inadmissible under article 5, paragraph 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol, on the ground that the communication submitted to the Committee on this occasion concerns exactly the same matter as was submitted by the same person to the European Court of Human Rights. It adds that the inadmissibility decision by the European Court in this matter was not a mere formality, but was reached after a genuine examination of the merits, since the Court examined the nature of the right claimed by Mr. Sampedro when he was alive, i.e. the right to assisted suicide without criminal repercussions. popularis. For that reason, it refused her the right to pursue the action, considering the complaint incompatible ratione personae. 5.2 The author is of the opinion that the European Court only examined the merits of the case in respect of the complaint concerning the undue length of the proceedings; with regard to her other arguments, she observes that, according to the Committee’s jurisprudence,2 a matter declared inadmissible by the European Court on grounds of form is not a matter “examined” within the meaning of article 5, paragraph 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol. She adds that the European Court further did not examine the complaint concerning the right to freedom. 4.2 According to the State party, the author of the communication wishes the Committee to review the decision on the merits previously adopted by another international body, and to find, contrary to the decision of the European Court of Human Rights, that “the right to die with dignity” or “assisted suicide without criminal repercussions” requested by Mr. Sampedro before his voluntary death is not an eminently personal or non-transferable right. It adds that the Spanish Constitutional Court was unable to take a decision on the matter because of the voluntary death of Mr. Sampedro, which caused the abatement of the amparo proceedings. 5.3 The author asserts that she is not exercising an actio popularis since she is the successor of the victim who died without reparation or response as to the merits of his case. She adds that she was denied the right to continue the case initiated by Ramón Sampedro during his lifetime by an arbitrary decision of the Constitutional Court. 5.4 The author maintains that article 9, paragraph 7, of the Civil Procedure Act permits, without exceptions, the continuation of proceedings on the death of the complainant if the heir comes to court with a new power of attorney, as happened in her case. Under article 661 of the Civil Code, “the heirs succeed the deceased solely as a result of his death in respect of all his rights and obligations”. 4.3 The State party recalls that Ramón Sampedro’s heir has expressly asserted that he “died with dignity”, that no one has been or is currently being prosecuted or charged for assisting him to commit suicide, and that the criminal proceedings initiated have been dismissed. In the State party’s view, the author’s complaint is pointless since it is neither legally nor scientifically possible to recognize a dead person’s right to die. 5.5 Article 4 of Organization Act No. 1/1982 clearly states: “The exercise of actions for the civil protection of the honour, privacy or image of the deceased is incumbent on the person who has been designated by him for that purpose in his will”. In the case of Mr. Sampedro, a violation of the right of privacy, in relation to his private life, has been argued. 4.4 In its observations dated 13 April 2002, the State party maintains that the author is exercising an actio popularis by claiming that the so-called right “to die with dignity” should be pronounced in respect not of herself but of a deceased person. It adds that the author’s claims distort the rights recognized in the Covenant. It affirms that, according to the judgement of the European Court in the Pretty v. United Kingdom case,1 the right to life could not, without a distortion of language, be interpreted as conferring the diametrically opposite right, namely, a right to die, whether at the hands of a third person or with the assistance of a public authority. 5.6 The author asserts that the Constitutional Court is applying unequal jurisprudence as regards the authorization of the continuation mortis causa of her status as complainant, since while she as heir of Ramón Sampedro was denied continuity, in judgement No. 116/2001 of 21 May 2001 the same chamber of the Court granted procedural continuity to the heir of a complainant who died during proceedings concerning an appeal against a measure providing for suspension of union militancy. The chamber handed down the decision in this regard despite the “eminently personal” nature of the case. 5.1 In her written statement dated 11 July 2002, the author maintains that the European Court did not examine the merits of the case but, on the contrary, emphasized that the prime complaint concerning the State’s interference in Ramón Sampedro’s decision to die in peace was not examined, since it considered that his heir and sister-in-law was exercising an actio 1 5.7 The author points out that the Committee has accepted the continuation of the proceedings by the heir of a complainant who died in the course of the 2 She quotes communications Nos. 808/1998, Georg Rogl v. Germany, and 716/1996, Dietmar Pauger v. Germany. Judgement 2346/02 of 29 April 2002. 37