PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE SPIELMANN

I voted against point 8 of the operative part because I am of the opinion that the applicant ’ s request for an investigation in line with Convention standards (see paragraph 122) should have been granted by the Court under Article 41 of the Convention.

This request concerns an investigation into the circumstances of the applicant ’ s wounding. In paragraph 90 of the judgment, the Court notes with great regret that although the applicant made an extremely serious complaint – about an attack on a group of civilians using what they had perceived as a safe route away from the fighting – a number of elements in the documents submitted from the investigation file, taken together, produce a strong impression of a series of serious and unexplained failures to act.

In paragraphs 91 to 95, the Court identifies multiple shortcomings in the investigation, leading to the conclusion that the authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances of the attack on the applicant on 23 January 2000 (see paragraph 97).

I am of the opinion that many of these shortcomings (for example those which concern the insufficient gathering of information about the operations and the persons involved or about the announcement of the “safe passage” (see paragraphs 91 and 92)) might still be redressed in the particular circumstances of this case if an investigation were conducted even after so many years.

Article 41 empowers the Court to afford the injured party such satisfaction as appears to it to be appropriate .

It would therefore have been preferable to grant the applicant ’ s request.