PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF MRS G.H. THUNE

     In the present case I have voted in favour of finding a violation

of Article 13 and no violation of Article 6.  I find myself in

agreement with Mr. Bratza that the problem raised by the applicant

mainly concerns the lack of any remedy available in Turkey which

effectively could have addressed her allegations of serious

infringements of the Convention.

     I agree with the majority that she in fact was deprived of

effective access to court due to the poor quality of the investigation

which in real terms made it impossible to substantiate a claim for

compensation.

     However, in my opinion, Article 13 calls for a remedy which

addresses the substance of the applicant's complaints of a violation

of her rights under the Convention and must in this respect be

considered to give a wider scope of protection, beyond the possibility

of making a civil claim for damages, as well as conferring a certain

choice on the part of the Government as to the appropriate methods of

redress. Further, where a functioning court structure exists and

domestic law provides, substantively and procedurally, for claims to

be made, and the failure to provide effective redress derives,

systemically, from a spectrum of official attitudes and practical

inadequacies and obstacles, it would appear that the problem should be

regarded as more wide-ranging and fundamental than a failure to provide

access to court to obtain damages.

     I would in this context stress that in my submission the rule

contained in Article 13 is of particular importance as it obliges

states to provide for remedies at national level.

     The principles contained in the Convention, supported by the case

law of the Court and the Commission require, first and foremost, that

the rights and freedoms guaranteed be applied and implemented at

national level and for this purpose national remedies providing

effective remedies are indispensable.

     The Convention organs do not, in my view, give full force to the

protective mechanism set up under the Convention if they interpret

Article 13 in a restrictive way.  For this reason I prefer finding that

there has been a violation of Article 13 and not Article 6 in the

present case although I fully endorse the reasons given for the

majority's finding a breach of Article 6.

                                                 (Or. English)