PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF MR L. LOUCAIDES

                          JOINED BY

MRS J LIDDY, MM G. RESS AND A. PERENIC, MRS M. HION AND MR R. NICOLINI

     In our view, there has been a violation of Article 9 of the

Convention for the following reasons.

     According to the Commission's case-law, Article 9 para. 1 of the

Convention can be divided in two parts. The first limb of paragraph 1

guarantees a general right to freedom of religion. Under the second

limb of paragraph 1, a more specific right to change and manifest one's

religion is protected. Paragraph 2 of Article 9 only permits

limitations of the freedom to manifest one's religion. Consequently

under Article 9 para. 1, a Contracting State is obliged to respect

everyone's general freedom of religion and that right may not be

restricted (Darby v. Sweden, Comm. Report 9.5.89, para. 44, Eur. Court

HR, Series A no. 187, p. 17).

     When considering the applicant's complaints under Article 8 of

the Convention, the Commission found that it was established that the

authorities had mounted an organised operation of surveillance -

"watching" - of the applicant's life. It was also established that

domestic law provided no legal basis for the mounting of such an

operation.

     In our view, it is also established on the basis of the report

of 7 March 1993 that the reason why this operation had been mounted was

the applicant's religious beliefs. The Government have failed to

identify a legitimate public purpose which such an operation could have

served.

     We consider that an organised operation of surveillance of a

person's religious activities, because such activities are simply

considered undesirable by the State, amounts to an interference with

that persons's right to hold certain religious beliefs.

     It follows that in the circumstances of the case there has been

an interference with the applicant's general right to freedom of

religion as guaranteed in the first limb of paragraph 1 of Article 9

of the Convention. This is a right which includes the right to hold

certain religious beliefs and which may not be restricted in any way.

     We have, therefore, concluded that in the present case there has

been a violation of Article 9 of the Convention.

                                                 (Or. English)