DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE WOJTYCZEK

(Translation)

The main objections in relation to the present judgment have been expressed in the separate opinion of Judge Silvis, joined by Judges Villiger, Hirvelä, Mahoney, Kj ø lbro, Briede and myself. For my part, I would like to highlight two additional points.

1. The effective operation of the Convention mechanism presupposes a minimum of loyalty in the relationship between the Court and the parties to the proceedings. In particular, the Court must indicate with sufficient precision in its judgments and decisions the obligations to which these give rise for the parties. In the event of a unilateral declaration, in order to satisfy the requirement of legal certainty and prevent further disputes between the parties, the various obligations arising for the respondent State out of the Convention violation that has been acknowledged should be spelled out clearly in the text of the declaration. It is for the Court to ensure that the unilateral declaration observes the requisite minimum in terms of clarity and precision. In particular, in the present case, if the Court considered that the respondent State had a duty to reopen the criminal investigation, it would have been preferable for it not to accept a unilateral declaration that did not contain an express clause to that effect. Given that the Court accepted a unilateral declaration not containing such a clause, it is difficult to blame Latvia for not complying with its obligations in the present case.

2. The judgment in this case directly concerns the rights of third parties . A criminal investigation may affect the interests of a number of persons suspected by the authorities of committing an offence. Some of those suspects may be innocent. All those concerned, whether they are guilty or innocent, are entitled to have their case determined by a final decision within a reasonable time. If the obligation to carry out a criminal investigation, which flows from Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, cannot be extinguished with the passage of time and if the national authorities have a duty to reopen investigations that have been closed until such time as they satisfy all the requirements of the Convention, this could result, in a large number of cases, in innocent persons being left in a state of permanent uncertainty as to their fate, and hence in a violation of their rights under Article 6 of the Convention. I note with regret that the Court omitted to take into consideration this aspect of the case.