PARTIALLY DISSENTING OPINION OF MRS. G.H. THUNE

     I agree with the majority that there has been a breach of

Article 5 para. 1 of the Convention.

     As regards Article 3 of the Convention I have voted against

finding a violation for the reasons expressed by Mr. Bratza in his

partially dissenting opinion which I share.

     I also agree with Mr. Bratza that there has been no violation of

Article 8 of the Convention. My reasons, however, are slightly

different:

     In the case of X and Y against the Netherlands the Court

expressed the view that the notion of "private life" is a broad one

covering the physical as well as the moral integrity of a person

(Series A no. 91, p. 11, para. 22). This notion cannot, however, be so

construed that any interference with physical integrity which does not

attain the level of severity required for a finding of a violation of

Article 3 more or less automatically is considered to be an

interference with a right guaranteed by Article 8 which would need to

be justified under para. 2 of that provision. This interpretation of

the Convention is supported by the Court's judgement in the Costello-

Roberts case, where Article 3 was found to be "the first point of

reference for examining a case concerning disiplinary measures in a

school" (Series A no. 247-C, pp. 60-61, para. 36). The punishment of

the small boy in question was not considered to have such adverse

effects on his physical or moral integrity as to bring it within the

scope of the protection afforded by Article 8.

     Following this approach, it seems to me that the answer to the

question whether or not an allegation of interference with physical or

moral integrity comes within the ambit of Article 8 must depend on the

circumstances in casu.

     In the present case the applicant's allegation under Article 8

refers to handcuffing during his transportation in a military police

vehicle. The Government have admitted that this measure was unnecessary

due to the applicant's peaceful behaviour and understandably he himself

considers that the handcuffing was an  excessively severe measure. The

question still remains, however, whether this suffices for concluding

that the applicant's private life within the meaning of Article 8 para.

1 was affected. In my view this question must be answered in the

negative.

     When the handcuffing took place, the applicant was already in the

hands of the military police. His unlawful arrest had in itself

repercussions on his private life and is also the basis for the

Commission's finding of a violation of Article 5 para. 1 of the

Convention.

     I find it difficult to see that the particular circumstances of

the applicant's arrest could, in addition to being examined under

Article 5, be considered as an interference with his private life which

calls for justification under Article 8 para. 2. Accordingly, I

conclude that there has been no separate violation of Article 8.

                                                  (Or. English)