CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE BONELLO

1. I welcome the fact that, in this case, the Court has, for the first time in its history, found a violation of the guarantee against racist discrimination contained in Article 14, together with Article 2, which protects the right to life. This judgement goes a long way to meet the concerns raised in my partly dissenting opinions in Anguelova v. Bulgaria (no. 38361/97, ECHR 2002 ‑ IV) and Sevtap VeznedaroÄŸlu v. Turkey (no. 32357/96, 11 April 2000 ). I greet it as a giant step forward that does the Court proud.

2. It is manifest from the wording of the judgement that the Court, in finding a violation of Article 14 taken together with Article 2, recognised a violation of both the procedural guarantee (failure to conduct a proper investigation into the death of the two Romas , because they were Romas ) and of the substantive guarantee (failure by the Government to establish to the satisfaction of the Court, non-racist motives in the killings).

3. I voted with the Court without reservation on that finding; but I believe that the logic and cogency of the judgement would have benefited had the procedural and the substantive aspects been segregated and determined separately, with distinct findings of violation (or otherwise).

4. That is precisely what the Court does when dealing with Article 2 and 3 issues, and I believe the same template should equally be used when the analysis goes to Article 14 taken together with Articles 2 or 3. In those cases the Court investigates the state's responsibility in the death or inhuman treatment etc, and, separately, whether the state has discharged its responsibility in investigating properly a death or an allegation of conduct contrary to Article 3 (vide, e.g., AktaÅŸ v. Turkey , no. 24351/94, ECHR 2003 ‑ V (extracts), §§ 294, 295, 307, 308, 319, 320, 322 and 323).

5. Like the Court, I find that in this case the state's responsibility is engaged both by the fact that no proper investigations were carried out following the two deaths, as also by the failure of the state to satisfy the Court of the absence of racist concomitants in the killings. The Court ought, in my view, to have expressed this double judgement in separate findings of two violations: procedural and substantive.