44 MAKARATZIS v. GREECE JUDGMENT – PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE TSATSA-NIKOLOVSKA JOINED BY JUDGE STRÁŽNICKÁ treatment, the physical and moral effects and the state of health of the victim. This leads me to conclude that there is a separate issue in this case to be considered under Article 3 of the Convention, especially as I consider that there are no elements on which this case can be assessed under Article 2 in substance or a conclusion reached beyond reasonable doubt under that provision. The Court reiterates that Article 13 of the Convention guarantees the availability at national level of a remedy to enforce the substance of the Convention rights and freedoms in whatever form they might happen to be secured in the domestic legal order. The effect of Article 13 is thus to require the provision of a domestic remedy to deal with the substance of the relevant Convention complaint and to grant appropriate relief, although Contracting States are afforded some discretion as to the manner in which they conform to their Convention obligations under this provision. The remedy required by Article 13 must be “effective” in practice as well as in law, in particular in the sense that its exercise must not be unjustifiably hindered by the acts or omissions of the authorities of the respondent State (see Kaya v. Turkey, judgment of 19 February 1998, Reports 1998-I, pp. 329-30, § 106; Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, § 96, ECHR 2002-II; Gül v. Turkey, no. 22676/93, § 100, 14 December 2000; İlhan, cited above; and McKerr v. the United Kingdom, no. 28883/95, § 107, ECHR 2001-III). Given the fundamental importance of the right to life, Article 13 requires, in addition to the payment of compensation where appropriate, a thorough and effective investigation capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible, and including effective access for the complainant to the investigation procedure (see Kaya, cited above, p. 330, § 107, and Gül, cited above, § 100). On the basis of the circumstances in the present case, in which there has been a finding of a violation of Article 2 in respect of the respondent State’s obligation to protect the applicant’s right to life by law and to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances of the incident which put the applicant’s life at risk, the authorities should make available to the victim a mechanism for establishing any liability of State agents or bodies for acts or omissions involving a breach of their rights protected by the Convention. Furthermore, in the case of a breach of Articles 2 and 3, which rank as the most fundamental provisions of the Convention, compensation for the nonpecuniary damage flowing from the breach should, in principle, be available as part of the range of redress (see Paul and Audrey Edwards, cited above). The applicant complained that, before a civil case for compensation could be brought, the responsibility of the perpetrators had to be proved in order to establish liability on the part of the State. As a result of the acquittal of the accused, the applicant could not obtain compensation for the nonpecuniary damage resulting from his injuries. He has no right of appeal