Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights: A Practitioner’s Handbook prior to the entry into force of the Convention in respect of a Contracting Party, but which continues after the entry into force of the Convention owing to the consequences of the original act,371 then the Court will have jurisdiction to examine the complaint. A continuing Article 3 violation was for instance found in the case of Moldovan and Others v. Romania. This case was related to the destruction of houses and belongings of Romanian citizens of Roma origin by police officers. Although the destruction had taken place before Romania ratified the Convention and the application with regard to property rights was therefore inadmissible ratione temporis, the Court did find on going suffering that amounted to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.372 The Court reasoned that following this incident, having been hounded from their village and homes, the applicants had to live, and some of them still live, in crowded and improper conditions – cellars, hen-houses, stables, etc. – and frequently changed address, moving in with friends or family in extremely overcrowded conditions.373 Continuing violations of Article 3 of the Convention involving events that occurred before the Convention was in force are often discussed in the context of procedural obligations. In other words, the Court can find a violation of the procedural limb of Article 3 if the authorities did not carry out effective investigations into acts that occurred prior to the entry into force of the Convention. Two notable examples in this context are Šilih v. Slovenia and Janowiec and Others v. Russia, in which the Court found that the duty to conduct an effective investigation into acts contrary to Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention,374 “had evolved into a separate and autonomous duty.”375 The Court circumscribed the so-called Šilih-criteria as follows: Firstly, where the death occurred before the critical date, the Court’s temporal jurisdiction will extend only to the procedural acts or omissions in the period subsequent to that date. Secondly, the procedural obligation will come into effect only if there was a “genuine connection” between the death as the triggering event and the entry into force of the Convention. Thirdly, a connection which is not “genuine” may nonetheless be sufficient to establish the Court’s jurisdiction if it is needed to ensure that the guarantees and the underlying values of the Convention are protected in a real and effective way.376 This statement reveals that there are two criteria to be fulfilled: the “genuine connection” criterion and the “Convention value” criterion. With regard to the former, 371 372 373 374 375 376 114 Peter van Dijk and Godefridus J. H. van Hoof, Theory and Practice of the European Convention on Human Rights, Kluwer Law International, 1998, p. 11. Ibid., §§ 104–114. Moldovan and Others v. Romania (No. 2), nos. 41138/98 and 64320/01, 12 July 2005, § 103. See generally Juliet Chevalier-Watts, “Effective Investigations under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights: Securing the Right to Life or an Onerous Burden on a State?”, in European Journal of International Law, vol. 21, 2010, pp. 701–721. Janowiec and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 55508/07 and 29520/09, 21 October 2013, § 132. Ibid., § 141, with reference to Šilih v. Slovenia [GC], no. 71463/01, 9 April 2009, §§ 162–163.