PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF MR S. TRECHSEL

I have voted against the wording of the Commission's conclusions in paras. 303 and 304. In the present case the Commission has undertaken an investigation in order to find out whether the respondent Government could be held responsible for the death and/or any treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention inflicted upon the applicant's son. The result of the investigation was that no such responsibility was established. In such a situation it does not seem fair to me to let the original complaint open by using the formula that “no separate issue arises”. At any rate, if there had been a violation of Articles 2, 3 and 5, the former would have had priority as they are the more fundamental guarantees.

In my view, in the present case the Commission ought to have concluded that there was no violation of Articles 2 and 3.