PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF MRS. G.H. THUNE

      While I agree with the majority of the Commission that there has

been a violation of Articles 2 and 6 of the Convention in the present

case, I have voted against the conclusion that no separate issue arises

as regards the complaint under Article 13.

      As I understand the applicant's complaints, he does not only

allege that he was denied effective access to court in order to seek

compensation, but also that there was a lack of an independent

investigation in order to try to establish the particular circumstances

of the killing of his brother. This seems to me to raise a broader

question than the one addressed by the majority in response to the

complaint under Article 6. Although the deficiencies in the

investigation carried out in the present case are to some extent

covered by the Commission's finding of a violation of Article 2, I

still consider this aspect of the case sufficiently serious to justify

an additional finding of a violation of Article 13.

      Effective domestic remedies are, in my view, essential in order

to obtain respect for basic human rights. For this reason I find it

difficult to accept a restrictive interpretation of Article 13 of the

Convention. On this point I refer to my dissenting opinion in the case

of Sükran Aydin against Turkey (No. 23178/94, Comm. Rep. 7.3.96,

currently pending before the Court).

                                                       (Or. français)