JOINT DISSENTING OPINION O F JUDGE S HAJIYEV AND DEDOV

We regret that we cannot share the view of the majority that there has been a violation of Article 8. The general idea of the judgment in these cases is that , while the State is authorised to regulate the funeral ceremon ies, it should not overstep its margin of appreciation , in order to ensure respect for relatives ’ rights to participate in such ceremon ies, and should not limit th ose right s automatically , without an individualised approach. However, as state d by the Russian Constitutional Court ( see paragraph 125 of the judgment ) and also confirmed by the Court as a basis for the legitimate aim ( see paragraphs 214-216 ) , there exists a risk of further violence. Once the location and date of th e ceremony have been disclosed, it is extremely difficult or even impossible for the State to avoid completely such a risk , engendered by stress and hatred. In such a situation of uncertainty it is hard for the State to determine whether and where it “ overstepped ” its margin of appreciation.

Th us , the measure proposed by the Court would be proportional only if it were to be proved (it is not) that the Article 8 right in question is more important than the rights of others to live , and to live in peace. The importance of the right in question is undermined by the fact that the terrorists waived their social obligation to maintain peace and left their homes to wage war - and not merely war, but a war against civilians - and that terrorists usually sacrifice their own bodies in their attacks ; the applicants must accept this from the very outset, and thus they must adjust their expectations in the light of the dramatic consequences incurred by society as a whole .