WPC -NM1j1[LCl Lm@.|waJgN<.!q3Ǟi帅Tn0'^ |hcXRv-% Γ,sÀtxŵߟv0"~+‚M4UhVf"0촶[iav2MKvbX8mkM AHzoYj/1.C"r D0K%t&cx9>SC82+b|`aǞh/[Nfv^:ú!l%hiŨ {B [@+)+g6mhjoYAJ^Fb$eR62-KpW |ob`9:rwT:r)u{5'W 3"=j\ێk^`䚹8AI$$`59us!v .JN=6to`\zÉ/oU> 0 0<c 0Y 0_ 0iW 0 0(W D+ AM %  0N 0[ # UN M ($NL^ NwZ4^r mt\  `&Times New Roman' M. M. Q. v. Uruguay, Communication No. 125/1982 (6 April 1984), U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/OP/2 at 84Doc. CCPR/C/OP/2 at 8"Angie Dituri"0Angie Dituri .   6F , 4Heading 3 S p^S   XXX p^S<:Default Para64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    < :Normal (Web) S =jS =jSӁ Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5(2$ !..      X!XXXX!XXX!  ($'dxd A<< cX#|x(O$($..      X#XXXX#XXX#HP LaserJet 6P/6MP - Standard,,,,,,0(hH  Z6Times New Roman RegularȆ* p*c(CorelU !..      X!XXXX!XXX!  _ HUMANRIGHTSCOMMITTEE  M.M.Q.v.Uruguay | CommunicationNo.125/1982* H 6April1984  d ADMISSIBILITYANDDISCONTINUED     Submittedby:M.M.Q.(namedeleted)on10August1982 x  Allegedvictim:Theauthor D  Stateparty:Uruguay ` Declaredadmissible:6April1984(twentyfirstsession) ,    DecisiononAdmissibility     (Discontinuedthereafter) @ 1.Theauthorofthecommunication(initialletterdatedIOAugust1982andafurtherletter  \ dated20September1983)isM.M.Q.,aUruguayancitizen,livingatpresentinBarcelona, B Spain,allegingthatsheisavictimofabreachbyUruguayofarticles2(1),12and19(1)of ( theInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights.  2.1.Theauthor,ateacher,statesthatshelivesoutsideUruguaybecauseofthepolitical   persecutionwhichopponentsofthepresent_rgime_ԀgenerallyfaceinUruguay.Sheaddsthat p!  sheleftthecountrywithavalidUruguayanpassport.Uponexpirationofthispassportshe V"! wasissuedanewpassport(No.047343)bytheUruguayanConsulateGeneralinRome, <#" Italy,on2May1980. "$r# 2.2.Theauthorsubmitsthaton21June1982shepresentedherselfattheUruguayan %>!% ConsulateinBarcelonaandrequestedacertificateofherUruguayancitizenshipwhichshe &$"& neededforanentryvisatoFrance.Shewasrequestedbytheconsularofficertopresenther ' #' passport,whichtheconsularofficersubsequentlyrefusedtoreturn,indicatingtoherthatthe (#( passporthadbeenwronglyissuedbecauseshefiguredon"thelists".Nofurtherexplanation )$) wasgiven.Aletterdated23June1982,whichMrs.M.M.Q.senttotheUruguayan l*%* Consulatethroughanotarypublicbyregisteredmailandinwhichsheaskedthather R+&+ passportbereturnedorawrittenexplanationgivenforitsretention,remainedunanswered. 8,',  -n(- _2.3.TheauthorclaimsthattheconfiscationofhervalidpassportbytheUruguayan  ConsulateinBarcelona,Spain,constitutedan"illegalseizure(_apropiaci;n_Ԁ_indebida_).  2.4.Sheaffirmsthattherearenodomesticremedieswhichcouldbeeffectivelypursuedin b hercase.Shealsoindicatesthatshehasnotsubmittedthesamemattertoanotherprocedure H ofinternationalinvestigationorsettlement. . ~ 3.Byitsdecisionof4October1982theWorkingGroupoftheHumanRightsCommittee  J transmittedthecommunicationunderrule91oftheprovisionalrulesofproceduretothe  0 Statepartyconcerned,requestinginformationandobservationsrelevanttothequestionof    admissibilityofthecommunication.     4.Byanotedated15March1983theStatepartyobjectstothecompetenceoftheHuman x  RightsCommitteeonthegroundthatthecommunicationdoesnotmeettherequirementsfor ^  admissibilitylaiddowninarticleIoftheOptionalProtocolasM.M.Q."isnotsubjectto D  thejurisdictionoftheStateagainstwhichsheismakingherallegations". *z  5.Inhercommentsdated20September1983theauthorrejectstheStateparty'scontention F thatthecommunicationisinadmissiblebecauseshedoesnotcomewithinitsjurisdictionin , thematterconcerned.Shemaintainsthatwithrespecttothegrantingofapassport,the  UruguayanauthoritiesarefullycompetenttoissueapassportoutsideUruguayaswellas  inside.  6.1.TheHumanRightsCommitteedoesnotaccepttheStateparty'scontentionthatitisnot Z competentdodealwiththecommunicationbecausetheauthordoesnotfulfilthe @ requirementsofarticleIoftheOptionalProtocol.Thequestionoftheissueofapassportby &v UruguaytoaUruguayannational,whereverhemaybe,isclearlyamatterwithinthe  \ jurisdictionoftheUruguayanauthoritiesandheis"subjecttothejurisdiction"ofUruguay B forthatpurpose. ( 6.2.TheCommitteefinds,onthebasisoftheinformationbeforeit,thatitisnotprecluded  byarticle5(2)(a)oftheOptionalProtocolfromconsideringthecommunication.The   Committeeisalsounabletoconcludethat,inthecircumstancesofthiscase,thereare p!  effectivedomesticremediesavailabletotheallegedvictimwhichshehasfailedtoexhaust. V"! Accordingly,theCommitteefindsthatthecommunicationisnotinadmissibleunderarticle <#" 5(2)(b)oftheOptionalProtocol. "$r# 7.TheHumanRightsCommitteethereforedecides: %>!% (1)Thatthecommunicationisadmissible; ' #' (2)That,inaccordancewitharticle4(2)oftheProtocol,theStatepartyshallberequested )$) tosubmittotheCommittee,withinsixmonthsofthedateoftransmittaltoitofthisdecision, l*%* writtenexplanationsorstatementsclarifyingthematterandtheremedy,ifany,thatmay R+&+ havebeentakenbyit; 8,',  -n(- _(3)ThattheStatepartybeinformedthatthewrittenexplanationsorstatementssubmitted  byitunderarticle4.(2)oftheProtocolmustprimarilyrelatetothesubstanceofthematter  underconsideration,andinparticularthespecificviolationsoftheCovenantallegedtohave | occurred; b (4)ThatanyexplanationsorstatementsreceivedfromtheStatepartyshallbecommunicated . ~ bytheSecretaryGeneraltotheauthorofthecommunicationunderrule93(3)ofthe  d provisionalrulesofprocedureoftheCommitteewiththerequestthatanyadditional  J observationswhichshemaywishtosubmitshouldreachtheHumanRightsCommittee,in  0 careoftheCentreforHumanRights,UnitedNationsOfficeatGeneva,withinsixweeksof    thedateoftransmittal;    (5)ThatthisdecisionbecommunicatedtotheStatepartyandtotheauthorofthe x  communication. ^  AtitstwentysixthsessiontheCommitteediscontinueditsexaminationofcommunicationNo. ` 125/1982followingthereceiptofaletterfromtheauthor,dated2December1985, F indicatingthatanewpassporthadbeenissuedtoherafterthechangeofGovernmentin , Uruguay,thatshehadreturnedtohercountry,andrequestingtheCommitteetoconsider  thecaseclosed.  */NotpreviouslypublishedintheannualreportoftheHumanRightsCommittee.