DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE HAJIYEV

I respectfully disagree with the majority that there has been no violation of Article 7 of the Convention.

The reason for my disagreement is my understanding of the fundamental principle concerning application of the criminal law in time and space, which is similar in most legal systems.

Thus, as can be seen from the facts of the present case, the decision of the Ukrainian Constitutional Court to abolish the death penalty as a punishment under the criminal law of the country was not, unfortunately, accompanied by an indication that this decision would take effect at the same time as the legislative amendments made pursuant to a decision of the Ukrainian Parl iament concerning the question.

The resulting gap of almost three months created a situation in which the most severe penalty existing in the criminal law of the country w as fifteen years ’ imprisonment.

In my opinion, it was a reasonable submission on the part of the applicant that in the absence of the death penalty during the transitional period and before introduction of the life imprisonment the national courts had to apply to his case the only punishment existing under the relevant provision, which wa s fifteen years ’ imprisonment.

The applicant ’ s position is based on a general principle of criminal law, according to which interim law providing for a more lenient penalty shall be applied unconditionally. This clear principle has been violated in the present case and I have therefore decided to disagree with the majority.