Print
See related documents
Resolution 1991 (2014) Final version
Urgent need to deal with new failures to co-operate with the European Court of Human Rights
1. Recalling its Resolution 1571 (2007) on member
States’ duty to co-operate with the European Court of Human Rights
and Resolution 1788 (2011) on
preventing harm to refugees and migrants in extradition and expulsion
cases: Rule 39 indications by the European Court of Human Rights,
the Parliamentary Assembly stresses the importance of the right
of individual application to the European Court of Human Rights
(“the Court”). The protection of this right is the purpose of individual
measures indicated by the Court under Rule 39 of its Rules of Court,
which are designed to prevent the creation of a fait accompli.
2. The Assembly considers any disrespect of a legally binding
measure ordered by the Court, such as interim measures indicated
under Rule 39, as a clear disregard for the European system of protection
of human rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (ETS
No. 5, “the Convention”).
3. The Assembly therefore calls on all States Parties to the
Convention to respect the Court’s interim measures and to provide
it with all the information and evidence it requests.
4. The Assembly strongly condemns instances of outright violations
by several States Parties to the Convention (Italy, the Russian
Federation, the Slovak Republic and Turkey) of the Court’s interim
measures aimed at protecting applicants from extradition or deportation
to countries where they would be at risk of, in particular, torture,
as well as of the interim measures in relation to Russia’s military
actions in Georgia (see Georgia v. Russia
II).
5. The Assembly insists that international co-operation between
law-enforcement bodies based on regional agreements, such as the
Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, or on long-standing relations,
must not violate a State Party’s binding commitments under the Convention.
6. The Assembly is therefore particularly concerned about the
recent phenomenon, observed in the Russian Federation, of the temporary
disappearance of applicants protected by interim measures and their subsequent
reappearance in the country which had requested extradition. The
clandestine methods used indicate that the authorities had to be
aware of the illegality of such actions, which can be likened to
the practice of “extraordinary renditions” repeatedly condemned
by the Assembly.
7. The Assembly welcomes the Court’s increasing use of factual
presumptions and the reversal of the burden of proof in dealing
with refusals of States Parties to co-operate with it, which consist
in their failure to provide full, frank and fair disclosure in response
to requests by the Court for further information or evidence.
8. Regarding interim measures under Rule 39, and welcoming the
fact that the Court has begun indicating positive measures and follow-up
requirements in order to ensure the effective protection of the
rights of applicants at risk, the Assembly:
8.1. encourages the Court to be as specific as necessary in
indicating such measures and to cautiously explore the possibility
of ordering damages on the basis of Article 41 of the Convention
in case of violations of interim measures;
8.2. invites the Court to speed up, as far as possible, the
proceedings on the merits in cases in which it indicates interim
measures.