PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE THOMASSEN

1 . I voted with the majority of the Grand Chamber on all aspects of the case, except for the finding that there had been a violation of the procedural limb of Article 2 of the Convention.

2 . To the extent that this finding is based on the inadequacy of the investigation, I disagree with the majority for the reasons set out in the join t partly dissenting opinion of J udges Costa, Bratza, Lorenzen and myself.

3 . However, I also disagree with the majority ’ s conclusion that there had been a violation of Article 2 because the investigation had not been carried out with the requisite independence.

4 . Even if I share the view that the National Police Internal Investigations Department should have taken control of the investigation sooner and the two police officers should have been separated and questioned at an earlier stage, in my opinion the question whether these deficiencies gave rise to a breach of the proce dural obligations under Article 2 should be assessed in the light of the particular circumstances of the case.

5 . As the Chamber rightly noted, there was no evidence of any collusion between the officers themselves. Furthermore, as soon as the National Police Internal Investigations Department took over, several investigative acts which had been performed by the Amsterdam/ Amstelland police force were reviewed and a further, thorough investigation carried out. This investigation enabled the Court of Appeal, an independent tribunal, to establish the facts of the case and to conclude that Officer Brons had acted in self-defence. It equally allowed the Grand Chamber to rule unanimously that Article 2 had not been violated under its substantive limb.

6 . In other words, in the particular circumstances of this case the deficiencies at issue did not have any bearing on the effectiveness of the investigation or on the Court ’ s conclusion that no substantive violation of Article 2 had occurred. Having regard to all the steps taken at the various stages of the investigation, the effectiveness of the investigation as a whole was not undermined. In my view there has not, therefore, been a violation of Article 2.

[1] . Hindustani: a Surinamese (or a member of the Surinamese immigrant community in the Netherlands ) who is descended from indentured labourers recruited from the Indian subcontinent in the nineteenth century.