Thus, in a judgment handed down in 1975 Judgment in the case of Sieur Paris de Bollardière, 11 July 1975, the Conseil d'État had already held that the establishment of a security zone around the nuclear testing areas in the South Pacific were governmental decisions ("acte de gouvernement") which could not be dissociated from France's international relations and were not susceptible of control by national tribunals. The same considerations are applicable to the present case. Counsel further notes that the French section of Greenpeace challenged the resumption of nuclear tests before the Conseil d'État: by judgment of 29 September 1995, the Conseil d'État dismissed the complaint, on the basis of the "act of government" theory1. the Committee by letter dated 18 August 1995, so as to enable him to present his case to the European Commission of Human Rights. In his respect, therefore, the Committee discontinues consideration of his complaint. Conversely, Ms. Bordes withdrew her application to the European Commission by telefax of 17 August 1995, before any decision was adopted by the European Commission of Human Rights. Given, therefore, that the authors of the case which was before the European Commission and of the present case are not identical, the Committee need not examine whether the French reservation to article 5, paragraph 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol, applies in the present case. 5.3 In the initial communication, the authors challenge President Chirac's decision to resume nuclear underground tests on Mururoa and Fangataufa as a violation of their rights under articles 6 and 17 of the Covenant. In subsequent letters, they reformulate their claim in that the actual conduct of tests has increased the risks to their lives and for their families. 4.7 Counsel reiterates that the authors' complaints are compatible ratione materiae with articles 6 and 17 of the Covenant. As far as article 6 is concerned, she recalls that the Human Rights Committee has consistently, including in General Comment 6 [16] on article 6, argued that the right to life must not be interpreted restrictively, and that States should adopt positive measures to protect this right. In the context of examination of periodic State reports, for example, the Committee has frequently enquired into States parties' policies relating to measures to reduce infant mortality or improve life expectancy and policies relating to the protection of the environment or of public health. Counsel emphasizes that the Committee itself has stated, in its General Comment 14 [21] of 2 November 1984, that the development, testing, possession and deployment of nuclear weapons constitutes one of the most serious threats to the right to life. 5.4 The Committee has noted the State party's contention that the authors do not qualify as "victims" within the meaning of article 1 of the Optional Protocol. It recalls that for a person to claim to be a victim of a violation of a right protected by the Covenant, he or she must show either that an act or omission of a State party has already adversely affected his or her enjoyment of such right, or that there is a real threat of such result.2 5.5 The issue in the present case therefore is whether the announcement and subsequent conduct of underground nuclear tests by France on Mururoa and Fangataufa resulted in a violation of their right to life and their right to their family life, specific to Ms. Bordes and Mr. Temeharo, or presented an imminent threat to their enjoyment of such rights. The Committee observes that, on the basis of the information presented by the parties, the authors have not substantiated their claim that the conduct of nuclear tests between September 1995 and the beginning of 1996 did not place them in a position in which they could justifiably claim to be victims whose right to life and to family life was then violated or was under a real threat of violation. 4.8 As far as the authors' claim under article 17 is concerned, counsel notes that the risks to the authors' family life are real: thus, the danger that they loose a member of their family through cancer, leukaemia, ciguatera, etc., increases as long as measures are not taken to prevent the escape of radioactive material set free by the underground tests into the atmosphere and environment. This is said to constitute an unlawful interference with the authors' right to their family life. Issues and proceedings before the Committee 5.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must, in accordance with rule 87 of its rules of procedure, decide whether or not it is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 5.6 Finally, as to the authors' contention that the nuclear tests will further deteriorate the geological structure of the atolls on which the tests are carried out, further fissurate the limestone caps of the atolls, etc., and thereby increase the likelihood of an accident of catastrophic proportions, the Committee 5.2 The Committee notes that Mr. Tauira withdrew his communication from consideration by 2 1 Association Greenpeace 29 September 1995. France, judgment See, e.g., decision on communication No. 429/1990 (E.W. et al. v. the Netherlands), adopted on 8 April 1993, paragraph 6. of 18