DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE JEBENS, JOINED BY JUDGE KOVLER

I respectfully disagree with the majority that there has been a violation of Article 3 in this case, due to lack of adequate medical assistance to the applicant. In my view, the authorities took all steps that can be reasonably expected by them, in order to provide the applicant with medical treatment.

1. The applicant alleges that radical treatment of his tumour became impossible due to the authorities ' failure to conduct such treatment in good time. This is, in my opinion not supported by the facts of the case. Though radical treatment was recommended in 2001 and 2002, but was ruled out by the doctors in 2003 and 2004, it appears that the different answers to this complex question were caused by conflicting opinions by the doctors, not by the fact that too much time had passed. I would like to note in this respect, firstly, that a relatively short period of time elapsed between the last report recommending surgery, issued in May 2002, and the first report not recommending it, issued in February 2003. Though it is not inconceivable that this period could have been critical for the development of the applicant ' s condition, there are no medical reports to support that argument. Secondly, the first report of 2001 only recommended radical treatment subject to the tomography and angiogr aphy reports. The opinion of 27 March 2004 also stated that a decision on the possibility of surgical treatment of the tumour could only be made after angiography had been performed. The reports of August and November 2004, which ruled out radical treatment, were therefore based on more complete and accurate information concerning the applicant ' s condition.

2. Given the complex and rare nature of the applicant ' s condition, it is understandable that the methods for its treatment could be subject to different medical opinions, especially in view of the results of medical test s which were not available to the doctors who had recommended radical treatment. Thus, the domestic authorities were confronted with conflicting medical opinions as to the applicant ' s treatment, of which the most recent one ruled out radical surgery. The question to be discussed is whether the authorities took all necessary steps in order to ensure that the applicant received adequate treatment.

3. Having obtained medical opinions recommending surgery, the authorities went on to arrange the test s prescribed by the doctors. Furthermore, they convened a special medical council, the SMK, to decide on the applicant ' s early release. The SMK found, however, that the applicant ' s condition did not fall into the category of illnesses that constituted grounds for such release. I have no reason to con test this finding. Subsequently the authorities were presented with medical opinions that stated that surgical treatment was not recommended, because it posed a threat to the applicant ' s life. However, even after these opinions were issued, the authorities continued to take measures to investigate the feasibility of radical treatment. They contacted several civilian medical institutions in this regard, but all of them refused to accept the applicant for treatment, due to lack of adequate technical facilities and qualified staff.

4. Although the applicant argued that the authorities had refused to place him in a civilian hospital for surgery, he did not present documents containing the consent of a particular medical institution to conduct such medical intervention. Furthermore, none of the doctors who examined the applicant, including those who reco mmended the radical treatment, provided any recommendations as to where it could be conducted.

5. Concluding, I note firstly that the authorities provided the applicant with numerous medical examinations and conducted conservative treatment of his disease. Secondly, they took all necessary steps which could realistically be expected, in order to clarify whether the applicant could be given radical treatment, and to facilitate it practically. The authorities acted adequately and with reasonable speediness. I therefore find it untenable to conclude that there has been a violation of Article 3.