CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE SPIELMANN

1. I cannot agree with the reasoning expressed in paragraph 50 of the judgment that :

“[i]n the specific circumstances of the present case, without overlooking the importance of protection from attacks on one ’ s physical integrity, the Court cannot accept the applicant ’ s arguments that her Convention rights could be secured only if the attackers were prosecuted by the State and that the Convention requires State-assisted prosecution. In this respect the Court is satisfied that in the present case domestic law afforded the applicant a possibility to pursue the prosecution of her attackers, either as a private prosecutor or as the injured party in the role of a subsidiary prosecutor , and that the Convention does not require in all cases State-assisted prosecution.”

2. The attack by the three individuals in the present case was handled by the State authorities under the problematic so-called “minor-offences proceedings”.

3. It should, however, be recalled that the applicant ’ s interview reads as follows (see paragraph 13 of the judgment):

“[The applicant] stated that at about 8 p.m. she had been verbally and physically attacked by three individuals when she had attempted to enter a flat ... The attackers had pulled her hair, hands and clothes and thrown her down the stairs from the first floor. They had also insulted her by shouting obscenities ... She further stated that they had threatened to kill her if she came back.

...

There were visible bruises and contusions on Sandra ’ s right hand and her shirt was torn at the back. She asked for medical assistance after the interview. ”

4. Her grave allegations are also summed up in paragraph 47 of the judgment:

“As to the present case, the Court notes that the applicant alleged that three individuals had confronted her in front of the flat in question and shouted obscenities at her, and one of them had kicked her several times, pulled her by her clothes and hair and thrown her down the stairs. The medical documentation shows that the applicant sustained blows to her elbow and tailbone. The Court attaches importance to the fact that the attack occurred in connection with the applicant ’ s attempt to enter a flat in respect of which she had obtained a court decision allowing her to occupy it. That decision was enforced with the assistance of the court ’ s officials only a day before the event in question. The attackers also threatened to kill her if she returned.”

5 . In the context of the particular circumstances of the case, I fail to understand how the Court could reject the applicant ’ s arguments that her Convention rights could be secured only if the attackers were prosecuted by the State . Indeed , the unacceptable behaviour of the three individuals involved not only verbal attacks including threats to life, but also very serious attacks on the physical integrity of the applicant as evidenced through medical documentation. Therefore, i n my view, the positive obligations under the Convention do require State-assisted prosecution as an effective and robust response to the alleged attacks.