Human Rights Chamber, Human Rights Commission
|
CH/00/3468-A&M. Kovačević |
20051215 |
|
CH/01/6979-A&M. E. M. & S. T. |
20020308 |
|
CH/96/1-M Matanović |
19970711 |
|
CH/97/34-A&M. Šljivo |
19980910 |
|
CH/97/59-A&M. Rizvanović |
19980612 |
|
CH/98/1335-A&M. et al. Rizvić et al. |
20020308 |
|
CH/98/1366-A&M. V. C. |
20000309 |
|
CH/98/659 et al.-A&M. Pletilić et al. |
19990910 |
|
CH/99/2150-R Unković |
20020510 |
At the beginning, the Human Rights Chamber refrained from considering violations of rights other than those alleged explicitly in the application.3317 However, shortly afterwards, the Human Rights Chamber did not request the applicant to specify the rights under Annex 6, which the applicant alleged to have been violated, but it assessed ex officio all issues that gave raise to possible violations of rights if the applicant’s allegations contained sufficient reason for it.3318 This corresponds to the European Court’s case-law, according to which the court itself decides how it will assess the submitted facts. In doing so, the court is not bound by the view of the applicant or the State.3319
Footnotes
CH/96/1-M, paragraph 60.
CH/97/59-A&M, paragraph 53; CH/97/34-A&M, paragraph 63; CH/98/659 et al.-A&M, paragraph 188; CH/98/1366-A&M, paragraph 58; CH/01/6979-A&M, paragraph 33; CH/98/1335-A&M et al., paragraph 156; CH/99/2150-R, paragraph 83; CH/00/3468, paragraph 39.
Compare with ECtHR, Phillips v. the United Kingdom, 5 July 2001, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 2001-VII, paragraph 38.