PARTLY DISSSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE KOVLER

I share the conclusions of the Chamber except on one point, concerning the finding that there has been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the second to seventh applicants (the wife and children of Bekhan Velkhiyev).

According to the account of the circumstances of the case given in the judgment, “[t]he servicemen forced the children into a corner between two houses in the yard and held them there at gunpoint” ( § 11) . The wife was also an eyewitness to the search of the house and the abduction of her husband, and a day later buried him in the family cemetery. I do not agree that the situation of “disappeared persons” can be automatically applied in this case. The scope of the present case differs substantially from cases where the “disappeared person” test was applied (see Kurt v. Turkey , 25 May 1998, §§ 13 0-134, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-III; Gongadze v. Ukraine , no. 34056/02, § 184-196, ECHR 2005-XI; and Luluyev and Others v. Russia , no. 69480/01, §§ 116-118, ECHR 2006 ‑ XIII ). The finding of a substantive violation of Article 2 of the Convention does not cover, to my mind, the mental suffering of the above ‑ mentioned applicants, close relatives of Bekhan Velkhiyev. It is difficult to imagine that the loss of a close relative in the tragic circumstances of this case cannot form the basis for finding a separate violation of Article 3 of the Convention.