| Guiding principle: |
The Court held: unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights concerning the killing of the applicants husband; by six votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article 2 concerning the lack of an effective investigation into the killing; unanimously, that there had been no violation of Articles 3 (prohibition of degrading treatment), no violation of Article 8 (right to respect for family life) and no violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination); by six votes to one, that there has been a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) concerning the complaints raised under Article 2; unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 13 concerning the complaints raised under Articles 3, 8 and 14; unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 34 (right of individual petition); unanimously, that it was not necessary to examine whether there had been a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression); unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 11 (freedom of assembly). |