PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF MRS G.H. THUNE

AND MR M.A. NOWICKI

We agree with the conclusion and reasoning of the majority of the Commission in respect of the issues under Articles 3, 8, 13, 14, 18 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. However, we regret that we are unable to share the view of the majority of the Commission that it is unnecessary to examine the complaint under Article 6 para. 1.

We consider that the claims which would have required determination by a court in the present case included compensation for damage to the applicant Ovat's house and property and that her civil rights within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention were therefore at issue. Indeed, the majority of the Commission does not dispute that Article 6 para. 1 applies (see para. 205 of the Report). However, whereas it is true that some of the applicant Ovat's complaints do not necessarily involve her civil rights, and may not require a full court remedy (for example the claims in relation to her witnessing the deliberate destruction by fire of her home and possessions and her forced flight from the village), it is the alleged destruction of property which forms the basis of the applicant Ovat's complaints. In these circumstances we find it unsatisfactory to examine the question of remedies solely under Article 13 of the Convention.

In our opinion, moreover, an examination of the complaint under Article 6 para. 1 would have led to the conclusion that there had been a breach of that provision for the same reasons which were applied in the Report to find a violation of Article 13.