L. Communication Ho. 381/1989, L.E.S.K. v. the Netherlands (decision of 21 July 1992, adopted at the forty-fifth session) Submitted by: L.E.S.K. (name deleted) Alleged victim: The author State party: The Netherlands Date of communication: 28 July 1988 (initial submission) The Human Rights Committee, established under article 28 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Meeting on 21 July 1992, Adopts the following: Decision on admissibility 1. The author of the communication (initial submission dated 28 July 1988 and subsequent submissions) is L.E.S.K., a citizen of the Netherlands currently residing in France. She claims to be the victim of a violation by the Netherlands of articles 2, paragraph 3 (a); 14, paragraph 1; 17, paragraph 1; 18; 19; 23, paragraph 4; and 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Eights. Facts as submitted by the author 2.1 The author, an illustrator and a painter, was married in 1972. She and her husband were members of the board of the "Stichting Verbindingsgroep 2000-3000", a foundation pursuing ideal and mystical aims, which had been founded by the author's father. At present she is living in the French section of this foundation, which is a self-supporting community. 2.2 On 15 February 1978 the author's husband filed a petition for divorce or judicial separation. In reply, the author denied that the marriage had irrevocably broken down, claiming subsidiarily that the marital dispute was mainly the fault of her husband, whom she suspected had filed for divorce in order to force her to sell their residence, and thus enable him to start his own business in Amsterdam. She filed a counter-petition, requesting maintenance in the event that either one of her husband's claims was granted. 2.3 On 9 October 1980, the District Court of Zutphen prounouned the divorce and dismissed the author's application for maintenance. The Court accepted the argument of "irrevocable breakdown" of the marriage, after the author had stated that she no longer opposed the divorce. The Court also inferred from her statement that she no longer opposed the petition on the ground that her husband was primarily responsible for the breakdown; under Netherlands divorce law, this defence may defeat a divorce petition. 2.4 By interlocutory judgement of 2 December 1981, the Court of Appeal of Arnhem upheld the decision of the district Court to the extent it had pronounced the divorce and determined the reasons leading to it. It considered that, from the point of view of both parties, the breakdown of -374-