DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE KALAYDJIEVA

In declaring the application admissible, the majority noted that “ the Government did not submit any information that would undermine [the applicant ' s] allegation ” that he was “completely ignorant of the monitoring of his correspondence (with the Court)” and “consider[ed] t hat the applicant cannot be reproached for his failure to complain about what is not proven to have been within his knowledge ” (paragraph 46).

I fully agree with this conclusion and I join the majority in finding a violation of Article 8 with regard to the monitoring of the applicant ' s correspondence with the Court before 21 December 2005. This conclusion was based on the fact that a considerable number of the applicant ' s letters were opened and that some of them were accompanied by letters and summaries produced by SIZO officials as well as on the view that “ the applicable legislation ... did not indicate with reasonable clarity the scope and manner of exercise of the discretion conferred on the public authorities in respect of the monitoring of detainees ' correspondence ” (paragraph 57).

Having voted that the domestic law and practice left the applicant ' s correspondence open to interferences of which he could remain ignorant, I find myself unable to conclude whether and/or to what extent the applicant attempted to “provide documentary substantiation of his complaints under Articles 3 and 5” (see paragraph 77) and whether he was aware of the Court ' s requests for further information. In such circumstances it is not possible to exclude other occasions of interferences with the applicant ' s correspondence with the Court and/or to determine the extent or manner of such interferences. I find myself also unable to join the majority ' s satisfaction that a letter from the applicant “albeit consisting of ten pages” , opened and accompanied by a cover letter prepared by the prison authorities, which allegedly consisted of 53 pages, reached the Court without major delay. Should the Court be satisfied with such a dispatch? Following the logic of the conclusions in Article 8, there is nothing to exclude that the allegedly missing 43 pages contained the documentary substantiation of the applicant ' s complaints under Articles 3 and 5 requested by the Court. If this was so, could one conclude with certainty that there was no hindrance of the applicant ' s right to in dividual petition under Article 34? Taken together with the letter of withdrawal under alleged pressure and the subsequent restoration of the application to the list, can it be certain that the applicant was not subject to “any form of pressure” in exercising this right?