10.3 As to Darwinia Rosa Mónaco de Gallicchio's claim that her right to recognition as a person before the law was violated, the Committee notes that, although her standing to represent her granddaughter in the proceedings about the child's guardianship was denied in 1989, the courts did recognize her standing to represent her granddaughter in a number of proceedings, including her suit to declare the nullity of the adoption, and that she was granted guardianship over Ximena Vicario. While these circumstances do not raise an issue under article 16 of the Covenant, the initial denial of Mrs. Mónaco's standing effectively left Ximena Vicario without adequate representation, thereby depriving her of the protection to which she was entitled as a minor. Taken together with the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 10.5 below, the denial of Mrs. Mónaco's standing constituted a violation of article 24 of the Covenant. adopted on 11 August 1992 by the Cámara de Apelación en lo Civil y Comercial Sala II del Departamento Judicial de Morón, according to which the nullity of Ximena Vicario's adoption was affirmed. 8.2 By note verbale of 6 July 1994 the State party informed the Committee that S.S. had appealed the nullity of the adoption before the Supreme Court of the Province of Buenos Aires and that Ximena Vicario had been heard by the court. 8.3 With regard to the visiting rights initially granted to S.S. in 1989, the State party indicates that these were terminated in 1991, in conformity with the express wishes of Ximena Vicario, then a minor. 8.4 With regard to the guardianship of Ximena Vicario, which had been granted to her grandmother on 29 December 1988, the Buenos Aires Juzgado Nacional de Primera Instancia en lo Criminal y Correccional terminated the regime by decision of 15 June 1994, bearing in mind that Ms. Vicario had reached the age of 18 years. 10.4 As to Ximena Vicario's and her grandmother's right to privacy, it is evident that the abduction of Ximena Vicario, the falsification of her birth certificate and her adoption by S.S. entailed numerous acts of arbitrary and unlawful interference with their privacy and family life, in violation of article 17 of the Covenant. The same acts also constituted violations of article 23, paragraph 1, and article 24, paragraphs 1 and 2, of the Covenant. These acts, however, occurred prior to the entry into force of the Covenant and of the Optional Protocol for Argentina on 8 November 1986, See the Committee's decision on admissibility concerning communication No. 275/1988, S.E. v. Argentina, declared inadmissible ratione temporis on 26 March 1990, para. 5.3. and the Committee is not in a position ratione temporis to emit a decision in their respect. The Committee could, however, make a finding of a violation of the Covenant if the continuing effects of those violations were found themselves to constitute violations of the Covenant. The Committee notes that the grave violations of the Covenant committed by the military regime of Argentina in this case have been the subject of numerous proceedings before the courts of the State party, which have ultimately vindicated the right to privacy and family life of both Ximena Vicario and her grandmother. As to the visiting rights initially granted to S.S., the Committee observes that the competent courts of Argentina first endeavoured to determine the facts and balance the human interests of the persons involved and that in connection with those investigations a number of measures were adopted to give redress to Ximena Vicario and her grandmother, including the termination of the regime of visiting rights accorded to S.S, following the recommendations of psychologists and Ximena Vicario's own wishes. Nevertheless, these outcomes appear to have been delayed by the initial denial of 8.5 In 1993 the Federal Court issued Ximena Vicario identity papers under that name. 8.6 As to the criminal proceedings against S.S., an appeal is currently pending. 8.7 In the light of the above, the State party contends that the facts of the case do not reveal any violation of articles 16, 17, 23, 24 or 26 of the Covenant. 9.1 In her submission of 10 February 1993, the author expressed her concern over the appeal lodged by S.S. against the nullity of the adoption and contends that this uncertainty constitutes a considerable burden to herself and to Ximena Vicario. 9.2 In her submission of 3 February 1995, the author states that the Supreme Court of the Province of Buenos Aires has issued a final judgement confirming the nullity of the adoption. Examination of the merits 10.1 The Human Rights Committee has considered the merits of the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as provided for in article 5, paragraph 1, of the Optional Protocol. 10.2 With regard to an alleged violation of article 16 of the Covenant, the Committee finds that the facts before it do not sustain a finding that the State party has denied Ximena Vicario recognition as a person before the law. In fact, the courts of the State party have endeavoured to establish her identity and issued her identity papers accordingly. 50