ÿWPCå ,vs ~‰˜ç˜± ³æØoÁ3‡Qˆ¤õ,¬€Ìú „ Kà„L¾R1¤‰%S‡}Eúëû¡‚ªÜ   Ôæ£(‡)wÜoságn7!İfAèÖòÈ ±XuÏI3ø˜`>!¨¸ô ÍÑ]g±|©ñ¾‘¡Êtrİ~ü,lf)(`¬w(2†KTG9Ûø:¯³ÔfkâÓX{ -Û\äÄ_Ô¿<öÀ¡]i¸8¥ƒK@oq Bw ¢ŞIX WjÙt[NÔs‹Ëµ©Œ¿Ì¸õ2?eè«aJğ j_röL~˜7˜û»6nm îd»-f†Pâ2}$ÜóĞõ€yˆ©GB%F"Ç H*ù€Û¬`F& kYèÚxQÓFK.²,¨H²Æ<:Ùx[²ïé²¥YK¸'Œ¯ÏŠØ¬hT‹2øtÚ·Œn³Y¸*ŠÏõ]êS«`À.—¦§*¢|H£ÒÕ : ˜\oÕuêïË‹áh@ä+ë¼à½øÚ¼p ´V¶û¶×aë­)×'…TëK-’†‹ç®ê"Ç! —\6´iş%á€Pâ‡S¯µ$=2‘…—‘/É~oyËÕz“İ<Ѩ¢M{˜`ê|9­‡{6¼NNä+¨šm‘†À®U>ˆÌÆ 0µ’ 0<G 0Yƒ 0_Ü 0i; 0P¤ 0TôÆH 0á 0(ï D+ AMB  0ÆŸ #Áe UN& %tMz(~N¦^ ¨w´4¸Ì mÎô\  `‹&Times New Roman' Samuel Lichtensztejn v. Uruguay, Communication No. 77/1980 (30 September 1980), U.N. Doc. 4ber 1980), U.N. Doc. "Angie Dituri"0Angie Dituri .   6F , ÿÿ4Heading 3Ô S ÔÓ p^SÓÔ€£££Ôò òÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ€XXXÔó óÓ p^SÓ<ÿÿ:Default Para6ÿÿ4HyperlinkóóòòÔ ÿ ÔóóÔ  Ô<ÿÿ:FollowedHypeóóòòÔ  ÔóóÔ  Ô< ÿÿ:Normal (Web)Ô S ÔÓ =jSÓÓ =jSÓ0ÿÿ.Strongò òÔ  Ôó óÔ  Ô4ÿÿ2EmphasisòòÔ  ÔóóÔ  Ô Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5(¹2N$££İ ƒe!İÒÜ°ÒÒÜ°ÒÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€X½XXXÔÔ€X½XXX½ÔÔÔİ  İ(ÿÿ$’’'dxd A<< cÿÿ#|x(e$¡¡ÒÜ°ÒÒÜ°ÒÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€X¬sXXXÔÔ€X¬sXXX¬sÔÔÔ˜HP LaserJet 6P/6MP - Standard,ä,,,,,ä0(ÈhH  Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX9…û* Äpì*ê:i¢Ø+00ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀİ ƒe!İÒÜ°ÒÒÜ°ÒÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€X½XXXÔÔ€X½XXX½ÔÔÔİ  İÔ_Ôò òHUMAN€RIGHTS€COMMITTEEĞ ° ĞÌòòÔ_ÔLichtensztejnÔ_Ô€Ô_Ôv.Ô_Ô€UruguayóóĞ |Ì ĞÌCommunication€No.€77/1980Ğ H˜ ĞÌ31€March€1983Ğ  d ĞÌÌVIEWSó óĞ Æ   ĞÌÌòòòòSubmitted€by:€óóSamuel€Ô_ÔLichtensztejnÔ_ԀРxÈ  ĞÌòòAlleged€victim:€óóThe€author€of€the€communication€Ğ D”  ĞÌòòState€party€concerned:€óóUruguay€Ğ ` ĞÌòòDate€of€communication:€óó30€September€1980€(date€of€initial€letter)€Ğ Ü, ĞÌòòDate€of€decision€on€admissibility:€óó25€March€1982€óóĞ ¨ø ĞÌÌòòÓ  ÓThe€Human€Rights€Committeeóó,€established€under€article€28€of€the€International€CovenantĞ Zª Ğon€Civil€and€Political€Rights,€Ğ @ ĞÌòòMeetingóó€on€31€March€1983,€Ğ  \ ĞÌòòHaving€concludedóó€its€consideration€of€communication€No.€77/1980€submitted€to€theĞ Ø( ĞCommittee€by€Samuel€Ô_ÔLichtensztejnÔ_Ô€under€the€Optional€Protocol€to€the€InternationalĞ ¾ ĞCovenant€on€Civil€and€Political€Rights,€Ğ ¤ô ĞÌòòHaving€taken€into€accountóó€all€written€information€made€available€to€it€by€the€author€of€theĞ p!À  Ğcommunication€and€by€the€State€party€concerned,€Ğ V"¦! ĞÌòòAdoptsóó€the€following:€Ğ "$r# ĞÌÌòòò òÓ  ÓViews€under€article€5€(4)€of€the€Optional€Protocoló óóóĞ Ô&$"& ĞÓƒÓÌÌ1.1€The€author€of€the€communication€(initial€letter€dated€30€September€1980€and€furtherĞ †)Ö$) Ğletter€of€6€July€1981)€is€Samuel€Ô_ÔLichtensztejnÔ_Ô,€a€Uruguayan€citizen€at€present€residing€inĞ l*¼%* ĞMexico.€The€author,€former€director€and€Dean€of€the€Faculty€of€Economic€Sciences€andĞ R+¢&+ ĞAdministration€and€Rector€of€the€University€of€the€Republic€of€Uruguay€submitted€theĞ 8,ˆ', Ğcommunication€on€his€own€behalf,€alleging€that€he€is€a€victim€of€a€breach€by€Uruguay€ofĞ -n(- ĞÔ_Ôarticles€12€and€19€of€the€International€Covenant€on€Civil€and€Political€Rights.€He€stressedĞ ° Ğthe€fact€that,€with€regard€to€his€specific€complaint,€he€comes€within€the€jurisdiction€ofĞ –æ ĞUruguay.€Ğ |Ì ĞÌ1.2€The€author€claims€that€a€valid€Uruguayan€passport€has€been€denied€him€by€theĞ H˜ ĞUruguayan€authorities€without€any€explanation,€allegedly€to€punish€him€for€the€opinionsĞ . ~ Ğwhich€he€holds€and€which€he€has€expressed€concerning€human€rights€violations€in€Uruguay,Ğ  d Ğand€to€prevent€him€from€continuing€to€exercise€his€freedom€of€expression.€Ğ ú J ĞÌ2.1€The€author€states€that,€in€the€years€before€he€left€Uruguay,€he€was€closely€connected€withĞ Æ   Ğuniversity€affairs.€From€1970€to€1971,€he€was€director€of€the€Institute€of€Economics€in€theĞ ¬ ü  ĞFaculty€of€Economic€Sciences€and€Administration.€For€the€greater€part€of€1972,€he€was€DeanĞ ’â  Ğof€the€Faculty€and€in€October€of€that€year€he€was€elected€Rector€of€the€University€of€theĞ xÈ  ĞRepublic€of€Uruguay.€He€was€Rector€until€October€1973,€when€the€Government€interferedĞ ^®  Ğwith€the€University€and€military€forces€took€over€its€premises.€He€alleges€that€because€heĞ D”  Ğwas€restricted€in€the€exercise€of€his€rights,€both€as€Rector€and€as€a€private€citizen,€he€left€theĞ *z  Ğcountry€in€January€1974.€He€has€been€living€in€Mexico€since€February€1974.€Ğ ` ĞÌ2.2€The€author€states€that€while€in€Mexico,€he€took€an€active€part€in€campaigns€for€theĞ Ü, Ğrespect€of€human€rights€in€Uruguay€through€national€and€international€organizations,€andĞ Â Ğthat€he€denounced€the€alleged€violation€in€Uruguay€of€university€autonomy€and€theĞ ¨ø Ğpersecution€of€professors€and€students€for€ideological€reasons.€He€assumes€that€his€spokenĞ Ş Ğand€written€opinions€on€these€matters€have€been€the€cause€of€the€Uruguayan€Government'sĞ tÄ Ğdecision€to€refuse€him€a€passport.€Ğ Zª ĞÌ2.3€He€describes€the€facts€of€his€case€as€follows:€Ğ &v ĞÌ"(a)€On€23€October€1968,€I€was€granted€passport€No.€112„641€by€the€Uruguayan€MinistryĞ òB Ğof€Foreign€Relations.€On€27€December€1973,€such€passport€was€renewed€by€the€MontevideoĞ Ø( ĞPolice€Headquarters€for€five€years,€finally€expiring€on€23€October€1978.€In€order€to€obtainĞ ¾ Ğa€new€passport,€I€went,€on€16€October€1978€to€the€Consular€Section€of€the€UruguayanĞ ¤ô ĞEmbassy€in€Mexico,€and€I€completed€the€appropriate€form€of€application.€On€28€NovemberĞ Š Ú Ğ1978€I€asked,€in€writing,€for€information€on€my€application.€On€the€same€date€the€person€inĞ p!À  Ğcharge€of€the€Consular€Section€of€the€Uruguayan€Embassy€in€Mexico,€Mr.€Juan€D.€Ô_ÔOddoneÔ_Ô,Ğ V"¦! Ğreplied,€in€writing,€that€by€'express€order€from€the€Chancellery,€the€granting€of€the€passportĞ <#Œ" Ğwas€not€authorized'.€On€12€December€1978€and€through€the€Uruguayan€Embassy€in€Mexico,Ğ "$r# ĞI€sent€a€letter€to€the€Uruguayan€Minister€of€the€Interior,€General€Linares€Ô_ÔBrumÔ_Ô,€asking€himĞ %X $ Ğto€reconsider€the€refusal€to€grant€me€a€passport.€Finally,€on€30€March€1979,€the€ConsularĞ î%>!% ĞSection€of€the€Uruguayan€Embassy€in€Mexico€informed€me,€in€writing,€that€I€'should€relyĞ Ô&$"& Ğon€the€refusal'.€Ğ º' #' ĞÌ"(b)€I€asked€Mr.€Ô_ÔOddoneÔ_Ô€how€I€could€appeal€against€these€decisions,€but€I€was€told€that€thereĞ †)Ö$) Ğwas€no€other€way€to€do€so.€No€domestic€remedy€is€available€for€this€injury.€It€must€beĞ l*¼%* Ğpointed€out€that,€the€Uruguay€Government€has,€since€1973,€Ô_ÔpractisedÔ_Ô€legislation€by€decreeĞ R+¢&+ Ğimmune€for€constitutional€review€and€has€arrested€Uruguayan€lawyers€who€bring€casesĞ 8,ˆ', Ğagainst€the€Government.€The€inability€of€the€courts€in€some€cases€to€enforce€their€ordersĞ -n(- ĞÔ_Ôagainst€other€departments€of€the€Government,€and€the€use€of€the€doctrine€of€State€securityĞ ° Ğto€remove€questions€from€the€competence€of€these€courts€or€to€allow€the€introduction€ofĞ –æ Ğevidence,€which€is€not€disclosed€to€the€opposing€party,€lead€inevitably€to€the€conclusion€thatĞ |Ì Ğany€attempt€to€resolve€this€problem€within€the€domestic€judicial€system€would€be€futile€andĞ b² Ğa€waste€of€time.€Ğ H˜ ĞÌ"(c)€On€15€December€1978,€I€received€an€identity€and€travel€document€from€the€GovernmentĞ  d Ğof€Mexico.€Therefore,€inasmuch€as€Uruguay's€denial€of€a€passport€constitutes€a€denial€of€myĞ ú J Ğrights€under€article€12€(2),€the€violation€may€be€considered€to€have€ended€on€that€date.Ğ à 0 ĞHowever,€the€violation€did€occur€after€the€Covenant€came€into€effect€and€there€is€noĞ Æ   Ğrequirement€that€communications€under€the€Optional€Protocol€set€forth€continuingĞ ¬ ü  Ğviolations.€It€must€be€noted€that€the€violation€of€my€right€to€be€free€to€leave€any€country€didĞ ’â  Ğnot€cease€as€a€result€of€any€change€in€position€on€the€part€of€Uruguay,€but€as€the€result€of€aĞ xÈ  Ğhumanitarian€act€on€the€part€of€Mexico."€Ğ ^®  ĞÌ2.4€The€author€further€maintains€that€the€punitive€effect€of€the€denial€of€a€passport€did€notĞ *z  Ğcease€with€the€acquisition€of€a€substitute€document€from€the€Government€of€Mexico,€butĞ ` Ğconstitutes€a€continuing€violation€of€article€19€of€the€Covenant.€Ğ öF ĞÌ2.5€Finally,€the€author€states€that€he€has€not€submitted€the€same€matter€to€another€procedureĞ Â Ğof€international€investigation€or€settlement.€Ğ ¨ø ĞÌ3.€By€its€decision€of€24€October€1980,€the€Human€Rights€Committee€transmitted€theĞ tÄ Ğcommunication€under€rule€91€of€the€provisional€rules€of€procedure€to€the€State€partyĞ Zª Ğconcerned,€requesting€information€and€observations€relevant€to€the€question€of€admissibilityĞ @ Ğof€the€communication.€Ğ &v ĞÌ4.1€By€a€note€dated€5€June€1981,€the€State€party€objected€to€the€competence€of€the€HumanĞ òB ĞRights€Committee'€to€consider€the€communication,€stating€that€"the€communication€does€notĞ Ø( Ğfulfil€even€the€basic€requirements€for€submission€to€the€Committee",€...€as€"article€1€of€theĞ ¾ ĞOptional€Protocol€only€recognizes€the€competence€of€the€Committee€to€receive€and€considerĞ ¤ô Ğcommunications€from€individuals€provided€that€these€individuals€fulfil€the€minimumĞ Š Ú Ğrequirement€of€being€'subject€to€its€[the€State€Party's]€jurisdiction'€and€this€condition€is€notĞ p!À  Ğmet€by€the€present€communication€because€Mr.€Samuel€Lichtensztejn€was€outside€theĞ V"¦! Ğjurisdiction€of€the€Uruguayan€State€when€his€petition€was€submitted."€The€State€partyĞ <#Œ" Ğconcludes€that€"it€is€therefore€inadmissible€that€the€Committee€should€deal€withĞ "$r# Ğcommunications€of€this€kind,€which€run€counter€to€its€terms€of€reference€and€violateĞ %X $ Ğprovisions€of€„international€instruments".€Ğ î%>!% ĞÌ4.2€However,€the€State€party,€while€stressing€its€formal€rejection€of€the€admissibility€of€theĞ º' #' Ğcommunication€before€the€Committee,€then€replies€to€the€communication's€content€"strictlyĞ  (ğ#( Ğwith€a€view€to€maintaining€its€continuing€co„operation€with€the€Committee€in€the€promotionĞ †)Ö$) Ğand€defence€of€human€rights€..."€and€submits€that€the€allegations€of€violations€of€articles€12Ğ l*¼%* Ğand€19€of€the€Covenant€by€Uruguay€are€totally€unfounded.€In€substantiation€of€thisĞ R+¢&+ Ğsubmission,€the€State€party€draws€the€Committee's€attention€to€the€author's€actual€enjoymentĞ 8,ˆ', Ğof€the€right€to€freedom€of€movement€and€to€his€activities€abroad,€mentioning€as€an€exampleĞ -n(- Ğhis€appearance€on€Cuban€television€on€12€May€1979,€which€in€the€State€'party's€opinionĞ ° Ğnegates€the€author's€argument€that€he€is€prevented€from€travelling€freely€abroad.€ReferenceĞ –æ Ğis€also€made€by€the€State€party€to€the€fact€that€the€author€freely€left€his€country,€Uruguay,Ğ |Ì Ğthrough€"normal€channels"€in€January€1974,€and€that€he€has€the€constitutionally€guaranteedĞ b² Ğright,€as€every€Uruguayan€citizen,€to€return€to€his€country,€with€or€without€a€passport.€It€isĞ H˜ Ğfurther€pointed€İ‚ ÿÿÿİòòÔÔİ  İout€İ‚ ÿÿÿ ,€MexİóóÔÔİ  İin€the€State€party's€submission€that€the€charges€made€by€the€author€of€theĞ . ~ Ğcommunication,€namely,€that€he€has€been€denied€the€right€to€express€his€opinions€while€inĞ  d ĞUruguay€and€that€the€Government€of€Uruguay€has€therefore€violated€article€19€of€theĞ ú J ĞCovenant€are€based€"exclusively€on€strictly€personal€judgements"€and€that€...€"not€theĞ à 0 Ğslightest€evidence€to€prove€and€justify€(the€author's)€allegations€..."€are€provided€in€the€textĞ Æ   Ğof€the€communication.€Ğ ¬ ü  ĞÌ5.1€On€6€July€1981,€the€author€of€the€communication€forwarded€his€comments€in€reply€to€theĞ xÈ  ĞState€party's€submission€of€5€June€1981.€Ğ ^®  ĞÌ5.2€He€rejects€the€State€party's€formal€contention€that€the€communication€is€incompatibleĞ *z  Ğwith€and€therefore€inadmissible€under€the€provisions€of€article€1€of€the€Optional€ProtocolĞ ` Ğbecause€he€did€not€come€within€its€jurisdiction€in€the€matter€concerned„€He€argues€that€theĞ öF Ğviews€expressed€by€the€Government€of€Uruguay€are€not€only€in€contradiction€withĞ Ü, Ğinternational€law€and€common€international€practice,€but€also€in€contradiction€with€existingĞ Â ĞUruguayan€law.€On€this€last€point€the€author€refers€(a)€to€Decree€No.'€614/967€of€12Ğ ¨ø ĞSeptember€1967,€articles€1€and€6€(b),€which€provide€that€every€citizen€by€birth€has€the€rightĞ Ş Ğto€a€passport€and€that€all€the€formalities€required€to€obtain€a€passport€can€be€completedĞ tÄ Ğoutside€Uruguay,€and€(b)€to€Decree€No.€363/77€of€28€June€1977,€article€1,€which€providesĞ Zª Ğfor€the€issue€and€renewal€of€passports€for€persons€who€"have€permanent€residence€abroad".Ğ @ ĞThe€author€points€out€that€the€foregoing€legal€provisions€make€it€clear€that€jurisdiction€of€theĞ &v ĞUruguayan€State,€in€the€matter€of€issuing€passports,€does€extend€beyond€its€territory€throughĞ  \ Ğits€accredited€consular€offices€abroad.€He€adds€in€this€connection€that€it€is€the€status€ofĞ òB Ğcitizenship,€and€not€that€of€residence,€that€is€identified€by€a€passport.€Ğ Ø( ĞÌ5.3€The€author€further€states€that€he€has€never,€through€action€or€omission,€raised€any€doubtsĞ ¤ô Ğwith€the€Uruguayan€authorities€about€his€maintenance€of€Uruguayan€citizenship.€HeĞ Š Ú Ğfurnishes€copies€of€documents€as€proof€that€he€fulfils€whatever€obligations€concern€him€asĞ p!À  Ğa€Uruguayan€citizen€abroad:€one€document,€dated€30€November€1980,€stating€that€heĞ V"¦! Ğpresented€himself€at€the€Uruguayan€Consulate€in€Mexico€to€register€legally€his€residence€inĞ <#Œ" ĞMexico,€and€the€other€document,€dated€2€December€1980,€to€put€on€record€his€legitimateĞ "$r# Ğreason€for€not€participating€in€the€vote€concerning€the€referendum€held€by€the€GovernmentĞ %X $ Ğof€Uruguay.€Ğ î%>!% ĞÌ5.4€To€complete€his€arguments,€the€author€refers€to€the€case€of€Guillermo€Waksman€(beforeĞ º' #' Ğthe€Human€Rights€Committee€under€case€No.€R.€7/31)€which,€similar€to€his€own,€concernedĞ  (ğ#( Ğthe€renewal€of€a€passport€of€a€Uruguayan€citizen€living€abroad€and€which€after€beingĞ †)Ö$) Ğdeclared€admissible€by€the€Human€Rights€Committee€led€to€the€issuance€of€a€new€passportĞ l*¼%* Ğto€Mr.€Waksman€by€the€appropriate€Uruguayan€consular€authorities.€The€author€points€outĞ R+¢&+ Ğthat€the€foregoing€constitutes€a€conclusive€precedent€that,€in€a€situation€similar€to€his€own,Ğ 8,ˆ', Ğit€has€already€been€recognized€by€the€Uruguayan€authorities€that€Uruguayan€citizens€abroadĞ -n(- Ğare€under€the€jurisdiction€of€their€State€as€far€as€passports€are€concerned.€Ğ ° ĞÌ5.5€In€his€response€to€the€State€party's€submission€regarding€the€contents€of€hisĞ |Ì Ğcommunication,€the€author€does€not€refute€the€State€party's€contention€that€he€has€been€inĞ b² Ğa€position€to€travel€abroad€on€a€number€of€occasions.€He€asserts,€however,€that€this€is€dueĞ H˜ Ğonly€to€the€issuance€by€the€Mexican€authorities,€for€humanitarian€reasons,€of€an€identity€andĞ . ~ Ğtravel€document€which€cannot€be€regarded€as€an€adequate€substitute€for€a€UruguayanĞ  d Ğpassport€since€it€is€subject€to€conditions€and€requirements€which€by€no€means€remove€theĞ ú J Ğdifficulties€caused€by€the€lack€of€a€Uruguayan€passport.€He€points€out,€for€instance,€that€theĞ à 0 ĞMexican€document,€which€is€issued€to€him€as€a€foreigner€at€the€discretion€of€the€MexicanĞ Æ   Ğauthorities,€has€only€a€short€period€of€validity€with€no€guarantee€of€renewal€on€its€expiry€andĞ ¬ ü  Ğthat€he€has€had€difficulties€in€obtaining€a€visa€for€some€other€countries€on€the€basis€of€it.€Ğ ’â  ĞÌ5.6€The€author€adds€that€the€example€of€his€appearance€on€Cuban€television€quoted€by€theĞ ^®  ĞState€party€in€its€submission€in€support€of€its€assertion€that€he€does€undertake€activitiesĞ D”  Ğabroad€and€is€in€a€position€to€travel€freely,€is€not€correct€as€he€has€never€travelled€to€Cuba,Ğ *z  Ğhis€Mexican€travel€documents€being€available€as€a€proof€that€he€was€in€Mexico€on€the€dateĞ ` Ğindicated€by€the€State€party€in€its€submission.€Ğ öF ĞÌ5.7€In€commenting€on€the€State€party's€assertion€that€he€freely€and€through€normal€channelsĞ Â Ğleft€his€country€in€1974,€the€author€claims€that€although€he€left€through€normal€channels€heĞ ¨ø Ğdid€not€leave€Uruguay€'freely",€but€that€he€was€driven€to€do€so€by€the€lack€of€guarantees€inĞ Ş ĞUruguay€for€his€rights€as€a€citizen€and€Rector€of€the€University€and,€by€way€of€illustration,Ğ tÄ Ğhe€refers€to€his€detention€in€Uruguay€for€two€months,€without€trial,€and€to€the€refusal€of€theĞ Zª ĞUruguayan€authorities€to€re„instate€him€as€Rector€or€Professor€at€the€University€and€to€allowĞ @ Ğhim€to€publish€articles€in€the€press€of€his€country.€Ğ &v ĞÌ5.8€The€author€further€dismisses€as€irrelevant€to€his€case€the€State€party's€contention€thatĞ òB Ğevery€Uruguayan€citizen€has€the€constitutional€right€to€return€to€his€country,€because€thisĞ Ø( Ğdoes€not€address€the€point€at€issue€in€his€communication,€namely€the€right€to€enter€and€leaveĞ ¾ Ğany€country,€including€his€own,€with€a€valid€Uruguayan€passport.€Ğ ¤ô ĞÌ5.9€The€author€also€repeats€the€assumption,€made€in€his€initial€communication,€that€theĞ p!À  Ğrefusal€by€the€Uruguayan€authorities,€without€giving€any€reasons,€to€grant€him€a€passport€isĞ V"¦! Ğmotivated€by€his€critical€political€attitude€towards€the€Uruguayan€Government€and€heĞ <#Œ" Ğmaintains,€therefore,€that€in€addition€to€a€breach€of€article€12,€there€has€also€been€a€breachĞ "$r# Ğof€article€19€of€the€Covenant€in€his€case.€Ğ %X $ ĞÌ6.1€When€considering€the€admissibility€of€the€communication,€the€Human€Rights€CommitteeĞ Ô&$"& Ğdid€not€accept€the€State€party's€contention€that€it€was€not€competent€to€deal€with€theĞ º' #' Ğcommunication€because€the€author€did€not€fulfil€the€requirements€of€article€1€of€the€OptionalĞ  (ğ#( ĞProtocol.€In€that€connection,€the€Committee€made€the€following€observations:€article€1Ğ †)Ö$) Ğapplies€to€individuals€subject€to€the€jurisdiction€of€the€State€concerned€who€claim€to€beĞ l*¼%* Ğvictims€of€a€violation€by€that€State€of€any€of€the€Covenant€rights.€The€issue€of€a€passport€toĞ R+¢&+ Ğa€Uruguayan€citizen€is€clearly€a€matter€within€the€jurisdiction€of€the€Uruguayan€authoritiesĞ 8,ˆ', Ğand€he€is€"subject€to€the€jurisdiction'€of€Uruguay€for€that€purpose.€Moreover,€a€passport€isĞ -n(- Ğa€means€of€enabling€him€'to€leave€any€country,€including€his€own',€as€required€by€article€12Ğ ° Ğ(2)€of€the€Covenant.€Consequently,€the€Committee€found€that€it€followed€from€the€veryĞ –æ Ğnature€of€that€right€that,€in€the€case€of€a€citizen€resident€abroad,€article€12€(2)€imposedĞ |Ì Ğobligations€both€on€the€State€of€residence€and€on€the€State€of€nationality€and€that,€therefore,Ğ b² Ğarticle€2€(1)€of€the€Covenant€could€not€be€interpreted€as€limiting€the€obligations€of€UruguayĞ H˜ Ğunder€article€12€(2)€to€citizens€within€its€own€territory.€Ğ . ~ ĞÌ6.2€The€Committee€found,€on€the€basis€of€the€information€before€it,€that€it€was€not€precludedĞ ú J Ğby€article€5€(2)€(a)€of€the€Optional€Protocol€from€considering€the€communication.€TheĞ à 0 ĞCommittee€was€also€unable€to€conclude€that,€in€the€circumstances€of€this€case,€there€wereĞ Æ   Ğeffective€domestic€remedies€available€to€the€alleged€victim€which€he€had€failed€to€exhaust.Ğ ¬ ü  ĞAccordingly,€the€Committee€found€that€the€communication€was€not€inadmissible€underĞ ’â  Ğarticle€5€(2)€(b)€of€the€Optional€Protocol.€Ğ xÈ  ĞÌ6.3€On€25€March€1982,€the€Human€Rights€Committee€therefore€òòdecided:óó€Ğ D”  ĞÌ(a)€That€the€communication€was€admissible;€Ğ ` ĞÌ(b)€That,€in€accordance€with€article€4€(2)€of€the€Protocol,€the€State€party€should€be€requestedĞ Ü, Ğto€submit€to€the€Committee,€within€six€months€of€the€date€of€the€transmittal€to€it€of€thisĞ Â Ğdecision,€written€explanations€or€statements€clarifying€the€matter€and€the€remedy,€if€any,€thatĞ ¨ø Ğmay€have€been€taken€by€its€Ğ Ş ĞÌ(c)€That€the€State€party€be€informed€that€the€written€explanations€or€statements€submittedĞ Zª Ğby€it€under€article€4€(2)€of€the€Protocol€must€primarily€relate€to€the€substance€of€the€matterĞ @ Ğunder€consideration,€and€in€particular€the€specific€violations€of€the€Covenant€alleged€to€haveĞ &v Ğoccurred.€Ğ  \ ĞÌ7.€On€2€December€1982,€the€time„limit€for€the€observations€requested€from€the€State€partyĞ Ø( Ğunder€article€4€(2)€of€the€Optional€Protocol€expired.€No€further€submission€has€been€receivedĞ ¾ Ğfrom€the€State€party.€Ğ ¤ô ĞÌ8.1€The€Human€Rights€Committee€has€considered€the€present€communication€in€the€light€ofĞ p!À  Ğall€information€made€available€to€it€by€the€parties,€as€provided€in€article€5€(1)€of€the€OptionalĞ V"¦! ĞProtocol.€Ğ <#Œ" ĞÌ8.2€The€Committee€decides€to€base€its€views€on€the€following€facts€which€appear€to€beĞ %X $ Ğuncontested:€Samuel€Lichtensztejn,€a€Uruguayan€citizen€residing€in€Mexico€since€1974,€wasĞ î%>!% Ğrefused€issuance€of€a€new€passport€by€the€Uruguayan€authorities€when€his€passport€expiredĞ Ô&$"& Ğon€23€October€1978.€His€application€for€a€new€passport€at€the€Uruguayan€Consulate€inĞ º' #' ĞMexico€was€rejected€without€any€substantive€reasons€being€given,€it€being€merely€stated€thatĞ  (ğ#( Ğby€"express€order€from€the€Chancellery,€the€granting€of€the€passport€was€not€authorized".€HeĞ †)Ö$) Ğthen€requested€reconsideration€of€this€decision€from€the€Uruguayan€Minister€of€the€Interior.Ğ l*¼%* ĞHe€was€subsequently€informed€by€the€Uruguayan€Consulate€in€Mexico€that€he€"should€relyĞ R+¢&+ Ğon€the€(earlier)€refusal".€In€December€1978,€the€author€was€issued€an€identity€and€travelĞ 8,ˆ', Ğdocument€by€the€Mexican€authorities€which,€however,€could€not€be€regarded€as€a€sufficientĞ -n(- Ğsubstitute€for€a€valid€Uruguayan€passport€(see€para.€5.5€above).€Ğ ° ĞÌ8.3€As€to€the€alleged€violation€of€article€12€(2)€of€the€Covenant,€the€Committee€observed€inĞ |Ì Ğits€decision€of€25€March€1982€(see€para.€6.1€above)€that€a€passport€is€a€means€of€enablingĞ b² Ğan€individual€"to€leave€any€country,€including€his€own"€as€required€by€that€provision:Ğ H˜ Ğconsequently,€it€follows€from€the€very€nature€of€that€right€that,€in€the€case€of€a€citizenĞ . ~ Ğresident€abroad,€article€12€(2)€imposes€obligations€on€the€State€of€nationality€as€well€as€onĞ  d Ğthe€State€of€residence€and€therefore€article€2€(1)€of€the€Covenant€cannot€be€interpreted€asĞ ú J Ğlimiting€the€obligations€of€Uruguay€under€article€12€(2)€to€citizens€within€its€own€territory.Ğ à 0 ĞOn€the€other€hand,€article€12€does€not€guarantee€an€unrestricted€right€to€travel€from€oneĞ Æ   Ğcountry€to€another.€In€particular,€it€confers€no€right€for€a€person€to€enter€a€country€other€thanĞ ¬ ü  Ğhis€own.€Moreover,€the€right€recognized€by€article€12€(2)€may,€in€accordance€with€article€12Ğ ’â  Ğ(3),€be€subject€to€such€restrictions€as€are€"provided€by€law,€are€necessary€to€protect€nationalĞ xÈ  Ğsecurity,€public€order€(ordre€public),€public€health€or€morals€or€the€rights€and€freedoms€ofĞ ^®  Ğothers,€and€are€consistent€with€the€other€rights€recognized€in€the€Covenant".€There€are,Ğ D”  Ğtherefore,€circumstances€in€which€a€State,€if€its€law€so€provides,€may€refuse€passportĞ *z  Ğfacilities€to€one€of€its€citizens.€However,€in€the€present€case,€the€State€party€has€not€putĞ ` Ğforward€any€such€justification€for€refusing€to€issue€a€passport€to€Samuel€Lichtensztejn.€TheĞ öF Ğfacilities€afforded€by€Mexico€do€not€in€the€opinion€of€the€Committee€relieve€Uruguay€of€itsĞ Ü, Ğobligations€in€this€regard.€Ğ  ĞÌ8.4€As€to€the€allegations€made€by€the€author€with€regard€to€a€breach€of€article€19€of€theĞ Ş ĞCovenant,€which€were€refuted€by€the€State€party,€the€Committee€observes€that€theseĞ tÄ Ğallegations€are€couched€in€such€general€terms€that€it€makes€no€findings€in€regard€to€them.€Ğ Zª ĞÌ9.€The€Human€Rights€Committee,€acting€under€article€5€(4)€of€the€Optional€Protocol€to€theĞ &v ĞInternational€Covenant€on€Civil€and€Political€Rights,€is€of€the€view€that€the€facts€found€byĞ  \ Ğit€disclose€a€violation€of€article€12€of€the€Covenant,€because€Samuel€Lichtensztejn€wasĞ òB Ğrefused€the€issuance€of€a€passport€without€any€justification,€thus€preventing€him€from€fullyĞ Ø( Ğenjoying€the€rights€under€article€12€of€the€Covenant.€Ğ ¾ ĞÌ10.€Accordingly,€the€Committee€is€of€the€view€that€the€State€party€is€under€an€obligation€toĞ Š Ú Ğprovide€Samuel€Lichtensztejn€with€effective€remedies€pursuant€to€article€2€(3)€of€theĞ p!À  ĞCovenant.€