JOINT CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGES ZIEMELE, BERRO- LEFÈVRE AND KARAKAŞ

1. We voted with the majority in this case since as a matter of principle we agree that the ne bis in idem rule should not be invoked to justify impunity for gross human rights violations. There are indeed several important international law developments (see the “Relevant International Law Materials” part, and in particular section K) which point in the direction that gross human rights violations and serious violations of international humanitarian law should not end in amnesty, pardon or prescription. It is in this context that, on the basis of the general approach adopted by the majority, we joined them in finding that Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 is not applicable.

2. However, we would like to clarify that we would have preferred to declare that the Article in question is in principle applicable and to find on the merits of the present case that there was no violation. We have several reasons for this preference. We consider that the Court does not examine the facts of the case in the requisite detail and confines its reasoning to a very general level. In terms of the reasoning we find it disconcerting that the case is turned instead into an Articles 2 and 3 case (see paragraphs 124 et seq. of the judgment). While the principle stated by the Court is indeed fundamental and it is for that reason that we joined the majority, we wonder whether the Court should not have examined the case in its usual manner.

3. For example, it is not disputed that both sets of criminal proceedings conducted against the applicant at the national level concerned the killing of V.B. and S.B. and the serious wounding of Sl.B (see paragraph 99 and contrast with paragraph 122). It is in that connection that a preliminary question of double jeopardy may arise, and the Court should have addressed the question of the applicability of paragraph 1 of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 in detail. Furthermore, it is noteworthy that, while the Supreme Court found that the granting of amnesty to the applicant breached the General Amnesty Act, it tested itself the first and second sets of proceedings against the requirements of the ne bis in idem rule. In the first set of proceedings the applicant was de facto granted amnesty for war crimes against the civilian population, and in granting him amnesty the national courts relied on his merits as a military commander. The Supreme Court held that such application of the General Amnesty Act was wrong and contrary to its purpose. Moreover, under that Act it was not lawful to grant amnesty in respect of war crimes. However, neither the prosecuting authorities nor the County Court in the first set of proceedings made any assessment as to whether the factual background to the charges against the applicant amounted to a war crime and thus fell within the scope of this exception.

4. These facts of the case invite an examination of what exactly happened, the nature of the amnesty granted and its compliance with domestic law, interpreted in the light of the relevant international obligations. In this respect we would point out that the words “finally convicted or acquitted” may be understood in their technical sense. In the sphere of criminal law these terms concern final acquittal or final conviction after assessment of the facts of a given case and establishment of the accused ’ s guilt or innocence. In this sense a conviction is to be understood as a verdict of guilty and an acquittal as a verdict of not guilty. But it cannot be excluded that the words “finally acquitted or convicted” could be interpreted in a broader sense. After all, there are many jurisdictions and State practices. It is worthwhile referring to the Pinochet case heard in Spain. The Spanish courts, for example, interpreted the Chilean amnesty as the equivalent of a “standard acquittal for reasons of political convenience” and declared that the domestic amnesty laws (the 1978 amnesty law passed by the Pinochet regime) could not bind them.

There are decisions which might be seen as having the same legal effect as final acquittals even though they do not presuppose an assessment of the accused ’ s guilt or innocence. Amnesty is an act of erasing from legal memory some aspect of criminal conduct by an offender, often before prosecution has occurred and sometimes at later stages. One feature which is common to acquittal in the ordinary sense and amnesty is that they both amount to absolution from criminal responsibility. Compared with the discontinuance of criminal proceedings by a prosecutor (which is not in conflict with the ne bis in idem principle), amnesty may nevertheless appear to demonstrate a higher degree of presumption of guilt. We would point out in this regard that during the drafting of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the proposal was made to state clearly that acts of amnesty and pardon exclude the application of the ne bis in idem rule (see the Report of the Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, vol. 1, p. 40, para. 174 ( Proceedings of the Preparatory Committee during March-April and August 1996) UN GAOR, 51st Sess. Supp. No. 22, UN Doc. A/51/22; compare the Report of the Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, Draft Statute and Draft Final Act, Article 19, UN Doc. A/CONF . 183/2/Add.1 (1998) ( unadopted draft Article providing that ne bis in idem would not apply in cases of pardons and other measures suspending legal enforcement). While the Statute did not adopt this broad approach, it nevertheless confirms our position that the legal character of amnesty depends to a large extent on the context and the circumstances in which it is applied and that the domestic or international authorities might be confronted with questions relevant to the ne bis in idem defence. The Court decided not to engage with this issue in the present case.

5. The practice of the Inter ‑ American Court in the cases of Almonacid Arellano et al . v. Chile and La Cantuta v. Peru is also instructive. In these cases it was found that the ne bis in idem principle was not applicable where the dismissal of a case was designed to shield the accused from criminal responsibility or the proceedings were not conducted independently or impartially, or where there was no real intent to bring those responsible to justice. A domestic judgment rendered in such circumstances produced an “apparent” or “fraudulent” res judicata case, according to the Inter-American Court. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court contains an explicit exception to the ne bis in idem principle as it allows for prosecution where a person has already been acquitted in respect of the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes if the purpose of the proceedings before the other court was to shield the person concerned from criminal responsibility for crimes falling within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court ( ICC, Article 20). One could sum up by saying that today, under international law, amnesty may still be considered legitimate and therefore used so long as it is not designed to shield the individual concerned from accountability for gross human rights violations or serious violations of international humanitarian law. The next step might be an absolute prohibition of amnesty in relation to such violations. The Court ’ s decision in the case at hand may be read as already taking the approach proposed during the drafting of the ICC Statute, to the effect that where proceedings concerning gross human rights violations result in an amnesty and are followed by a second set of proceedings culminating in a conviction, the ne bis in idem issue as such does not arise.

6. Coming back to the facts of the case, the Supreme Court concluded that in the applicant ’ s case the General Amnesty Act had been applied wrongly and contrary to its purpose. On the facts of the instant case and in view of the relevant international discourse (see points 4 and 5 above) we would have preferred to say that, even assuming that the ruling granting amnesty to the applicant might in any sense be seen as a final conviction or acquittal for the purposes of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7, it was not “in accordance with the law” of the State concerned, which is the second criterion under Article 4, paragraph 1. In fact there are grounds to believe that the amnesty which was applied in the first set of proceedings indeed shielded the applicant from responsibility. Against this background and given the importance of combating any perception of impunity for grave breaches of human rights or for war crimes, we would have preferred to say that the ne bis in idem principle contain ed in Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 should not operate as a barrier to bringing individuals to justice where those individuals have been granted amnesty shielding them from responsibility, rather than closing the door by finding the provision inapplicable altogether. In our view, the Court could have contributed to a better understanding of the scope of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 by stressing that the relevant domestic law should set out the circumstances which may preclude the application of the principle of ne bis in idem and that the notion of “in accordance with the law and penal procedure” of the State concerned under Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 should be interpreted in a manner consistent with the provisions of international law (see, mutatis mutandis , Storck v. Germany , no. 61603/00, §§ 93, 99 and 148, ECHR 2005 ‑ V).

JOINT CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGES ŠIKUTA, WOJTYCZEK AND VEHABOVIĆ

(Translation)

1. We are in full agreement with the majority in finding that Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 is not applicable in the circumstances of the present case and that, accordingly, it could not have been breached. However, we cannot accept the reasoning adopted by the majority to justify the judgment given.

2. It should be noted at the outset that the remit of the European Court of Human Rights is defined by Article 19 of the Convention. The object is to ensure the observance of the engagements stemming from the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the Protocols thereto. In fulfilling this remit, the European Court of Human Rights determines whether or not the actions and omissions attributable to the States Parties and criticised by the applicants are compatible with the Convention and its Protocols. The aim is therefore to assess, from the standpoint of the Convention and its Protocols, facts which occurred in the past, either at a particular juncture or over a specific period. It is clear that those facts must be assessed in the light of the law in force at the time of their occurrence. A State cannot be held responsible for breaches of international rules that were not in force in respect of that State at the time of the facts imputed to it.

It should be stressed that the remit of the European Court of Human Rights differs from that of a number of other international courts which may be called upon to determine not just inter-State cases concerning facts occurring in the past, but also disputes arising out of factual situations that are ongoing while the case is being examined. In the latter situation, if there are no specific rules limiting its jurisdiction ratione temporis or ratione materiae , it may fall to the international court in question to assess the continuing situation from the viewpoint of the international law applicable at the time the judgment is delivered and to give a ruling on the basis of all the relevant international rules in force at that time.

3. Articles 31 to 33 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties codify the customary rules for the interpretation of treaties. The first rule of interpretation of international treaties is codified in Article 31 § 1 of the Vienna Convention, which reads as follows: “A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose. ” According to these rules, the starting - point for interpretation in each case is an analysis of the text of the provision being interpreted. The interpretation process must begin with an attempt to establish the ordinary meaning of the terms used. The person interpreting the treaty must also take into account all the authentic versions thereof.

The text of the treaty, in all its authentic versions, must be read with reference to the “internal” context and in the light of the object and purpose of the treaty. The “internal” context encompasses not only the full text, including the preamble and the annexes, but also any agreements entered into by all the parties relating to the treaty and any instruments drawn up by one or more of the parties, and accepted by the other parties, at the time of its conclusion.

The interpreter must also take account of the “external” context, which encompasses subsequent agreements regarding the interpretation or application of the treaty, subsequent practice and any relevant rule of international law applicable in relations between the parties. Lastly, as a subsidiary point, recourse may be had to supplementary means of interpretation such as the preparatory materials and the circumstances in which the treaty was concluded.

While the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties gives no indication as to the point in time that should be identified for the purposes of establishing the “external” rules of international law to be taken into consideration, it is clear that, in examining past events from the standpoint of the version of the treaty in force at the time of their occurrence, the external context comprises the relevant rules of international law in force at the time of the events. Hence, in addressing the question whether past actions or omissions imputable to a State are compatible with the Convention, the latter must be considered in the context of the relevant rules of international law applicable at the time when the actions or omissions occurred.

4. Nowadays, the interpretation of a treaty in the context of the relevant rules of international law throws up major issues stemming from the dynamic nature of international law. Not only is international law evolving very rapidly; in many spheres, that evolution is also constantly gathering pace. Actions and omissions of the State authorities which would have fully complied with international law in the past may now be in breach of that law. This ontological characteristic of international law gives rise to a fundamental epistemological difficulty: establishing the rules of international law applicable in the past at a particular juncture or over a specific period may create problems which even the most eminent specialists in international law struggle to overcome.

In such a situation, the interpretation and application of the Convention in the context of the relevant rules of international law represent a formidable challenge for the European Court of Human Rights. Given the increasing pace at which international law, which forms the external context for the Convention, is evolving, the interpretation of this international instrument, and especially the way in which the Convention is applied, may also be subject to rapid change. Hence, the actions carried out by a State at a particular juncture in the past may have been compatible with the Convention interpreted in the light of the international law in force at that time, whereas similar actions carried out a number of years later may be deemed contrary to the Convention, interpreted in the light of the rules of international law at that later point in time.

5. It should be noted that in the present case the Court was called upon to assess facts that had occurred a number of years previously. An amnesty law was enacted in Croatia in 1996 and applied to the applicant on 24 June 1997. A new set of proceedings was instituted in 2006 and the applicant was given a final conviction in 2007.

The applicant challenged the compatibility with the Convention and its Protocols of the Croatian authorities ’ actions between 2006 and 2007. The Convention violation alleged by the applicant took place in 2006 and 2007 with the resumption of the criminal proceedings and the applicant ’ s conviction. In view of the specific nature of the complaint, it must be assessed in the light of the ruling of the Osijek County Court of 24 June 1997 applying the Amnesty Act enacted in 1996. Hence, the Court had to examine a series of events taking place over a period of more than ten years. It should also be borne in mind that the Convention came into force in respect of Croatia on 5 November 1997 and that Protocol No. 7 came into force in respect of that State on 1 February 1998. The Amnesty Act was enacted and came into force prior to both those dates, and the alleged breach of the Convention occurred subsequently.

6. We note that, in the present case, the majority did not endeavour to analyse the meaning of the text of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 or to define its scope as determined by the choice of terms used by the High Contracting Parties. On the other hand, it directly highlighted the internal context by analysing the content of the obligations arising out of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, and the external context consisting of a substantial package of international treaties concerning human rights and humanitarian law and of the decisions of the bodies responsible for applying those treaties.

The majority ’ s analysis of this external context prompted it to assert that there was a growing tendency in international law to regard amnesties for acts amounting to grave breaches of human rights as unacceptable. It concluded that Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 did not act as a bar to proceedings brought on the basis of the obligations under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention and the requirements of other international instruments. The line of argument followed suggests that the judicial ruling applying the 1996 Amnesty Act fell within the scope of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7, but that the obligation to prosecute deriving from other provisions of the Convention rendered that Article inapplicable in the present case. According to this logic the Convention, interpreted in the light of the relevant international law, required Croatia to prosecute the applicant for war crimes notwithstanding the court ruling given in his ca se on 24 June 1997, and Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 did not stand in the way of his prosecution. The majority ’ s reasoning implies that, in the case under consideration, there was a conflict between the obligation to prosecute and the obligations arising out of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7, and that the former took precedence over the latter.

7. The approach taken by the majority raises two fundamental methodological objections. Firstly, it omits any attempt to establish the meaning of the terms used. This method of interpretation disregards the applicable rules set out below.

Secondly, the majority examined the state of international law in 2014 and assessed events which occurred in 1996 and 1997 and in 2006 and 2007 in the light of the law applicable at the time of delivery of the judgment, without examining how the law had evolved over that period. However, in undertaking an examination of the relevant rules of international law concerning amnesty it is necessary to consider the evolution of those rules over the relevant period (1996-2007) and the principles governing the temporal scope of those rules.

While the question whether international law in 2014 prohibits amnesties in cases of grave breaches of human rights is an important one as regards the protection of those rights, it remains irrelevant to the present case. However, if, as suggested by the majority, the crux of the issue lies in the external context of the treaty, two questions need to be answered in establishing that context:

( i ) Was the 1996 Amnesty Act contrary to international law as it applied to Croatia in 1996?

( ii ) Did any rule of international law applicable to Croatia exist in 2006 and 2007 requiring that State to annul retroactively the effects of the 1996 Amnesty Act?

In seeking to answer these questions, it should be borne in mind that most of the decisions by international courts or other international bodies cited in the judgment were issued after 1997 and, in many cases, after 2007. Only three of the documents relied on pre-date 1997: the report of the Inter ‑ American Commission on Human Rights of 24 September 1992 in Case 10.287 ( El Salvador ), the report of the same Commission dated 11 February 1994 on the situation of human rights in El Salvador (Doc. OEA/ Ser.L / V/ II.85) and General Comment No. 20 of the United Nations Human Rights Committee on Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

It should also be noted that the first two of these documents were prepared in the context of the inter-American human rights protection system, which has a number of distinctive features. The solutions adopted under that system are not necessarily transposable to other regional human rights protection systems. The Human Rights Committee, for its part, declined in 1992 to adopt a categorical position, simply stating the view that amnesties were generally incompatible with the duty of States to investigate acts of torture. Furthermore, none of the international materials cited clearly articulates a rule of international law requiring States unconditionally to annul retroactively the effects of amnesty laws enacted and applied in the past.

At the time the Amnesty Act was enacted in 1996, Croatia was not bound by the Convention. The question whether the Amnesty Act was compatible with the Convention is therefore devoid of purpose. Furthermore, while various conventions to which Croatia is party require certain types of grave breaches of human rights to be prosecuted, it has not been demonstrated that they completely preclude amnesty. As the majority itself recognised, no treaty explicitly prohibits the granting of amnesty in respect of grave breaches of fundamental human rights.

Furthermore, while international law does not exclude retroactive convention-based or customary rules, these are the exception. Article 28 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties states that, u nless a different intention appears from the treaty or is otherwise established, its provisions do not bind a party in relation to any act or fact which took place or any situation which ceased to exist before the date of the entry into force of the treaty with respect to that party. Likewise, a customary rule may have retroactive effect if its content is clear on that point. No element of relevance for the interpretation of the Convention suggests that Articles 2 and 3 require the retroactive setting-aside of final judicial decisions which applied amnesty laws and were handed down prior to ratification of this treaty by the State Party concerned. Nor has it been demonstrated that in 2006 and 2007 any other rule of international law applicable to Croatia required that State to annul retroactively the effects of final judicial rulings applying the 1996 Amnesty Act.

In sum, the Croatian 1996 Amnesty Act could not have been in breach of the Convention, which Croatia ratified subsequently. The Convention, interpreted in the light of the relevant rules of international law, did not require the retroactive annulment of the effects of final judicial rulings applying the 1996 Amnesty Act. Against this background, if – as argued by the majority – the answer to the question whether Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 is applicable depends on the external and internal context of that provision, the logical conclusion is that the provision in question is indeed applicable in the present case and that the other rules stemming from the Convention or other international instruments do not provide grounds for setting aside the ruling issued by the Osijek County Court on 24 June 1997 in the applicant ’ s case. If we follow the approach taken by the majority, we should conclude that there has been a violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7.

8. We should point out at this juncture that the state of international law in 1997 was summarised in a letter from the Head of the Legal Division of the International Committee of the Red Cross as follows:

“The ‘ travaux préparatoires ’ of Article 6(5) [of the 1977 Additional Protocol II] indicate that this provision aims at encouraging amnesty, i.e., a sort of release at the end of hostilities. It does not aim at an amnesty for those having violated international humanitarian law ... Anyway States did not accept any rule in Protocol II obliging them to criminalize its violations ... Conversely, one cannot either affirm that international humanitarian law absolutely excludes any amnesty including persons having committed violations of international humanitarian law, as long as the principle that those having committed grave breaches have to be either prosecuted or extradited is not voided of its substance.” (ICRC, Letter from the Head of the ICRC Legal Division to the Department of Law at the University of California and the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, 15 April 1997, http://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul_rule159 ).

It should furt her be noted that international - law commentators are divided on the issue of amnesties. While many authors adopt a stance in favour of recognising a blanket ban on amnesties for grave breaches of human rights, a significant number of reputable authors defend the opposite point of view.

There is no doubt that international law is evolving rapidly and imposes ever tighter regulations on States ’ freedom with regard to amnesties. States have considerably less freedom of manoeuvre nowadays (in 2014) than in 2006 and, a fortiori , 1996. At the same time, stating that international law in 2014 completely prohibits amnesties in cases of grave breaches of human rights does not reflect the current state of international law. A study of the international instruments, decisions and documents referred to by the majority demonstrates that the view expressed by the Head of the ICRC Legal Division in the letter cited above has retained its relevance in 2014.

9. We share fully the majority ’ s concern to ensure the highest possible standard of human rights protection, and agree that violations of human rights must not go unpunished. We are equally aware of the potentially perverse effects of amnesty laws that are passed in order to guarantee impunity to the perpetrators of such violations. Nevertheless, we also note that world history teaches us the need to observe the utmost caution and humility in this sphere. Different countries have devised widely varying approaches enabling them to put grave human rights violations behind them and restore democracy and the rule of law.

The adoption of international rules imposing a blanket ban on amnesties in cases of grave violations of human rights is liable, in some circumstances, to reduce the effectiveness of human rights protection. The third-party intervener submitted solid arguments against recognising the existence of a rule of international law prohibiting amnesties completely in cases of human rights violations. We must acknowledge that in certain circumstances there may be practical arguments in favour of an amnesty that encompasses some grave human rights violations. We cannot rule out the possibility that such an amnesty might in some instances serve as a tool enabling an armed conflict or a political regime that violates human rights to be brought to an end more swiftly, thereby preventing further violations in the future. In any event, as we see it, the concern to ensure effective protection of human rights points in favour of allowing the States concerned a certain margin of manoeuvre in this sphere, in order to allow the different parties to conflicts engendering grave human rights violations to find the most appropriate solutions.

10. As stated above, the starting - point for any interpretation is an analysis of the meaning of the terms used. It should be stressed in this regard that the scope of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 is defined in the following terms: “ acquitté ou condamné par un jugement definitif ” in the French version and “finally acquitted or convicted” in English. This provision is applicable only in the case of a conviction or acquittal. The scope of the provision being interpreted is quite narrow, as it excludes all other judicial decisions which terminate the criminal proceedings by one means or another.

In establishing the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms used, their meaning in everyday language needs to be examined, even if it is not always easy to delineate them precisely for the purposes of applying the Convention. There are no grounds for finding that the various terms used in the Convention and its Protocols in relation to States ’ domestic legal arrangements are to be understood in the technical sense attributed to them in the legal systems of the French and English-speaking countries. On the contrary, such an interpretation would not only lend undue importance to certain legal systems but could also create insoluble problems.

According to the Petit Robert dictionary, the French word “ acquitter ”, used in the context of criminal proceedings, means “ déclarer par arrêt (un accusé ) non coupable ” (Petit Robert, Paris 2012, p. 27). The New Oxford Dictionary of English explains the meaning of the English word “acquittal” as follows: “a judgment or verdict that a person is not guilty of the crime of which they have been charged” (New Oxford Dictionary of English, London 1998, p. 16). In both languages, therefore, the concept of acquittal refers to a decision on the merits determining the issue of the accused ’ s guilt. All final judicial decisions which terminate the proceedings without finding the accused guilty or not guilty therefore remain outside the scope of the provision being interpreted.

Amnesty laws in the various legal systems may differ very widely in terms of their content and the arrangements for implementation. It is not unthinkable for an amnesty law to be enacted whose application is predicated on a prior finding of guilt in respect of the persons granted amnesty. That was not the thrust of the 1996 Act in Croatia. It is clear that the ruling given by the Osijek County Court on 24 June 1997 in the applicant ’ s case did not find him innocent. That ruling does not correspond to any of the categories of judicial decisions covered by the provision under consideration. It is beyond doubt that Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 is not applicable in the present case.

The meaning of the provision in question is clear and can be established unequivocally on the basis of the rule laid down in Article 31 § 1 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, without any need to refer to the external context.

11. Although judicial decisions terminating criminal proceedings without ruling on the person ’ s guilt do not come within the scope of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7, the decision to overrule or set aside a decision applying an amnesty law may nevertheless raise significant issues in terms of human rights protection.

A State based on the rule of law must comply with a certain number of substantive standards. These include the right to a court and legal certainty. The right to a court encompasses the right to a final judicial decision given within a reasonable time and also presupposes the stability of the various decisions terminating criminal proceedings even if they do not fall within the scope of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7. Article 6 of the Convention secures to any person facing criminal charges the right to obtain a final judicial decision on his or her case within a reasonable time, and protects the stability of final decisions while allowing some exceptions in this sphere. In any event, a person who has obtained a final judicial decision terminating criminal proceedings can legitimately expect the stability of that decision to be respected unless there are compelling reasons for it to be set aside or for the proceedings to be reopened.

In the present case the applicant had obtained a final judicial ruling applying the Amnesty Act. He therefore had a legitimate expectation that this ruling would remain in force and be complied with. Moreover, the resumption of the proceedings came about in 2006, that is to say, almost nine years after the date of the ruling applying the Amnesty Act. Hence, the entire proceedings were drawn out to the point of raising doubts from the perspective of the right to a final judgment within a reasonable time.

However, it should be noted that the applicant ’ s legitimate expectation was not unconditional. An individual who has obtained a judicial ruling that is contrary to the law in force must be prepared for it to be rectified by means of an extraordinary remedy. In such a situation, the standards of the rule of law require that the various competing values be weighed against each other, in particular legal certainty on the one hand and respect for lawfulness and justice on the other. Furthermore, the need to uphold the law and justice may require proceedings to be resumed or reopened even where a relatively long period of time has elapsed since the first final ruling. In the specific circumstances of the case under consideration, and particularly in view of the nature and seriousness of the crimes committed, there is no doubt that all the criteria for reactivating the proceedings against the applicant were met and that the Croatian authorities did not breach the requirements laid down by the Convention and the additional Protocols.

12. The present case raises a particularly important issue in terms of human rights protection. The significance of the issue called for an unfailingly rigorous methodological approach. We regret that the majority did not see fit to proceed in this manner.