Tokens: This
line
of
argument
is
at
odds
with
the
Convention
’s
direct
effect
in
the
legal
order
of
the
respondent
State
,
the
principle
of
subsidiarity
and
the
principle
of
interpretation
of
human
rights
treaties
in
a
way
which
is
most
protective
of
the
rights
and
freedoms
which
they
foresee[34
]
.
Since
the
Convention
is
applied
directly
in
the
domestic
State
,
and
violations
of
it
must
primarily
be
resolved
by
the
national
authorities
,
there
should
be
provision
for
compensation
for
victims
of
Convention
breaches
,
even
when
domestic
law
has
not
been
violated
.
The
argument
of
unforeseeability
does
not
stand
,
in
so
far
as
the
Convention
is
part
of
national
law
and
therefore
the
grounds
for
compensation
deriving
from
the
Court
’s
case
-
law
are
predictable
.
The
Court
’s
interpretation
of
the
Convention
regarding
grounds
for
compensation
for
breaches
of
Convention
rights
is
as
binding
for
national
courts
as
the
rest
of
the
Court
’s
case
-
law
,
and
should
therefore
be
implemented
by
the
national
courts
whenever
national
law
fails
to
provide
such
compensation
.
In
addition
,
if
damages
awarded
for
a
State
’s
violations
of
the
Convention
are
predictable
,
even
where
there
are
no
specific
provisions
on
civil
liability
in
national
law
,
as
the
Swedish
Supreme
Court
correctly
admits
,
the
same
applies
to
awards
for
violations
perpetrated
by
individuals
who
are
not
State
agents
,
such
as
the
one
in
this
case[35
]
.
In
such
a
case
,
the
State
would
be
neglecting
its
obligations
to
protect
Convention
rights
if
it
did
not
ensure
a
means
of
civil
redress
in
circumstances
where
no
criminal
sanctions
were
applicable
despite
the
ethical
censurability
and
the
reprehensibility
under
international
customary
and
treaty
law
of
the
conduct
.
To
put
it
positively
,
whenever
criminal
remedies
are
lacking
for
such
conduct
committed
by
individuals
who
are
not
State
agents
,
the
Contracting
Parties
to
the
Convention
should
nonetheless
provide
for
civil
remedies
.
An
obligation
is
placed
upon
the
State
to
provide
for
an
effective
civil
remedy
to
deal
with
the
substance
of
an
“
arguable
complaint
”
of
a
breach
of
the
Convention
,
in
accordance
with
Article
13
in
conjunction
with
Article
8
,
not
upon
the
individuals
themselves
.
Hence
,
the
domestic
courts
failed
to
repair
the
applicant
’s
injury
,
in
spite
of
the
available
civil
-
law
remedy
based
solely
on
the
Convention
.
Labels: O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O