CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE BONELLO

So far, after a finding by the Court that a Convention guarantee has been violated, I have consistently voted against the practice of denying the victim of that breach any non-pecuniary compensation by stating that the finding in itself constitutes just satisfaction. This I did for the reasons set down in detail in my partly dissenting opinion in “Aquilina v. Malta” (29 April 1999, 1999-3, p. 247).

My consistency aimed at underscoring a longing to place a sanitary corridor between me and what I consider an undesirable practice.

Now my point has been made, and in the interests of collegiality, judicial certainty and to avoid, where possible, fragmentation in decision-making, in similar cases in the future I will be joining the majority.

Naturally, when, in my view, the circumstances of a specific case introduce some particularly cogent reasons why non-pecuniary compensation ought to be awarded, I will make that opinion manifest.