PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE SPIELMANN

I voted against point 13 of the operative part because I am of the opinion that the applicant ’ s request for an investigation in line with Convention standards (see paragraph 142 of the judgment) should have been granted by the Court under Article 41 of the Convention.

This request concerns an investigation into the disappearance of Mr Adam Medov. In paragraph 112 of the judgment, the Court finds that the authorities failed to carry out an effective criminal investigation into the circumstances surrounding the disappearance of Mr Adam Medov, in breach of Article 2 in its procedural aspect.

In paragraphs 105 to 111, the Court identifies multiple shortcomings in the investigation.

I am of the opinion that many of these shortcomings (for example those relating to the failure to question Mr B. (paragraph 106) and to the information about the numerous requests or other measures (paragraph 107) might still be redressed in the particular circumstances of this case if an investigation were conducted even after so many years.

Article 41 empowers the Court to afford the injured party such satisfaction as appears to it to be appropriate .

It would therefore have been preferable to grant the applicant ’ s request.

[1] There is clearly a clerical error in the date of the detention.