MAKARATZIS v. GREECE JUDGMENT – PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE TSATSA-NIKOLOVSKA JOINED BY JUDGE STRÁŽNICKÁ 45 against the above-mentioned decision acquitting the police officers. The applicant argued that, owing to the lack of an effective investigation, he had also been deprived of an effective remedy regarding the breach of Article 13 of the Convention. The Government asserted that a remedy was available at domestic level, but did not submit evidence demonstrating the effectiveness of the available remedies for compensation in practice. In the instant case, the national court acquitted the seven police officers on both criminal charges brought against them, firstly on the count of causing serious bodily harm and secondly on the count of unauthorised use of weapons. The court found that the accused police officers were not the ones who had injured the applicant and that they had used their weapons to stop the car, the driver of which they considered to be dangerous. An administrative investigation was carried out by the police in respect of the twenty-nine police officers who had taken part in the chase, but the applicant had no effective access to it. Following that administrative investigation, the public prosecutor instituted criminal proceedings against only seven police officers, who were later acquitted. The applicant was accused of committing offences and sentenced to forty days’ imprisonment (see paragraphs 21-22 of the judgment). In these circumstances, it is questionable whether the applicant could prove the responsibility of the perpetrators if he were to bring a civil action for appropriate compensation. The mere fact that the applicant was able to join the proceedings as a civil party is insufficient for the purposes of Article 13. Moreover, the fact that he was unsuccessful is a further element proving that the effectiveness of this remedy is doubtful. The question now arises whether it would be enough for the purposes of Article 13 to deal only with the question of the identification of all policemen who took part in the chase and who injured the applicant. The answer for me would be “no” because another question arises in these circumstances, which is whether the authorities make available to the applicant, as a real victim, an effective mechanism for establishing the civil liability of the State agents or bodies – in this case the police officers – for the acts or omissions involving the breach of his rights under the Convention. I have in mind the majority’s finding that the State did not fulfil its obligation to protect the applicant’s right to life by law. Moreover, a right to appropriate compensation as an effective remedy for redress is relevant in a situation where no effective investigation for the purpose of Article 2 was carried out, bearing in mind that misconduct, omissions, delays and all errors made during an investigation carried out by the police, especially when the police officers are involved in the incident, could raise problems in the criminal proceedings when establishing the relevant facts and possible redress later.