JOINT PARTIALLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE S BOTOUCHAROVA AND MARUSTE

We agreed with the majority that there was no violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the applicant ' s detention at the Slivnitsa Investigation detention facility. However, our approach on the related applicability and, accordingly, the finding of a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention deviated from that of the majority for the following reason.

The Court has frequently stated in its case-law that Article 13 of the Convention applies only where an individual has an “arguable claim” to be the victim of a violation of a Convention right (see, for example, Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom , judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, p. 23, § 52; Voyager Limited v. Turkey (dec.), no. 35045/97, 4 September 2001; and Ivison v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 39030/97, 16 April 2002).

In view of the Court ' s finding in this case that the treatment complained of did not go beyond the threshold of severity under Article 3 of the Convention and that there was no violation of that article, we considered that the applicant did not have an “arguable claim” for the purposes of Article 13 of the Convention and that the latter provision was therefore inapplicable (see, mutatis mutandis , Halford v. the United Kingdom , judgment of 25 June 1997, Reports 1997 ‑ III, p. 1022 , § 70 and Riener v. Bulgaria , no. 46343/99, § 159, 23 May 2006 ).

Thus, we considered that the applicant ' s complaint under Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention should have been declared incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention w ithin the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and that it should have been rejected.