Alireza Ebrahimgol; Seyed Ahmad Tabatabaei Lotfi; Hasan Khosroshahi
Abstract
UN Human Rights Treaty Bodies play an essential role in the promotion of State parties’ compliance with international human rights treaties, through examination of complaints filed pursuant to individual communications procedure. These bodies, despite of their quasi-judicial function, are ...
Read More
UN Human Rights Treaty Bodies play an essential role in the promotion of State parties’ compliance with international human rights treaties, through examination of complaints filed pursuant to individual communications procedure. These bodies, despite of their quasi-judicial function, are allowed to request interim measures in order to preserve the rights of the individuals claiming of being violated until the final views on the relevant communications are adopted. Whereas, final views adopted by Treaty Bodies are not per se binding and considering the lacuna in their founding instruments and rules of procedure, it is to be seen whether or not interim measures requested by these Bodies could be considered as having a binding force. In the present article, the legal nature of interim measures issued by the UN Human Rights Treaty Bodies is reviewed in light of legal doctrine and the jurisprudence of the said Bodies.
Mehryar Dashab
Abstract
The European Court of Human Rights whose main mission is to consider individual and States petitions in case of the violation of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and its additional protocols, based on the applicant’s request or at its own discretion, tries by indicating ...
Read More
The European Court of Human Rights whose main mission is to consider individual and States petitions in case of the violation of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and its additional protocols, based on the applicant’s request or at its own discretion, tries by indicating interim measures to prevent States actions that might inflict serious and irreparable damage to the applicants. This competence is not specifically enshrined in the Convention, however, it is recognized in article 39 of the rules of the Court. This article, by reviewing the Court’s case-law, investigates to what extent the Court invokes this jurisdiction and whether the interim measures entail enforcement mechanism. The findings of this article show that the Court is using interim measures in an exceptional manner to prevent the violation of articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Furthermore, due to the fact that the enforcement of interim measures is not expressly recognized in the Convention or the rules of the Court, the court by its judgments and with referring to article 34 of the European Convention, endeavors to establish an effective enforcement.
