recreational facilities; ana that they may communicate freely with friends, their relatives and their legal representatives. Issues and proceedings before the Committee 5.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must, in accordance with rule 87 of its rules of procedure, decide whether or not it is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 5.2 During its fortieth session, the Committee considered the admissibility of the communication. It took note of the State party's observations and clarifications concerning the current status of the case before the Bolivian courts, observing that the victims were still awaiting the outcome of the proceedings instituted against them in September 1987, that is, more than three years after their arrest. In the circumstances, the Committee considered that a delay of over three years for the adjudication of the case at first instance, discounting the availability of subsequent appeals, was "unreasonably prolonged" within the meaning of article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol. From the available information, the Committee deduced that such delays as had been encountered were neither attributable to the alleged victims nor explained by the complexity of the case. It therefore concluded that the requirements of article 5, paragraph 2 (b), had been met. 5.3 The Committee considered that the communication should be examined on the merits as it appeared to raise issues under the Covenant in respect of the author's claims (a) that Mr. Fillastre and Mr. Biaouarn were not promptly informed of the charges against them; (b) that they were not promptly brought before a judge and interrogated; (c) that they were not afforded adequate facilities for the preparation of their defence and were unable to properly communicate with counsel assigned to them; (d) that they were inadequately represented during the preliminary investigation; and (e) that they were being subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment. 5.4 On 6 November 1990, therefore, the Committee declared the communication admissible in so far as it appeared to raise issues under articles 9, paragraphs 2 and 3; 10, paragraph 1; and 14, paragraph 3 (b), (c) and (d), of the Covenant. 6.1 The Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information provided by the parties, as provided for in article 5, paragraph 1, of the Optional Protocol. 6.2 With respect to the allegation of a violation of article 10 of the Covenant, the Committee observes that the author has ftot corroborated, in a manner sufficiently substantiated, her claim that the prison conditions at the penitentiary of San Pedro are inhuman and do not respect the inherent dignity of the human person. The State party has endeavoured to investigate this claim, and the findings of its commission of inquiry, which have not been refuted either by the authors or by the alleged victims, conclude that Mr. Fillastre anfl Mr. Bizouarn benefit from basic amenities during detention, including medical treatment, adequate diet, recreational facilities as well as contacts with their relatives and representatives. In the circumstances, the Committee concludes that there has been no violation of article 10. -297-