CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGES BINDSCHEDLER-ROBERT, PINHEIRO FARINHA,

PETTITI, SIR VINCENT EVANS, MACDONALD, CARRILLO SALCEDO AND VALTICOS

The Court has noted in paragraph 91 of its judgment that Lisa Eriksson

was never formally a party to the proceedings relating to the

prohibition on removal.  Nevertheless her interests were directly

affected by those proceedings and could not be assumed to be

consistent with those of any of the other parties involved.  This is a

consideration relevant to the fairness of the proceedings on the part

of Lisa.  It appears that under Swedish law a special guardian could

have been appointed to protect her separate interests (see

paragraph 44 of the Court's judgment).  There is no evidence that this

procedure was followed in the present case.  No complaint in this

respect has been made on her behalf before the Court.  In our opinion,

however, the appointment of a special guardian would appear to have

been an appropriate and desirable step in the circumstances of the

case.