introduced as part of the evidence. She reiterates that the relevant passage from the letter influenced the course of proceedings to her detriment. Although the author does not specify which articles she considers to have been violated with respect to this part of her complaint, it would appear from the above that she invokes violations of article 14, paragraph 1, and article 17, paragraph 1, of the Covenant. 3.2 Furthermore, the author complains that the conjugal residence was illegally sold on 15 June 1978 with the collaboration of the notary and registration officer, both of whom were civil servants. The author notes that the house was sold without even her knowledge, much less her approval, and even before the divorce was pronounced. From the context of her submission, it transpires that the author deems this to be a violation of article 2, paragraph 3 (a), and article 23, paragraph 4, of the Covenant. 3.3 Finally, the author submits that her right to freedom of article 19, as well as her right to freedom of conviction and article 18, was violated, because the Netherlands courts held marriage had irrevocably broken down merely on account of the diverging convictions of life. expression under religion under that the spouses' State party's observations 4.1 The State party notes that, although the author has not appealed to the Supreme Court against the interlocutory judgement of 27 February 1985 or the final judgement of 13 November 1985 of the Court of Appeal, it does not challege the admissibility on the ground that the domestic remedies have not been exhausted. It explains that, once all of the author's appeals had been dismissed, her lawyer advised her not to appeal against the dismissal of her application for maintenance, because he saw no merit in her case. 4.2 In relation to the issue of whether the author's representative violated his code of conduct by aisclosing the contents of private correspondence, the State party outlines the provisons of the Code of Civil Procedure governing the "desaveu procedure". It notes that, although the legal representative cannot be held responsible, the author could have filed a complaint under the Counsel Act IAdvonatenwet). which provides for disciplinary measures against legal representatives. Furthermore, the State party notes that it cannot be held responsible for the actions of a legal representative. Accordingly, it considers that this part of the communication should be declared inadmissible ratione personae pursuant to article 3 of the Optional Protocol, in so far as it is directed against a private individual. 4.3 The State party submits that both of the author's appeals to the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court were dismissed since L.E.S.K. herself did not insist on the defence of denial of irrevocable breakdown of marriage. Since the irrevocable breakdown of the marriage was a fact at the moment of abandoning the conjugal residence, the contents of her letter of 20 August 1980 were totally irrelevant to the course of the proceedings. 4.4 Moreover, the State party contends that the author's separate complaints are unsubstantiated, that the facts do not disclose any violations of any of the rights protected by the Covenant, and that this part of the communication should be declared inadmissible pursuant to article 2 of the Optional Protocol. -376-