## Facts

- Delia Saldías de López, a Uruguayan refugee in Austria, filed a communication on behalf of her husband, Sergio Rubén López Burgos, a Uruguayan trade-union leader.
- López Burgos alleged longstanding harassment by Uruguayan authorities due to union activity, including arrest in December 1974 and four months’ detention without charges.
- He left Uruguay for Argentina in May 1975 and was recognized as a political refugee by UNHCR in September 1975.
- On July 13, 1976, he was allegedly abducted in Buenos Aires by Uruguayan security and intelligence personnel aided by Argentine paramilitary groups and held secretly in Argentina for about two weeks.
- On July 26, 1976, he and other Uruguayans were allegedly transported clandestinely to Uruguay and detained incommunicado in a secret detention facility for about three months.
- He was allegedly tortured and otherwise ill-treated throughout approximately four months of detention in Argentina and Uruguay, suffering serious injuries including a broken jaw and perforated eardrums.
- The submission included detailed accounts and corroborating testimony from six former detainees who stated they were held with López Burgos in secret detention locations and later released.
- Uruguay submitted observations but did not specifically refute core allegations or demonstrate that it investigated them.

## Issues

1. Whether a state party may be held responsible under the ICCPR and the Optional Protocol for violations committed by its agents on the territory of another state.
2. Whether the alleged abduction, clandestine transfer, incommunicado detention, and torture violated ICCPR Articles 7, 9(1), 9(3), and 12(2) (and related fair-trial protections).
3. How the Committee should assess detailed, corroborated allegations when the state party does not effectively contest the facts or show an investigation.

## Decision

- The Human Rights Committee determined it was competent to consider allegations concerning acts committed in Argentina because they were allegedly perpetrated by Uruguayan agents acting abroad.
- The Committee found Uruguay responsible for violations of:
  - Article 7 (torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment).
  - Article 9(1) and 9(3) (arbitrary arrest/detention and failure to be brought promptly before a judicial authority).
  - Article 12(2) (interference with the right to leave any country, including one’s own), based on the forced cross-border abduction and transfer.
- The Committee relied on the detailed, corroborated submissions and Uruguay’s failure to refute key facts or show meaningful investigation.
- The Committee indicated Uruguay was obligated to provide an effective remedy.

## Legal Principles

- “Jurisdiction” for purposes of individual communications under the Optional Protocol concerns the relationship between the individual and the state in connection with alleged Covenant violations, not solely the location where the conduct occurred.
- Article 2(1) ICCPR does not bar responsibility for Covenant violations committed by a state’s agents on foreign territory when the state exercises authority through those agents.
- Credible, specific, and corroborated allegations may be treated as established when a state party fails to provide a substantive rebuttal or evidence of investigation.
- Incommunicado and secret detention, combined with severe mistreatment, supports findings of arbitrary detention (Article 9) and torture or prohibited ill-treatment (Article 7).
- Article 7 protections are non-derogable and remain applicable even in emergencies.

## Conclusion

The Committee held Uruguay internationally responsible for torture, arbitrary detention, and related violations arising from a transnational abduction and secret detention operation, and confirmed that Covenant obligations can apply to a state’s conduct through its agents outside its territory when the victim is subject to the state’s authority in fact.


Lopez Burgos v. Uruguay, Commc’n No. R. 12/52, U.N. Doc. A/36/40, Annex XIX, at 176 (H.R.C. 1981)