PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE DAVID THÓR BJÖRGVINSSON

I agree with the findings in relation to violations of Articles 2 and 13 of the Convention. However, I prefer to find violation of the substantive head of Article 2 on the basis of the reasoning advanced in Judge Bratza ' s concurring opinion, which I have joined. I also agree that it is not necessary to make a separate finding in respect of the complaints under Article 3. Furthermore, I can agree that there are no sufficient grounds for establishing a breach of the substantive aspect of Article 14 of the Convention.

However, I do not agree that there has been no violation of the procedural head of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 2 of the Convention.

These are my reasons:

Mr. L ' ubomír Šarišský was of Roma origin. He was 21 years old when he was shot dead in police custody. Thi s tragic event took place on 12 August 1999.

I note that paragraphs 57–63 of the judgment refer to numerous international reports of alleged police brutality in respect of persons of Roma origin in Slovakia . The reports referred to, which are all from the years 1999 – 2001, clearly show that police brutality in respect of persons of Roma origin was, at the relevant time, systemic, widespread and a serious problem in Slovakia . Still, the majority, in paragraph 1 23 , albeit concerned about these reports, comes to the conclusion that it is not persuaded that the objective evidence is sufficiently strong in itself to suggest the existence of a racist motive.

I disagree. There is, in my view, enough objective evidence to suggest the existence of a hostile racist motive. Furthermore, the persistent criticism from international bodies manifested in these reports should have alerted the authorities to the possible existence of such a motive. Thus, the authorities were, in my view, under the obligation to conduct an investigation as to whether racist motives played a part in Mr. L ' ubomír Šarišský ' s death. Since no such investigation was carried out I conclude that there has been a violation of the procedural head of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 2 of the Convention.