5.3 I. M.'s request for a further interview with the examining magistrate at the time he began his hunger strike was rejected by the latter on 21 August 1987. She pointed out that the accused had already been heard on three occasions and for many hours about the activities that had led to his arrest, that court proceedings were suspended for the vacation period and that, in any event, the defendant could have addressed to her, under article 35 of the prison regulations, any request or statement which he might have considered useful for his defence. I. M.' s companion, M. R. R., had been authorized to visit the defendant first by the Deputy Prosecutor and subsequently by the examining magistrate, as can be ascertained from a statement sent by her to the Attorney-General on 28 August 1987. This permission, according to the State party, was not withdrawn during the month of August; on 17 August 1987, I. M. had declined to see her because of his state of health. 5.4 The State party considers that the events described above "point to the fact that the responsibility for I. M.'s tragic end cannot be attributed to the examining magistrate, who showed herself to be responsive, in the context of her competence and in conformity with the requirements of the investigation, to the requests made by members of the prisoner's family". 5.5 The State party further adds that immediately after I. M.'s death the examining magistrate prepared and submitted a report detailing the facts of the case to the Attorney-General's office, which instituted criminal proceedings against the persons alleged to be responsible for the death of the victim. Pre-trial proceedings are currently under way, and it is submitted that they are progressing normally. 5.6 The State party recalls that the author's principal complaint relates to the fact that the victim's request for a further interview with the examining magistrate had been rejected, and emphasizes that there is no obligation on the part of the magistrate to grant such requests, and that the Code of Penal Procedure, which exhaustively regulates the circumstances and modalities of such requests (art. 190), does not provide for the possibility of an appeal. With the exception of the initial interrogation of the prisoner (articles 245 and 365 of the Penal Code) for the purpose of enabling him to respond to the charge and authorize his defence, the magistrate has no obligation to hear the accused on several occasions. On the contrary, under article 299 of the Code of Penal Procedure, the examining magistrate "has the obligation to execute promptly all - and solely - those acts which appear necessary in order to establish the truth in the light of the evidence collected and having regard to the progress of the investigation". The authorities thus enjoy discretionary power in ascertaining whether a further interrogation of the defendant is necessary. 5.7 Finally, the State party points out that the author retains the right, under article 91 of the Code of Penal Procedure, to introduce a civil action against the individuals held to be responsible for his brother's death. 6.1 Commenting on the State party's submission, the author, in a letter dated 28 September 1988, does not contest that his brother's companion, M. R. R., had been authorized by the magistrate to visit the deceased in prison, but contends that the difficulties M. E. E. encountered before she could see him either in the prison or in the hospital were solely attributable to the prison authorities. Thus, he explains that between 17 and 20 August 1987, M. E. R. was turned away under spurious pretexts at the prison gates on several occasions until, at noon on 20 August 1987, she could finally see I. M. The victim, at that time, already was confined to a wheelchair and had visible coordination problems. 6.2 In spite of her repeated requests, M. E. R. was unable to speak with the prison director or assistant director. An intervention on the part of the Spanish Consul in Milan did not produce tangible results either. On 24 August 1987, M. R. R. again asked to see her companion. In the prison's visitors' room, she was told by an inmate that I. M. was still in the prison, although in a life-threatening condition. Subsequently, a guard told her that I. M. had just been transferred to a hospital. At the hospital she was told that the magistrate's authorization to visit him was invalid and that she needed an authorization by the prison director. The director's assistant cursorily showed her a paper alleging that I. M. no longer wanted to see her, but after emphatic requests she was able to see him on 25 August 1987. I. M. did not recognize her because he was in a coma, and the doctor on duty told her that he had been transferred to the hospital much too late. The author claims that if the Assistant Director of the prison alleged that I. M. was in "good physical health", this was not only negligence but incompetence. Similarly, he contends that the doctors, both in the 59