DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE WOJTYCZEK

1 . I expressed my opinion on the temporal scope of the application of the Convention in my separate opinions appended to the judgments in the cases of Janowiec and Others v. Russia [GC] (nos. 55508/07 and 29520/09 , 21 October 2013 ) and Mocanu and Others v. Romania ([GC], nos. 10865/09, 45886/07 and 32431/08, 17 September 2014) . In these two separate opinions I explained in detail why, in my view, the Convention does not impose on High Contracting Parties the obligation to investigate events which pre-dated the entry into force of that instrument in respect of individual States. I maintain my position on this legal issue.

2 . The events, which the applicants said had not been properly investigated, had taken place before the entry into force of the Convention in respect of Romania. The obligation to investigate events pre-dating the entry into force of the Convention was established by the judgment in the case of Å ilih v. Slovenia [GC] (no. 71463/01, 9 April 2009) . Before that date the High Contracting Parties could not have expected to have to answer under the Convention for not properly investigating events which had taken place prior to the entry into force of that instrument in respect of them.

3 . Finding a violation of the Convention is tantamount to attributing to a State the international responsibility for non-compliance with a treaty obligation. In my own assessment, the conditions for holding Romania responsible for a violation of the obligations stemming from the Convention were not met in the instant case.

[1] . Rectified on 6 June 2016 ; the text was “Elena Liliana BUTNARU”

[2] . Rectified on 22 March 2016 ; the text was “ 02/01/1952 ”

[3] . Rectified on 22 March 2016 ; the text was “ Gabriela Simina BIRBOR Ă ”