PARTIALLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE RAIMONDI

I agree with the majority that in this case there has been a breach of Article 3 of the Convention, and that no separate issue arises from the complaints submitted under Articles 2 and 13 of the Convention, but I cannot join the further conclusion that a distinct violation of the same Article 3 in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention is to be found.

My position is linked to the reasons leading me to find a violation of Article 3. In fact, these reasons do not correspond entirely to those of the majority.

Like the majority, I consider that the injuries suffered by the applicant, consisting mostly of numerous cuts, combined with his feelings of fear and helplessness, were sufficiently serious to amount to ill-treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention.

I also consider with the majority that credible allegations of repeated criminal attacks were made by the applicant, whose physical integrity had been seriously put in danger, and that the response of the authorities did not reach the level of adequateness of the investigation required by the jurisprudence of the Court.

In fact, the same authorities of the concerned High Contracting Party admitted that the police had not acted with the necessary diligence (see paragraph 53 of the judgment).

I do not agree, however, with the majority that the activities of the police amounted to “little more than a pro forma investigation”. In my view on all the relevant occasions (in 2001, 2005, 2006 an 2007), the police made serious attempts to investigate the allegations made by the applicant, even though these attempts did not reach the required level of promptness and reasonable expedition. As the majority recognizes “the respondent State ' s authorities took many steps and encountered significant objective difficulties, including the applicant ' s somewhat vague descriptions of the attackers as well as the apparent lack of eyewitnesses” (paragraph 90 of the judgment).

I do not concur, furthermore, with the criticism expressed by the majority on the fact that “no video or other surveillance was ever put in place in the vicinity of the flat where the incidents had occurred, no police stakeout seems to have even been contemplated, and the applicant was never offered protection by a special security detail which might have deterred his future assailants” (paragraph 89 of the judgment). In my view imposing these measures would result in a disproportionate burden for the authorities.

To me, the fact that the police considered the possibility that the applicant ' s injuries may have been self-inflicted (see paragraphs 64 and 88 of the judgment) does not necessarily show a discriminatory attitude of the authorities.

The police took into account the alleged religiously motivated nature of the attacks. With the respondent Government, I find that the allegations of religious motivation behind the relevant incidents have been checked. In particular in 2005 they apparently visited several locations in an attempt to “identify” the organisation called “ Srpski vitezovi ” which, according to the applicant, was responsible for the attacks.

For these reasons, I do not find a separate violation of Article 3 combined with Article 14 of the Convention.