42 JAMES AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUGDMENT CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGES BINDSCHEDLER-ROBERT, GÖLCÜKLÜ, MATSCHER AND SPIELMANN (ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION) (art. 13) to be explained in greater detail in a future judgment, when the occasion arises. 1. As we have already pointed out, the existing legislation in most of the Contracting States supports a restrictive interpretation of the scope of Article 13 (art. 13). 2. From the wording of Article 13 (art. 13) itself, when it refers to violations committed by persons acting in an official capacity, it is also permissible to infer that this provision has primarily in mind possible violations of the Convention committed by entities belonging to the executive or the judiciary. It was reasoning along these lines which allowed us to agree with the judgment also in respect of the finding under Article 13 (art. 13). To conclude, we would stress that we are not at all convinced by the argument that it would be inconsistent with the sovereignty of Parliament if its Acts were subject to review by another national authority, since, on the one hand, as a matter of international law, there is no longer any doubt as to the State’s responsibility even for Acts passed by its legislature, and, on the other hand, the legislation of a number of States provides for judicial control of Acts of Parliament by a constitutional court.