CONCURRING OPINION OF MR L. LOUCAIDES

To the extent that the case concerns the drawing of adverse inferences from the failure of the applicant to give explanations to the police I am unable to agree with the conclusion of the majority that in this case there has been no violation of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.

I remain of the view, for the reasons set out in my dissenting opinion in the John Murray case (Application No. 18731/91, decided by the Commission on 27 June 1994, that the drawing of adverse inferences against an accused person because of his silence during the police questioning amounts to a violation of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.

I also agree with the majority that there has been a violation of Article 6 para. 1 in conjunction with para. 3(c) of the Convention as regards the applicant's lack of access to a solicitor.

(Or. English)

PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF MR G. RESS

I agree with the partly dissenting opinion of Mr Busuttil insofar as it relates to the admission of written statements and the applicant's complaints under Article 6 para. 3(d).