KLASS v. GERMANYDISSENTING OPINION BY Mr. L. LOUCAIDES

Doc ref: • ECHR ID:

Document date: May 21, 1992

Doc ref: • ECHR ID:

Document date: May 21, 1992

Cited paragraphs only

DISSENTING OPINION BY MM. F. MARTINEZ AND J.-C. GEUS

We consider that, in respect of the second applicant, there was

no violation of Article 8 of the Convention for the reasons indicated

in the dissenting opinion of Mr. Nørgaard and others.

DISSENTING OPINION BY Mr. L. LOUCAIDES

I am unable to agree with the conclusion of the majority that

there has been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect

of the second applicant.

I believe that a complainant can be considered a victim of

inhuman treatment not only as a result of acts directed against him

personally, but also as a result of acts directed against somebody

else, but which have immediate adverse effects on the complainant

himself of such severity as to cause him suffering amounting to inhuman

treatment.

This is what, in my opinion, has happened in the case of the

second applicant.

The use of violence of the kind described in the Commission's

Report by two policemen against the mother of the second applicant, an

eight year old girl, the only other person present, must inevitably

have caused severe suffering to her. In the circumstances of the case

this amounted in my opinion to inhuman treatment. The suffering was

a foreseeable and immediate consequence of the arbitrary acts of the

two policemen who at the time knew of the presence of the second

applicant.

Therefore I also find a breach of Article 3 in respect of the

second applicant and voted against finding a violation of Article 8 of

the Convention as no separate issue arises under this provision.

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant