PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE LÓPEZ GUERRA

Although I agree with the Chamber ’ s fi nding of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention based on the conditions of the applicant ’ s detention, I differ from the majority of the Chamber with respect to their finding of a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention based on the argument that the grounds stated for the Supreme Court ’ s ruling were insufficient. I do not find that the Moldovan courts failed to provide sufficient grounds for their decisions, since at three levels of jurisdiction they examined all of the criminal charges against the applicant, ruled on those charges on the basis of both the applicable law and the circumstances of the case, and provided reasons for those decisions in a non-arbitrary manner.

The applicant maintained (see paragraph 44 of the judgment) that none of the courts dealing with his case had given a clear explanation in response to several of his arguments. But as the Court has consistently held in its previous case-law, although Article 6 § 1 of the Convention obliges courts to state the reasons for their decisions, this cannot be interpreted as requiring a detailed response to each and every one of the applicant ’ s arguments (see the case-law cited in paragraph 48 of the judgment). In order to counter the charges against him, the applicant was provided with an opportunity to put forward his defence before the Moldovan courts at three levels of jurisdiction. These courts examined the applicant ’ s allegations, as evidenced by the fact that both the Chişinău Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court reduced the penalties imposed on the applicant in the previous rulings. Furthermore, when addressing the applicant ’ s allegations in a ruling that found several mitigating circumstances in his favour and reduced the penalties imposed upon him by the Chişinău Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court made express reference to the applicant ’ s objections to the lower court ’ s application of Article 329 § 1 of the Moldovan Criminal Code. However, it dismissed those objections, considering them unsubstantiated and contradicted by the material evidence, likewise broadly making reference to the facts of the case, which had, moreover, already been examined in two previous court rulings (see paragraph 11 of the Court ’ s judgment).

I consider that when the facts of a case have been sufficiently examined and evaluated in rulings by the lower courts, the higher courts are not required, in addressing a party ’ s appeal, to once again reproduce all of the facts and reasoning included in the previous rulings.

In this specific case the Supreme Court addressed each and every one of the applicant ’ s substantive complaints on appeal, reaching its decision based on the applicable law and stating its reasons, which can in no way be considered arbitrary. The succinct nature of its reasoning on several points cannot be regarded as a basis for finding a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.