CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE SPIELMANN

1. I agree in all respects with the Court ’ s conclusions as to the violation of Article 6 § 3 (d) taken together with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

2. I would, however, have liked the reasoning set out in paragraph 219 of the judgment, on account of its importance, to have been included in the operative provisions as well.

3. I believe, for the reasons set out in my concurring opinion, joined by my colleague Judge Malinverni, appended to the Vladimir Romanov v. Russia judgment (24 July 2008, no. 41461/02), that where, as in the present case, the respondent State has equipped itself with a review procedure, it is the Court ’ s duty not only to note the existence of such a procedure, as it does in paragraph 219 of the judgment, but also to urge the authorities to make use of it, provided, of course, that the applicant so wishes.

However, this is not legally possible un less such an exhortation appears in the operative provisions of the judgment.