A new Strasbourg approach to the legal consequences of interim measures

Human Rights Law Review

Volumn 5, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 377-386

  Mowbray, Alastair ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 30744458861     PISSN: 14617781     EISSN: 17441021     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/hrlr/ngi023     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Judgment of 4 February 2005, Application nos 46827/99 and 46951/99. All the Court's judgments are available at: www.echr.coe.int.
2. Under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. This provides that: '(1) The Chamber or, where appropriate, its President may, at the request of a party or of any other person concerned, or of its own motion, indicate to the parties any interim measure which it considers should be adopted in the interests of the parties or of the proper conduct of the proceedings before it. (2) Notice of these measures shall be given to the Committee of Ministers. (3) The Chamber may request information from the parties on any matter connected with the implementation of any interim measure it has indicated.'
3. Mamatkulov had been sentenced to 20 years' imprisonment and Askarov to 11 years' imprisonment.
4. This provides for the right of individual applications to the Court. It states, '...The High Contracting Parties undertake not to hinder in any way the effective exercise of this right.'
5. Mamatkulov and Abdurasulovic v Turkey, Judgment of 6 February 2003, Application nos 46827/99 and 46951/99, at paras 110-1.
6. Under Article 43 of the Convention.
7. Under Article 36(2) of the Convention.
8. A 161 (1989);
9. (1989) 11 EHRR 439, and see Mowbray, Cases & Materials on the European Convention on Human Rights (London: Butterworths, 2001) at 110.
10. Supra n. 1 at para. 94.
11. A 201 (1991);
12. (1991) 14 EHRR 1.
13. Including Kurt v Turkey 1998-III 1192
14. (1999) 27 EHRR 373.
15. The first-tier Strasbourg institution under the pre-Protocol 11 enforcement system, see Mowbray supra n. 8 at 1.
16. Supra n. 1 at para. 103.
17. Ibid. at para. 104.
18. Right to life.
19. Prohibition of torture, cruel, in human or degrading treatment or punishment.
20. Right to respect for private and family life.
21. For example, in Ilascu and Others v Moldova and Russia, (2005) 40 EHRR 46, where the President 'urged' one of the applicants/detainees to end his hunger strike. The applicant complied on the same day.
22. Supra n. 10.
23. Glen Ashby v Trinidad and Tobago (580/94), CCPR/C/74/D/580/1994 (2002);
24. (2002) 9 IHRR 906.
25. Orders concerning provisional measures given in 1999 in James et al. v Trinidad and Tobago, Order of the Court, 25 May 1999, 27 May 1999, and 25 September 1999, IACtHR Series E 2 (1999).
26. LaGrand (Germany v United States of America), Judgment, ICJ Reports 2001, 3.
27. Supra n. 1 at paras 118-9.
28. 2002-I 93
29. (2002) 34 EHRR 1298.
30. Supra n. 1 at para. 120.
31. For example in Christine Goodwin v UK ECHR 2002-VI 1
32. (2002) 35 EHRR 18.
33. Supra n. 1, Concurring Opinion of Judge Cabral Barreto.
34. Supra n. 1, Joint Partly Dissenting Opinion of Judges Caflisch, Turmen and Klover at para. 1.
35. Ibid. at para. 6.
36. Ibid. at paras 11-2.
37. Supra n. 10 at para. 95.
38. See Mowbray, 'Protocol 14 to the European Convention on Human Rights and Recent Strasbourg Cases', (2004) 4 Human Rights Law Review 331.
39. Supra n. 28 at para. 25.
40. Judges Bratza, Bonello and Hedigan dissented.
41. Judge Rozakis joined Judges Bratza, Bonello and Hedigan on this point.
42. From, amongst others, its former Registrar Golsong, see Golsong, 'Interpreting the ECHR beyond the Confines of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties', in Macdonald, Matscher and Petzold (eds), The European System for the Protection of Human Rights (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, 1993) 147.
43. In Loizidou v Turkey (Preliminary Objections) A 310 (1995);
44. (1995) 20 EHRR 99.
45. On this topic see Mowbray, 'The Creativity of the European Court of Human Rights', (2005) 5 Human Rights Law Review 57.