Tokens: 2
.
I
can
not
agree
with
the
Chamber
’s
approach
,
for
two
imperative
reasons
:
firstly
,
because
I
already
took
a
different
position
on
these
issues
in
my
separate
opinion
joined
to
the
judgment
delivered
in
the
Draksas
v.
Lithuania
case
on
phone
tapping
and
other
communication
interception
as
covert
surveillance
and
intelligence
gathering
measures[2
]
,
which
should
not
be
confused
with
special
investigation
techniques
in
the
criminal
-
law
field[3
]
;
secondly
,
my
opinion
in
Draksas
was
confirmed
,
in
substance
,
by
the
Grand
Chamber
in
the
above
-
mentioned
Russian
case
.
Hence
,
nothing
could
justify
my
defiance
to
the
Grand
Chamber
’s
findings
in
Roman
Zakharov
.
That
is
why
,
in
the
following
opinion
,
I
will
seek
to
defend
the
Grand
Chamber
’s
findings
and
to
deconstruct
the
present
judgment
’s
reasoning
where
it
departed
from
them
.
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