asserting that the proceedings complied with the requirements of Ecuadorian law. Article 4, paragraph 2, of the Optional Protocol enjoins a State party to investigate in good faith all the allegations of violations of the Covenant made against it and its judicial authorities, and to furnish the Committee with sufficient detail about the measures, if any, taken to remedy the situation. The dismissal of the allegations in general terms, as in the present case, does not meet the requirements of article 4, paragraph 2. In the circumstances, due weight must be given to the authors' allegations, to the extent that they have been substantiated. 5.2 Mr. Teran has claimed that he was subjected to torture and ill-treatment during detention, which included remaining shackled and blind-folded for five days; the State party dismisses this claim. The Committee notes that Mr, Teran has submitted corroborative evidence in support of his allegation; the medical report, prepared on 13 March 1986, i.e. shortly after his arrest, records haematomas and numerous skin lesions ("escorxacxones") all over his body. Moreover, the author has submitted that he was forced to sign more than 10 blank sheets of paper. In the Committee's opinion, this evidence is sufficiently compelling to justify the conclusion that he was subjected to treatment prohibited under article 7 of the Covenant, and that he was not treated with respect for the inherent dignity of his person, in violation of article 10, paragraph 1. 5.3 In respect of the authors' claim of a violation of article 9, paragraph 1, the Committee lacks sufficient evidence to the effect that Mr. Teran's arrest was arbitrary and not based on grounds established by law. On the other hand, the Committee notes that Mr. Teran was kept in detention on the basis of a second indictment, subsequently quashed, from 9 March 1987 until 18 March 1988, In the circumstances, the Committee finds that this continuation of his detention for one year following the release order of 9 March 1987 constituted illegal detention within the meaning of article 9, paragraph 1, of the Covenant. Moreover, Mr. Teran has claimed and the State party has not denied that he was kept incommunicado for five days without being brought before a judge and without having access to counsel. The Committee considers that this entails a violation of article 9, paragraph 3. 5.4 With regard to Mr. Teran's contention that the State party violated article 14, paragraph 1, of the Covenant, because he was reindicted for the same events that had been the basis of his first trial and conviction, the Committee notes that article 14, paragraph 7, proscribes re-trial or punishment for an offence for which the person has already been convicted or acquitted. In the instant case, while the second indictment concerned a specific element of the same matter examined in the initial trial, Mr. Teran was not tried or convicted a second time, since the Superior Court guashed the indictment, thus vindicating the principle of ne bis in idem. Accordingly, the Committee finds that there has been no violation of article 14, paragraph 7, of the Covenant. 6, The Human Rights Committee, acting under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Sights, is of the view that the facts before it disclose violations of articles 7, 9, paragraphs 1 and 3 and 10, paragraph 1, of the Covenant. -264-