DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE DEDOV

I am in the minority in the present case because I voted against the findings of violations in the principal judgment. As regards the issue of just satisfaction, the present judgment represents, to some extent, a progressive development of the case-law providing guidance for the implementation of the principal judgment. However, the main problem remains unresolved. I regret that the Court did not allow the amount awarded in compensation to be distributed directly by the respondent Government in cooperation with the applicant Government, as should happen in the context of international relations between sovereign States. On the contrary, the Court left it exclusively to the applicant Government to create an effective mechanism for the distribution of compensation after, and not before, payment of the amount by the respondent Government. This algorithm excludes the respondent Government from any participation in the distribution and undermines the status of the Russian Federation as a member State of the Council of Europe, rendering it comparable to the status of an offender who pays a penalty to be further distributed at the discretion of the State. The national and international implementation procedure should indeed be different.

[1] . The Court has delivered individual decisions in respect o f Mrs Manana Jabelia, Mr Tengiz Togonidze and M rs Nato Shavshishvili ( see footnote no. 3 below ).

[2] . See footnote no. 3 below.

[3] . 23 applicants lodged 10 individual applications related to the case of G e orgi a v . Russi a (I) before the Cour t , which ruled as follows :

- In a judgment of 3 May 2016 the Court struck out of the list the application lodged by Mr Shakhi Kvaratskhelia and M r Shakhi Kvaratskhelia (n o. 14985/07), the father and son respectively of Mrs Manana Jabelia , following a friendly settlement reached between the applicants and the respondent Government;

- In a judgment of 20 December 2016 the Court held that there had been a violation of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, and of Article 13 taken in conjunction with Article 3, and awarded 40, 000 euros in just satisfaction concern ing the application lodged by Mrs Nino Dzidzava (n o. 16363/07), wife of Mr Tengiz Togonidze.

- With regard to the other applications, the Court grouped them together and delivered a judgment on the merits ( Berdzenishvili and Other s , no. 14594/07) on 20 December 2016. In that judgment it held tha t there had been no violation of the A rticles of the Convention relied on by Mrs Nato Shavshishvili on the ground that her complaints had not been sufficiently substantiated. With regard to the applications in respect of which the Court found a violation of the Convention, it reserved the question of the application of A rticle 41 pending the adoption of the pre sent just satisfaction judgment .