by Ms. Celiberti is still pending. Besides the above-mentioned cases, no other victim has filed a lawsuit against the State claiming compensation. On cases under F: on 22 December 1986, the Congress passed law 15.848, known as “the expiration of the State power to prosecute”. The law extinguished the power of State authorities to prosecute crimes committed by military or police agents for political purposes or in the execution of orders given to them by their superiors before 1 March 1985. All pending proceedings were discontinued. On 16 April 1989, the law was confirmed by referendum. The law ordered the investigating judges to send reports submitted to the judiciary about victims of disappearances to the executive, for the latter to initiate inquiries.
	159/1983, Cariboni A/43/40 and Selected Decisions, vol. 2				X	X
	322/1988, Rodríguez A/49/40				X A/51/40	X

^a The location refers to the document symbol of the Official Records of the General Assembly, Supplement No. 40, which is the annual report of the Committee to the respective sessions of the Assembly.

FOLLOW-UP OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE ON INDIVIDUAL COMMUNICATIONS UNDER THE OPTIONAL PROTOCOL TO THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS

This report sets out all information provided by States parties and authors or their counsel since the last Annual Report (A/59/40).

227. In July 1990, the Committee established a procedure for the monitoring of follow-up to its Views under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol, and created the mandate of the Special Rapporteur for follow-up to Views to this effect. Mr. Ando has been the Special Rapporteur since March 2001 (seventy-first session).

228. In 1991, the Special Rapporteur began to request follow-up information from States parties. Such information has been systematically requested in respect of all Views with a finding of a violation of Covenant rights; 429 Views out of the 547 Views adopted since 1979 concluded that there had been a violation of the Covenant.

229. All attempts to categorize follow-up replies by States parties are inherently imprecise and subjective: it accordingly is not possible to provide a neat statistical breakdown of follow-up replies. Many follow-up replies received may be considered satisfactory, in that they display the willingness of the State party to implement the Committee’s recommendations or to offer the complainant an appropriate remedy. Other replies cannot be considered satisfactory because they either do not address the Committee’s Views at all or only relate to certain aspects of them. Some replies simply note that the victim has filed a claim for compensation outside statutory deadlines and that no compensation can therefore be paid. Still other replies indicate that there is no legal obligation on the State party to provide a remedy, but that a remedy will be afforded to the complainant on an ex gratia basis.

230. The remaining follow-up replies challenge the Committee’s Views and findings on factual or legal grounds, constitute much-belated submissions on the merits of the complaint, promise an investigation of the matter considered by the Committee or indicate that the State party will not, for one reason or another, give effect to the Committee’s Views.

231. In many cases, the Secretariat has also received information from complainants to the effect that the Committee’s Views have not been implemented. Conversely, in rare instances, the petitioner has informed the Committee that the State party had in fact given effect to the Committee’s recommendations, even though the State party had not itself provided that information.

232. The present annual report adopts the same format for the presentation of follow-up information as the last annual report. The table below displays a complete picture of follow-up replies from States parties received up to 7 July 2006, in relation to Views in which the Committee found violations of the Covenant. Wherever possible, it indicates whether follow-up replies are or have been considered as satisfactory or unsatisfactory, in terms of their compliance with the Committee’s Views, or whether the dialogue between the State party and the Special Rapporteur for follow-up to Views continues. The Notes following a number of case entries convey an idea of the difficulties in categorizing follow-up replies.

233. Follow-up information provided by States parties and by petitioners or their representatives subsequent to the last annual report (A/60/40, vol. I, chap. VI) is set out in annex VII to volume II of the present annual report.

State party and number of cases with violation	Communication number, author and location	Follow-up response received from State party and location	Satisfactory response	Unsatisfactory response	No follow-up response received	Follow-up dialogue ongoing
...
Uruguay (45)	A. [5/1977, Massera Seventh session 43/1979, Caldas Nineteenth session 63/1979, Antonaccio Fourteenth session 73/1980, Izquierdo Fifteenth session 80/1980, Vasiliskis Eighteenth session 83/1981, Machado Twentieth session 84/1981, Dermis Seventeenth session 85/1981, Romero Twenty-first session 88/1981, Bequio Eighteenth session	X 43 follow-up replies received in A/59/40*	X (relating to cases D and G)	X (relating to cases A, B, C, E, F)		X
	92/1981, Nieto Nineteenth session 103/1981, Scarone Twentieth session 105/1981, Cabreira Nineteenth session 109/1981, Voituret Twenty-first session 123/1982, Lluberas Twenty-first session]
	B. [103/1981, Scarone 73/1980, Izquierdo 92/1981, Nieto 85/1981, Romero]
	C. [63/1979, Antonaccio 80/1980, Vasiliskis 123/1982, Lluberas]
	D. [57/1979, Martins Fifteenth session 77/1980, Liechtenstein Eighteenth session 106/1981, Eighteenth session 108/1981, Nuñez Nineteenth session]
	E. [4/1977, Ramirez Fourth session 6/1977, Sequeiro Sixth session 8/1977, Perdomo Ninth session 9/19 77, Valcada Eighth session 10/1977, Gonzalez Fifteenth session 11/1977, Motta Tenth session 25/1978, Massiotti Sixteenth session 28/1978, Weisz Eleventh session 32/1978, Touron Twelfth session 33/1978, Carballal Twelfth session 37/1978, De Boston Twelfth session 44/1979, Pietraroia Twelfth session 52/1979, Lopez Burgos Thirteenth session 56/1979, Celiberti Thirteenth session
	66/1980, Schweizer Seventeenth session 70/1980, Simones Fifteenth session 74/1980, Estrella Eighteenth session 110/1981, Viana Twenty-first session 139/1983, Conteris Twenty-fifth session 147/1983, Gilboa Twenty-sixth session 162/1983, Acosta Thirty-fourth session]
	F. [30/1978, Bleier Fifteenth session 84/1981, Barbato Seventeenth session 107/1981, Quinteros Nineteenth session]
	G. 34/1978, Silva Twelfth session
	159/1983, Cariboni A/43/40 Selected Decisions vol. 2				X	X
	322/1988, A/51/40 Rodríguez A/49/40				X A/51/40	X
...

*Note: Follow-up information was provided on 17 October 1991 (unpublished). The list of cases under A: the State party submitted that on 1 March 1985, the competence of the civil courts was re-established. The amnesty law of 8 March 1985 benefited all the individuals who had been involved as authors, accomplices or accessory participants of political crimes or crimes committed for political purposes, from 1 January 1962 to 1 March 1985. The law allowed those individuals held responsible of intentional murder to have either their sentence reviewed or their conviction reduced. Pursuant to article 10 of the Law on National Pacification all the individuals imprisoned under “measures of security” were released. In cases subjected to review, appellate courts either acquitted or condemned the individuals. By virtue of Law 15.783 of 20 November 1985 all the individuals who had previously held a public office were entitled to resume their jobs. On cases under B: it states that these individuals were pardoned by virtue of Law 15.737 and released on 10 March 1985. On cases under C: these individuals were released on 14 March 1985; their cases were included under law 15.737. On cases under D: the amnesty law ended, from the date on which it entered into force, the regimes for the surveillance of individuals, pending arrest warrants, the restrictions to enter or exit the country; and every official inquiry into crimes covered by the amnesty. From 8 March 1985, the issuance of travel documents was no longer subjected to any restriction. Samuel Liechtenstein, after his return to Hungary, resumed his position as the Head of the University of the Republic. On cases under E: from 1 March 1985, the possibility to file an action for damages was open to all of the victims of human rights violations which occurred during the de facto government. From 1985 up to date, 36 suits in damages have been filed, 22 of them are related to arbitrary detention and 12 to the restitution of property. The Government settled Mr. Lopez’s case on 21 November 1990, by paying him US$ 200,000. The suit filed by Ms. Lilian Celiberti is still pending. Besides the above-mentioned cases, no other victim has filed a law-suit against the State claiming compensation. On cases under F: on 22 December 1986, the Congress passed Law 15.848, known as “the expiration of the State powers to prosecute”. The law extinguished the power of State authorities to prosecute crimes committed by military or police agents for political purposes or in the execution of orders given to them by their superiors before 1 March 1985. All pending proceedings were discontinued. On 16 April 1989, the law was confirmed by referendum. The law ordered the investigating judges to send reports submitted to the judiciary about victims of disappearances to the Executive, for the latter to initiate inquiries.

213. In July 1990, the Committee established a procedure for the monitoring of follow-up to its Views under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol, and created the mandate of the Special Rapporteur for follow-up to Views to this effect. Mr. Ando has been the Special Rapporteur since March 2001 (seventy-first session).

214. In 1991, the Special Rapporteur began to request follow-up information from States parties. Such information has been systematically requested in respect of all Views with a finding of a violation of Covenant rights; 452 Views out of the 570 Views adopted since 1979 concluded that there had been a violation of the Covenant.

215. All attempts to categorize follow-up replies by States parties are inherently imprecise and subjective: it accordingly is not possible to provide a neat statistical breakdown of follow-up replies. Many follow-up replies received may be considered satisfactory, in that they display the willingness of the State party to implement the Committee’s recommendations or to offer the complainant an appropriate remedy. Other replies cannot be considered satisfactory because they either do not address the Committee’s Views at all or only relate to certain aspects of them. Some replies simply note that the victim has filed a claim for compensation outside statutory deadlines and that no compensation can therefore be paid. Still other replies indicate that there is no legal obligation on the State party to provide a remedy, but that a remedy will be afforded to the complainant on an ex gratia basis.

216. The remaining follow-up replies challenge the Committee’s Views and findings on factual or legal grounds, constitute much-belated submissions on the merits of the complaint, promise an investigation of the matter considered by the Committee or indicate that the State party will not, for one reason or another, give effect to the Committee’s Views.

217. In many cases, the Committee secretariat has also received information from complainants to the effect that the Committee’s Views have not been implemented. Conversely, in rare instances, the petitioner has informed the Committee that the State party had in fact given effect to the Committee’s recommendations, even though the State party had not itself provided that information.

218. The present annual report adopts the same format for the presentation of follow-up information as the last annual report. The table below displays a complete picture of follow-up replies from States parties received up to 7 July 2007, in relation to Views in which the Committee found violations of the Covenant. Wherever possible, it indicates whether follow-up replies are or have been considered as satisfactory or unsatisfactory, in terms of their compliance with the Committee’s Views, or whether the dialogue between the State party and the Special Rapporteur for follow-up to Views continues. The Notes following a number of case entries convey an idea of the difficulties in categorizing follow-up replies.

219. Follow-up information provided by States parties and by petitioners or their representatives subsequent to the last annual report (A/61/40, vol. I, chap. VI) is set out in annex VII to volume II of the present annual report.

State party and number of cases with violation	Communication number, author and location	Follow-up response received from State party and location	Satisfactory response	Unsatisfactory response	No follow-up response received	Follow-up dialogue ongoing
...
Uruguay (52)	A. [5/1977, Massera Seventh session 43/1979, Caldas Nineteenth session 63/1979, Antonaccio Fourteenth session 73/1980, Izquierdo Fifteenth session 80/1980, Vasiliskis Eighteenth session 83/1981, Machado Twentieth session 84/1981, Dermis Seventeenth session 85/1981, Romero Twenty-first session 88/1981, Bequio Eighteenth session 92/1981, Nieto Nineteenth session 103/1981, Scarone Twentieth session 105/1981, Cabreira Nineteenth session 109/1981, Voituret Twenty-first session 123/1982, Lluberas Twenty-first session]	X 43 follow-up replies received in A/59/40*	X (relating to cases D and G)	X (relating to cases A, B, C, E, F)		X
	B. [103/1981, Scarone 73/1980, Izquierdo 92/1981, Nieto 85/1981, Romero]
	C. [63/1979, Antonaccio 80/1980, Vasiliskis 123/1982, Lluberas]
	D. [57/1979, Martins Fifteenth session 77/1980, Lichtensztejn Eighteenth session 106/1981, Montero Eighteenth session 108/1981, NuñezNineteenth session]
	E. [4/1977, Ramirez Fourth session 6/1977, Sequeiro Sixth session 8/1977, Perdomo Ninth session 9/1977, ValcadaEighth session 10/1977, GonzalezFifteenth session 11/1977, MottaTenth session
	66/1980, Schweizer Seventeenth session 70/1980, Simones Fifteenth session 74/1980, Estrella Eighteenth session 110/1981, VianaTwenty-first session 139/1983, ConterisTwenty-fifth session 147/1983, Gilboa Twenty-sixth session

	F. [30/1978, Bleier Fifteenth session 84/1981, Barbato Seventeenth session 107/1981, Quinteros Nineteenth session]

	G. [34/1978, Silva Twelfth session]

	*Note: Follow-up information was provided on 17 October 1991 (unpublished). The list of cases under A: the State party submitted that on 1 March 1985, the competence of the civil courts was re-established. The amnesty law of 8 March 1985 benefited all the individuals who had been involved as authors, accomplices or accessory participants of political crimes or crimes committed for political purposes, from 1 January 1962 to 1 March 1985. The law allowed those individuals held responsible of intentional murder to have either their sentence reviewed or their conviction reduced. Pursuant to article 10 of the Law on National Pacification all the individuals imprisoned under “measures of security” were released. In cases subjected to review, appellate courts either acquitted or condemned the individuals. By virtue of Law 15.783 of 20 November 1985 all the individuals who had previously held a public office were entitled to resume their jobs. On cases under B: it states that these individuals were pardoned by virtue of Law 15.737 and released on 10 March 1985. On cases under C: these individuals were released on 14 March 1985; their cases were included under law 15.737. On cases under D: the amnesty law ended, from the date on which it entered into force, the regimes for the surveillance of individuals, pending arrest warrants, the restrictions to enter or exit the country; and every official inquiry into crimes covered by the amnesty. From 8 March 1985, the issuance of travel documents was no longer subjected to any restriction. Samuel Lichtensztejn, after his return to Hungary, resumed his position as the Head of the University of the Republic. On cases under E: from 1 March 1985, the possibility to file an action for damages was open to all of the victims of human rights violations which occurred during the de facto government. From 1985 up to date, 36 suits in damages have been filed, 22 of them are related to arbitrary detention and 12 to the restitution of property. The Government settled Mr. Lopez’s case on 21 November 1990, by paying him US$ 200,000. The suit filed by Ms. Lilian Celiberti is still pending. Besides the above-mentioned cases, no other victim has filed a law-suit against the State claiming compensation. On cases under F: on 22 December 1986, the Congress passed Law 15.848, known as “the expiration of the State powers to prosecute”. The law extinguished the power of State authorities to prosecute crimes committed by military or police agents for political purposes or in the execution of orders given to them by their superiors before 1 March 1985. All pending proceedings were discontinued. On 16 April 1989, the law was confirmed by referendum. The law ordered the investigating judges to send reports submitted to the judiciary about victims of disappearances to the Executive, for the latter to initiate inquiries.
	159/1983, Cariboni A/43/40 Selected Decisions vol. 2				X	X
	322/1988, A/51/40 Rodríguez A/49/40				X A/51/40	X
...

187. In July 1990, the Committee established a procedure for the monitoring of follow-up to its Views under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol, and created the mandate of the Special Rapporteur for follow-up to Views to this effect. Mr. Ando has been the Special Rapporteur since March 2001 (seventy-first session).

188. In 1991, the Special Rapporteur began to request follow-up information from States parties. Such information had been systematically requested in respect of all Views with a finding of a violation of Covenant rights; 429 Views out of the 547 Views adopted since 1979 concluded that there had been a violation of the Covenant.

189. All attempts to categorize follow-up replies by States parties are inherently imprecise and subjective: it accordingly is not possible to provide a neat statistical breakdown of follow-up replies. Many follow-up replies received may be considered satisfactory, in that they display the willingness of the State party to implement the Committee's recommendations or to offer the complainant an appropriate remedy. Other replies cannot be considered satisfactory because they either do not address the Committee's Views at all or relate only to certain aspects of them. Some replies simply note that the victim has filed a claim for compensation outside statutory deadlines and that no compensation can therefore be paid. Still other replies indicate that there is no legal obligation on the State party to provide a remedy, but that a remedy will be afforded to the complainant on an ex gratia basis.

190. The remaining follow-up replies challenge the Committee's Views and findings on factual or legal grounds, constitute much-belated submissions on the merits of the complaint, promise an investigation of the matter considered by the Committee or indicate that the State party will not, for one reason or another, give effect to the Committee's recommendations.

191. In many cases, the Secretariat has also received information from complainants to the effect that the Committee's Views have not been implemented. Conversely, in rare instances, the petitioner has informed the Committee that the State party had in fact given effect to the Committee's recommendations, even though the State party had not itself provided that information.

192. The present annual report adopts the same format for the presentation of follow-up information as the last annual report. The table below displays a complete picture of follow-up replies from States parties received up to 7 July 2008, in relation to Views in which the Committee found violations of the Covenant. Wherever possible, it indicates whether follow-up replies are or have been considered as satisfactory or unsatisfactory, in terms of their compliance with the Committee's Views, or whether the dialogue between the State party and the Special Rapporteur for follow-up to Views continues. The notes following a number of case entries convey an idea of the difficulties in categorizing follow-up replies.

193. Follow-up information provided by States parties and by petitioners or their representatives subsequent to the last annual report (A/62/40) is set out in annex VII to volume II of the present annual report.

State party and number of cases with violation	Communication number, author and relevant Committee report	Follow-up response received from State party	Satisfactory response	Unsatisfactory response	No response	Follow-up dialogue ongoing
...
Uruguay (52)	A. [5/1977, Massera Seventh session 43/1979, Caldas Nineteenth session 63/1979, Antonaccio Fourteenth session 73/1980, Izquierdo Fifteenth session 80/1980, Vasiliskis Eighteenth session 83/1981, Machado Twentieth session 84/1981, Dermis Seventeenth session 85/1981, Romero Twenty-first session 88/1981, Bequio Eighteenth session 92/1981, Nieto Nineteenth session 103/1981, Scarone Twentieth session 105/1981, Cabreira Nineteenth session 109/1981, Voituret Twenty-first session 123/1982, Lluberas Twenty-first session]	X 43 follow-up replies received in A/59/40*	X (relating to cases D and G)	X (relating to cases A, B, C, E, F)		X


Uruguay (cont’d)	B. [103/1981, Scarone 73/1980, Izquierdo 92/1981, Nieto 85/1981, Romero]
	C. [63/1979, Antonaccio 80/1980, Vasiliskis 123/1982, Lluberas]
	D. [57/1979, Martins Fifteenth session 77/1980, Lichtensztejn Eighteenth session 106/1981, Montero Eighteenth session 108/1981, Nuñez Nineteenth session]
	E. [4/1977, Ramirez Fourth session 6/1977, Sequeiro Sixth session 25/1978, Massiotti Sixteenth session 28/1978, Weisz Eleventh session 32/1978, Touron Twelfth session 33/1978, Carballal Twelfth session
Uruguay (cont’d)	37/1978, De Boston Twelfth session 44/1979, Pietraroia Twelfth session 52/1979, Lopez Burgos Thirteenth session 56/1979, Celiberti Thirteenth session 66/1980, Schweizer Seventeenth session 70/1980, Simones Fifteenth session 74/1980, Estrella Eighteenth session 110/1981, Viana Twenty-first session 139/1983, Conteris Twenty-fifth session 147/1983, Gilboa Twenty-sixth session 162/1983, Acosta Thirty-fourth session]
	F. [30/1978, Bleier Fifteenth session 84/1981, Barbato Seventeenth session 107/1981, Quinteros Nineteenth session]
Uruguay (cont’d)	G. 34/1978, Silva Twelfth session
	*Note: Follow-up information was provided on 17 October 1991 (unpublished). The list of cases under A: the State party submitted that on 1 March 1985, the competence of the civil courts was re-established. The amnesty law of 8 March 1985 benefited all the individuals who had been involved as authors, accomplices or accessory participants in political crimes or crimes committed for political purposes, from 1 January 1962 to 1 March 1985. The law allowed those individuals held responsible of intentional murder to have either their conviction reviewed or their sentence reduced. Pursuant to article 10 of the Act on National Pacification all the individuals imprisoned under “measures of security” were released. In cases subjected to review, appellate courts either acquitted or condemned the individuals. By virtue of Act 15.783 of 20 November all the individuals who had previously held a public office were entitled to return to their jobs. On cases under B: the State party indicates that these individuals were pardoned by virtue of Act 15.737 and released on 10 March 1985. On cases under C: these individuals were released on 14 March 1985; their cases were included under Act 15.737. On cases under D: the Amnesty Act, from the date on which it entered into force, put an end to the surveillance of individuals; pending arrest warrants; the restrictions on entry or departure from the country; and every official inquiry into crimes covered by the amnesty. From 8 March 1985, the issuance of travel documents was no longer subject to any restriction. Samuel Liechtenstein, after his return to Hungary, resumed his position as the Rector of the University of the Republic. On cases under E: from 1 March 1985, the possibility to file an action for damages was open to all of the victims of human rights violations which occurred during the de facto government. Since 1985, 36 suits for damages have been filed, 22 of them for arbitrary detention and 12 for the return of property. The Government settled Mr. Lopez’s case on 21 November 1990, by paying him US$ 200,000. The suit filed by Ms. Lilian Celiberti is still pending. Besides the aforementioned cases, no other victim has filed a lawsuit against the State claiming compensation. On cases under F: on 22 December 1986, the Congress passed Act 15.848, known as “termination of public prosecutions”. Under the Act, the State can no longer prosecute crimes committed before 1 March 1985 by the military or the police for political ends or on orders received from their superiors. All pending proceedings were discontinued. On 16 April 1989, the Act was confirmed by referendum. The Act required investigating judges to send reports submitted to the judiciary about victims of disappearances to the Government, for the latter to initiate inquiries.
Uruguay (cont’d)	159/1983, Cariboni A/43/40 Selected Decisions, vol. 2				X	X
	322/1988, Rodríguez A/51/40 A/49/40				X A/51/40	X
...

230. In July 1990, the Committee established a procedure for the monitoring of follow-up to its Views under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol, and created the mandate of the Special Rapporteur for follow-up on Views to this effect. Ms. Ruth Wedgwood has been the Special Rapporteur since July 2009 (ninety-sixth session).

231. In 1991, the Special Rapporteur began to request follow-up information from States parties. Such information had been systematically requested in respect of all Views with a finding of a violation of Covenant rights; 543 Views out of the 681 Views adopted since 1979 concluded that there had been a violation of the Covenant.

232. All attempts to categorize follow-up replies by States parties are inherently imprecise and subjective: it accordingly is not possible to provide a neat statistical breakdown of follow-up replies. Many follow-up replies received may be considered satisfactory, in that they display the willingness of the State party to implement the Committee's recommendations or to offer the complainant an appropriate remedy. Other replies cannot be considered satisfactory because they either do not address the Committee's Views at all or relate only to certain aspects of them. Some replies simply note that the victim has filed a claim for compensation outside statutory deadlines and that no compensation can therefore be paid. Still other replies indicate that there is no legal obligation on the State party to provide a remedy, but that a remedy will be afforded to the complainant on an ex gratia basis.

233. The remaining follow-up replies challenge the Committee's Views and findings on factual or legal grounds, constitute much belated submissions on the merits of the complaint, promise an investigation of the matter considered by the Committee or indicate that the State party will not, for one reason or another, give effect to the Committee's recommendations.

234. In many cases, the Secretariat has also received information from complainants to the effect that the Committee's Views have not been implemented. Conversely, in rare instances, the petitioner has informed the Committee that the State party had in fact given effect to the Committee's recommendations, even though the State party had not itself provided that information.

235. The present annual report adopts the same format for the presentation of follow-up information as the last annual report. The table below displays a complete picture of follow-up replies from States parties received up to the ninety-sixth session (13-31 July 2009), in relation to Views in which the Committee found violations of the Covenant. Wherever possible, it indicates whether follow-up replies are or have been considered as satisfactory or unsatisfactory, in terms of their compliance with the Committee's Views, or whether the dialogue between the State party and the Special Rapporteur for follow-up on Views continues. The notes following a number of case entries convey an idea of the difficulties in categorizing follow-up replies.

236. Follow-up information provided by States parties and by petitioners or their representatives subsequent to the last annual report (A/63/40) is set out in annex IX to volume II of the present annual report.

State party and number of cases with violation	Communication number, author and relevant Committee report	Follow-up response received from State party	Satisfactory response	Unsatisfactory response	No response	Follow-up dialogue ongoing
...
Uruguay (52)	A. [5/1977, Massera Seventh session 43/1979, Caldas Nineteenth session 63/1979, Antonaccio Fourteenth session 73/1980, Izquierdo Fifteenth session 80/1980, Vasiliskis Eighteenth session 83/1981, Machado Twentieth session 84/1981, Dermis Seventeenth session 85/1981, Romero Twenty-first session 88/1981, Bequio Eighteenth session 92/1981, Nieto Nineteenth session 103/1981, Scarone Twentieth session 105/1981, Cabreira Nineteenth session 109/1981, Voituret Twenty-first session 123/1982, Lluberas Twenty-first session]	X 43 follow-up replies received, see A/59/40*	X (relating to cases D and G)	X (relating to cases A, B, C, E, F)		X
Uruguay (cont’d)	B. [103/1981, Scarone 73/1980, Izquierdo 92/1981, Nieto 85/1981, Romero]
	C. [63/1979, Antonaccio 80/1980, Vasiliskis 123/1982, Lluberas]
	D. [57/1979, Martins Fifteenth session 77/1980, Lichtensztejn Eighteenth session 106/1981, Montero Eighteenth session 108/1981, Nuñez Nineteenth session]
	E. [4/1977, Ramirez Fourth session 6/1977, Sequeiro Sixth session 25/1978, Massiotti Sixteenth session 28/1978, Weisz Eleventh session 32/1978, Touron Twelfth session 33/1978, Carballal Twelfth session
Uruguay (cont’d)	37/1978, De Boston Twelfth session 44/1979, Pietraroia Twelfth session 52/1979, Lopez Burgos Thirteenth session 56/1979, Celiberti Thirteenth session 66/1980, Schweizer Seventeenth session 70/1980, Simones Fifteenth session 74/1980, Estrella Eighteenth session 110/1981, Viana Twenty-first session 139/1983, Conteris Twenty-fifth session 147/1983, Gilboa Twenty-sixth session 162/1983, Acosta Thirty-fourth session]
	F. [30/1978, Bleier Fifteenth session 84/1981, Barbato Seventeenth session 107/1981, Quinteros Nineteenth session]
Uruguay (cont’d)	G. 34/1978, Silva Twelfth session
	*Note: Follow-up information was provided on 17 October 1991 (unpublished). The list of cases under A: the State party submitted that on 1 March 1985, the competence of the civil courts was re-established. The amnesty law of 8 March 1985 benefited all the individuals who had been involved as authors, accomplices or accessory participants in political crimes or crimes committed for political purposes, from 1 January 1962 to 1 March 1985. The law allowed those individuals held responsible of intentional murder to have either their conviction reviewed or their sentence reduced. Pursuant to article 10 of the Act on National Pacification all the individuals imprisoned under “measures of security” were released. In cases subjected to review, appellate courts either acquitted or condemned the individuals. By virtue of Act 15.783 of 20 November all the individuals who had previously held a public office were entitled to return to their jobs. On cases under B: the State party indicates that these individuals were pardoned by virtue of Act 15.737 and released on 10 March 1985. On cases under C: these individuals were released on 14 March 1985; their cases were included under Act 15.737. On cases under D: the Amnesty Act, from the date on which it entered into force, put an end to the surveillance of individuals; pending arrest warrants; the restrictions on entry or departure from the country; and every official inquiry into crimes covered by the amnesty. From 8 March 1985, the issuance of travel documents was no longer subject to any restriction. Samuel Liechtenstein, after his return to Hungary, resumed his position as the Rector of the University of the Republic. On cases under E: from 1 March 1985, the possibility to file an action for damages was open to all of the victims of human rights violations which occurred during the de facto government. Since 1985, 36 suits for damages have been filed, 22 of them for arbitrary detention and 12 for the return of property. The Government settled Mr. Lopez’s case on 21 November 1990, by paying him US$ 200,000. The suit filed by Ms. Lilian Celiberti is still pending. Besides the aforementioned cases, no other victim has filed a lawsuit against the State claiming compensation. On cases under F: on 22 December 1986, the Congress passed Act 15.848, known as “termination of public prosecutions”. Under the Act, the State can no longer prosecute crimes committed before 1 March 1985 by the military or the police for political ends or on orders received from their superiors. All pending proceedings were discontinued. On 16 April 1989, the Act was confirmed by referendum. The Act required investigating judges to send reports submitted to the judiciary about victims of disappearances to the Government, for the latter to initiate inquiries.
Uruguay (cont’d)	159/1983, Cariboni A/43/40 Selected Decisions, vol. 2				X	X
	322/1988, Rodríguez A/51/40 A/49/40				X A/51/40	X
...

State party	URUGUAY
Case	Viana, 110/1981
Views adopted on	31 March 1983
Issues and violations found	Inhuman treatment, no legal counsel of own choosing and trial with undue delay - articles 7, 10, paragraph 1, 14, paragraph 3 (b), (c), (d).
Remedy recommended	Provision of 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.
State party response	On 31 May 2000, the State party had informed the Committee that it had decided to provide the author with compensation of US$ 120,000.
Author’s comments	By letter of 4 November 2004, the author alleges that the State party has not complied with the Committee’s Views.

Uruguay:	Views in 45 cases with findings of violations:
	43 follow-up replies received, dated 17 October 1991, unpublished. Follow-up reply, dated 31 May 2000, concerning case No. 110/1981 (Viana Acosta), granting payment of US$ 120,000 to Mr. Viana. Follow-up replies on two Views remain outstanding: 159/1983 - Cariboni (in Selected Decisions, vol. 2) and 322/1988 - Rodríguez (A/49/40); see also A/51/40, paragraph 454.