PART 2: How to Bring a Case to the Court the Court specified that there is a genuine connection between the triggering event and the entry into force of the Convention when a significant portion of the procedural steps were or ought to be carried out after the critical date.377 In Janowiec and Others v. Russia, the Court further determined that the lapse of time between the triggering event and the critical date must remain reasonably short meaning it should not exceed ten years.378 Regarding the “Convention values” test, the Grand Chamber specified in Janowiec and Others v. Russia in October 2013 that the “required connection may be found to exist if the triggering event was of a larger dimension than an ordinary criminal offence and amounted to the negation of the very foundations of the Convention. This would be the case with serious crimes under international law, such as war crimes, genocide or crimes against humanity, in accordance with the definitions given to them in the relevant international instruments.”379 However, that retroactive application, when applying the “Convention values” test, cannot extend beyond the date of the adoption of the Convention on 4 November 1950, since “for it was only then that the Convention began its existence as an international human rights treaty.”380 Thus, the Convention could not apply to the alleged massacre committed by Soviet forces at Katyn Forest in Poland in April and May 1940 as was the subject-matter in the Janowiec case. The Court has also found that it had jurisdiction to examine a respondent State’s compliance – in the post-entry into force period – with the procedural limb of Article 3 which required it to conduct an effective investigation into police brutality,381 rape382 and ill-treatment inflicted by a private individual.383 b) Incompatibility Ratione Loci According to Article 1 of the Convention, “the High Contracting Parties shall secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in Section 1 of this Convention” and the additional Protocols. Article 1 is of the utmost importance because it defines the scope of the Convention and of the obligations of the Contracting Parties. These obligations apply, however, only to those within the jurisdiction of the Contracting Party. Accordingly, a person claiming to be the victim of a violation of the Convention must first demonstrate that he or she was within Šilih v. Slovenia [GC], no. 71463/01, 9 April 2009, § 163. Janowiec and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 55508/07 and 29520/09, 21 October 2013, § 146 Ibid., § 150. Ibid., § 151. Yatsenko v. Ukraine, no. 75345/01, 16 February 2012, § 40; Stanimirović v. Serbia, no. 26088/06, 18 October 2011, §§ 28–29. 382 P.M. v. Bulgaria, no. 49669/07, 24 January 2012, § 58. 383 Otašević v. Serbia, no. 32198/07, 5 February 2013. 377 378 379 380 381 115