DISSENTING OPINION OF MM. S. TRECHSEL, C.A. NØRGAARD,

              F. MARTINEZ, G. RESS AND  K. HERNDL

     We regret that we are unable to share the view of the majority of

the Commission that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the

Convention in respect of the applicant. The majority's view is based on

the assumption that the disappearance of her son could constitute inhuman

and degrading treatment in respect of herself.  Certainly, the applicant

has had no news of her son for almost three years. She fears that he is

dead and has made appeals that she should at least be given his body.

While the uncertainty, doubt and apprehension suffered by the applicant

must undoubtedly have caused her considerable mental distress, this must

be regarded as an indirect consequence of the fate of her son which the

Commission considers to constitute a violation of Article 5 (see para.

215 of the Report).  In addition the applicant's own sufferings are taken

into account in connection with the allegations of a lack of an effective

redress for the disappearance examined in the context of Article 13 of

the Convention (see paras. 220-230 of the report). We therefore believe

that no separate issue arises in the circumstances of this case.