1 The Rapporteur is much indebted to the comments given by the Venice Commission (21 March 2000), Rapporteur Mr Pieter van Dijk, and by the President of the Court, Mr Luzius Wildhaber (28 March 2000) on the text of his introductory memorandum (7 January 2000). These comments are reproduced in Appendices I and II.

2 The Commission ceased to operate on 31 October 1999. It remains for the Committee of Ministers to examine the last Commission cases referred to it, under the former Article 32 of the Convention, after the expiry of a period of three months. This work is likely to be completed by summer 2000.

3 With the exception of Ireland and the United Kingdom. Incorporation of the Convention into United Kingdom law is, however, at an advanced stage. The necessary legislation has been passed and will come into force once judges have received the necessary training. In Ireland, a bill has just been adopted.

4 On 8 June 2000, the House of Representatives amended the Criminal Code to bring it into conformity with the judgment of the Court and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

5 See the Vermeire v. Belgium judgment of 29 November 1991, Series A no. 214-C, pp. 82-83 §§ 25-26.

6 In the former supervisory system, prior to the entry into force of Protocol No. XI, for cases where the decision on the merits was taken by the Committee of Ministers instead of the Court, Article 32, paragraph 3, provided as follows: "If the High Contracting Party concerned has not taken satisfactory measures within the prescribed period, the Committee of Ministers shall decide by the majority provided for in paragraph 1 above what effect shall be given to its original decision and shall publish the report". A similar power has not been provided for in relation to judgments of the Court.

7 See H. Petzold, "The Convention and the Principle of Subsidiarity", in: R.St.J. Macdonald, F. Matscher & H. Petzold (eds), The European System for the Protection of Human Rights, Dordrecht etc. 1993, pp. 41-62.

8        See P. Leuprecht, "The Execution of Judgments and Decisions", in Macdonald a.o., supra, pp. 791-800 at pp. 792-793.

9        See D.J. Harris, M. O'Boyle & C. Warbrick, Law of the European Convention on Human Rights, London etc. 1995, pp. 701-702.

10 See the Marckx v. Belgium judgment of 13 June 1979, Series A no. 31, p. 25 § 58. In contrast, see Article 63, paragraph 1, of the American Convention on Human Rights.

11 See P. van Dijk & G.J.H. van Hoof, Theory and Practice of the European Convention on Human Rights, 3d ed. The Hague etc. 1998, p. 259.

12 See the Vermeire v. Belgium judgment of 29 November 1991, Series A no. 214-C, pp. 82-83 §§ 25-26.

13 See S.K. Martens, "Individual Complaints under Article 53 of the European Convention on Human Rights", in: R. Lawson & M. de Blois, The Dynamics of the Protection of Human Rights in Europe; Essays in Honour of Henry G. Schermers, Dordrecht etc. 1994, pp. 253-292.

14 For the Netherlands, see T. Barkhuysen, M. van Emmerik & P.H. van Kempen (eds), The Execution of Strasbourg and Geneva Human Rights Decisions in the National Legal Order, The Hague etc. 1999, pp. 223-355. For the situation in some other Member States of the Council of Europe, see ibidem, pp. 115-182.

15 See the Pelladoah v. the Netherlands judgment of 22 September 1994, Series A no. 297-B, p. 36 § 44.

16        See E. Myjer, "To be revised? Revision of res judicata sentences in Dutch criminal cases", in: Barkhuysen a.o., supra, pp. 243-253 at p. 250.

17        In the former supervisory system, prior to the entry into force of Protocol No. XI, for cases where the decision on the merits was taken by the Committee of Ministers instead of the Court, Article 32, paragraph 3, provided as follows: "If the High Contracting Party concerned has not taken satisfactory measures within the prescribed period, the Committee of Ministers shall decide by the majority provided for in paragraph 1 above what effect shall be given to its original decision and shall publish the report". A similar power has not been provided for in relation to judgments of the Court.

18        Not yet officially published; § 21.

19 See for example Belgian Linguistic case, judgment of 23 July 1968, Series A no. 6, p. 35, § 10.