2.13 Further submissions from the author reveal that he has continued to petition the authorities. At present, his right to access can be exercised only under supervision, as he has been unwilling to comply with the conditions imposed on him. Complaint 3. The author claims violations of! (a) Article 14, paragraph 2, because his visiting rights allegedly were refused on the mere suspicion that he might do something wrong in the future; (b) Article 14, paragraph 3(c), as the dispute dates back to August 1986 and has not been settled by the authorities five and a half years later; <c) Article 17, as the conditions imposed on him by administrative and judicial decisions constitute an unlawful interference with his privacy and family life. On account of said decisions he claims to have been subjected to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation; (d) Article 18, because if the authorities had respected its provisions, there would have been no case in the first place; (e) Articles 21 and 22, as the restrictions to which he and his son are subjected entail violations of the exercise of their rights of peaceful assembly and freedom of association; (f) Article 23; at no time did the Danish authorities try to protect the family unit; (g) Article 24, in respect of his son; (h) Article 26, which is said to follow from the violations of articles 14, paragraphs 2 and 3(c), 18, 21 and 22; (i) Article 27, which is said to follow from the violation of article 18. State party's observations and author's comments thereon 4.1 The State party explains the operation of Danish legislation governing separation of spouses, divorce, custody and access to children, and of the relevant administrative and judicial authorities. It adds preliminary comments on the author's grievances. 4.2 The State party notes that custody of the son was awarded to the mother, in compliance with Danish legislation and court practice. Accordingly, she has the exclusive right to decide on the son's personal affairs and to act on his behalf. The State party claims that the communication should be declared inadmissible ratione personae in respect of T.S., on the ground that the author has no standing under Danish law, to act on behalf of his son without the consent of the custodial parent. -398-