Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Politics of Interim Measures in International Human Rights Law

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Urgency and Human Rights

  • 422 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter scrutinises the discomfort of states in accepting legally binding urgent measures, granted by international and regional tribunals or committees. The unwillingness of states to accept the binding power of interim measures, and the questioning of their legitimacy, can be seen on a judicial level as well as on a political level. Firstly, the legal challenges to the binding nature of interim measures are considered. Secondly, on the political level, this chapter discusses the inter-governmental negotiations about treaty reform and the creation of new rules of procedure. The European Court of Human Rights and the United Nations treaty bodies serve as the main examples, but one section concerns the developments in the Inter-American system, where a Special Working Group was set up to reflect on this topic.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    ICJ LaGrand (Germany v USA) ICJ, Judgment of 27 June 2001, ICJ Reports 2008, p. 466.

  2. 2.

    HRCtee Piandiong v. the Philippines, Comm. No. 869/1999, CCPR/C/70/D/869/1999, para 5.1. See further Sect. 4.2 infra.

  3. 3.

    See, for example, ECtHR Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi v UK App. No 61498/08, Judgment of 2 March 2010; Babar Ahmed and Others v UK, App. No 24027/07, Judgment of 10 April 2012; Othman (Abu Qatada) v UK, App No. 8139/09, 17 January 2012.

  4. 4.

    European Court of Human Rights, Statistics: Interim measures by respondent state and country of destination: https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Stats_art_39_02_ENG.pdf. Accessed 20 January 2020.

  5. 5.

    IACtHR, Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and surrounding areas v. El Salvador. Urgent Measures and Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of 28 May 2019.

  6. 6.

    IACtHR, Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and surrounding areas v. El Salvador. Request for Provisional Measures and Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of 3 September 2019.

  7. 7.

    European Committee of Social Rights, International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) and European Council for Refugees and Exiles (ECRE) v. Greece, Decision on Admissibility and on Immediate Measures, 23 May 2019, Complaint No. 173/2018. See further Pillay 2019.

  8. 8.

    European Committee of Social Rights, Amnesty International v. Italy, Decision on Admissibility and on Immediate Measures, 4 July 2019, Complaint No. 178/2019.

  9. 9.

    IACHR Teribe and Bribri of Salitre Indigenous People, Costa Rica, Resolution on Precautionary Measures, 30 April 2015, OAS Doc No. PM 321/12.

  10. 10.

    Gustavo Francisco Petro Urrego v Colombia, IACHR, Resolution on Precautionary Measures, OAS Doc No. PM 374/13, 18 March 2014.

  11. 11.

    HRCtee Piandiong v. the Philippines, Comm. No. 869/1999, CCPR/C/70/D/869/1999, para 5.1. See further Sect. 4.2 infra.

  12. 12.

    Rules of Procedure of the Human Rights Committee, CCPR/C/3/Rev.11 (2019).

  13. 13.

    Piandiong v. the Philippines, Comm. No. 869/1999, CCPR/C/70/D/869/1999, para 5.1. Validzhon Khalilov v. Tajikistan Comm. No. 973/2001, CCPR/C/83/D/973/2001 para 4.1; Mansaraj and others v. Sierra Leone Comm. No. 841/98, CCPR/C/77/D/1086/2002, para 5.1; Glen Ashby v. Trinidad and Tobago, Com. No. 580/1994, CCPR/C/74/D/580/1994, para 4.11. KB v Russia Comm. No. 2193/2012, 2 May 2016, paras 8.1–8.3; General Comment 33, The Obligations of States Parties under the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, CCPR/C/GC/33, 5 November 2008, para 19. The Committee has also stated that implementation of interim measures may be required in some circumstances under the right to an effective remedy, General Comment No. 31, The Nature of the General Legal Obligation Imposed on States Parties to the Covenant, CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add. 13, para 19.

  14. 14.

    Piandiong, above n. 15.

  15. 15.

    Ibid., para 5.2.

  16. 16.

    Ibid., para 5.3 These points were reiterated by the Committee in Validzhon Khalilov, above n. 15, para 4.1–4.2. Mansaraj and others, above n. 15, paras 5.1–5.2; and Sholam Weiss v. Austria Comm. No. 1086/2002, CCPR/C/77/D/1086/2002, 3 April 2003.

  17. 17.

    Rules of Procedure of the Human Rights Committee, op cit, Rule 94.2.

  18. 18.

    Committee against Torture, Rules of Procedure, 1 September 2014, CAT/C/3/Rev.6.

  19. 19.

    CAT Rosana Nuñez Chipana v. Venezuela, Comm. No. 110/1998, CAT/C/21/D/110/1998, para 8; TPS v. Canada, Comm. No. 999/1997, CAT/C/24/D/99/1997, para 15.6; Brada v. France, Comm. No. 195/2002; Pelit v. Azerbaijan, Comm. No. 281/2005, CAT/C/38/D/281/2005; Dar v. Norway Comm. No. 249/2004, CAT/C/38/D/249/2004.

  20. 20.

    CAT, RS v Switzerland Communication No. 482/2011 19 January 2015, para 7.

  21. 21.

    CAT, TPS v Canada, above n. 19, para 15.6; Rosana Nuñez Chipana v Venezuela, above n. 19, para 8; Brada v France, above n. 19, para 13.4; Pelit v Azerbaijan, above n. 19, para 10.1; Dar v Norway, above n. 19, para 16.3.

  22. 22.

    Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, UN General Assembly Resolution A/RES/54/4, 6 October 1999, Article 5.

  23. 23.

    Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, UN General Assembly Resolution A/RES/61/106, 13 December 2006, Article 4.

  24. 24.

    Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, UN General Assembly Resolution A/RES/63/117, 10 December 2008, Article 5.

  25. 25.

    Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on a communications procedure, UN General Assembly Resolution A/RES/66/138, 19 December 2011, Article 6.

  26. 26.

    Article 31.4 of the Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, UN General Assembly Resolution A/RES/61/177, 20 December 2006.

  27. 27.

    Article 5 Optional Protocol to CEDAW, op cit; Article 4 Optional Protocol to DRPD, op cit, Article 5 Optional Protocol to CESCR, op cit, Article 6 Optional Protocol to CRC, op cit.

  28. 28.

    Guidelines for Interim measures under the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on a communications procedure, Adopted by the Committee on the Rights of the Child at its 80th session (14 January to 1 February 2019), para 9.

  29. 29.

    CRC, AL v Spain, above n. 12, para 12.12.

  30. 30.

    Ibid., see also MT v Spain CRC/C/82/D/17/2017, 5 November 2019, para 13.11.

  31. 31.

    ECtHR Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey, Application Nos. 46827/99 and 46951/99, Grand Chamber, 4 February 2005; Shamayev and Others v. Georgia and Russia Application No. 36378/02; Aoulmi v. France, App No. 50278/99; Paladi v. Moldova Application No. 39806/05; Aleksanyan v. Russia, Application No. 46468/06; Shtukaturov v. Russia, Application No. 44009/05; Ben Khemais v. Italy Application No. 246/07, Judgment of 24 February 2009.

  32. 32.

    Op cit.

  33. 33.

    Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey, op cit, paras 123–125.

  34. 34.

    Ibid., paras 101–108, Paladi v. Moldova para 87 Ben Khemais v. Italy Application No. 246/07, 24 February 2009, para 81.

  35. 35.

    Mamatkulov, op cit, para 125; See also Aoulmi v. France Application No. 50278/99, para 103

  36. 36.

    Mamatkulov, op cit, para 124.

  37. 37.

    Mamatkulov op cit, para 125.

  38. 38.

    See Savriddin Dzhurayev v Russia, App. No. 71386/10, Judgment of 25 April, 2013; Amirov v Russia, App. No. 51857/13, Judgment of 27 November 2014 paras 65–75; Khloyev v Russia, App. No. 46404/13, paras 63–67.

  39. 39.

    Nizomkhon Dzhurayev v Russia, App. No. 31890/11, Judgment of 3 October 2013.

  40. 40.

    Ibid., para 35. See also Andrey Lavrov v Russia, application No. 66252/14, Judgment of 1 March 2016, para 32.

  41. 41.

    Ibid., para 156.

  42. 42.

    Ibid., para 156.

  43. 43.

    Savriddin Dzhurayev v Russia, op cit; Nizomkhon Dzhurayev v Russia, op cit para 157; Kondrulin v Russia, App. No 12987/15, Judgment of 20 September 2016, para 47.

  44. 44.

    Andrey Lavrov v Russia, Application No. 66252/14, 1 March 2016.

  45. 45.

    Ibid, para 33.

  46. 46.

    Ibid.

  47. 47.

    Ibid.

  48. 48.

    IACtHR Constitutional Court v. Peru. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of April 07, 2000, para 11.

  49. 49.

    Constitutional Court v. Peru, Order of 14 August 2000, para 14.

  50. 50.

    As amended by the Inter-American Commission at its 147th Regular Period of Sessions, held from March 8–22, 2013. Article 25 bases the precautionary measures on “Articles 106 of the Charter of the Organization of American States, 41.b of the American Convention on Human Rights, 18.b of the Statute of the Commission and XIII of the American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons Article 25.1.

  51. 51.

    Second report on the situation of human rights defenders, IACHR, OAS Doc. No. OEA/Ser.L/V/II, Doc. 66, 31 December 2011, original Spanish, OAS translation (‘IACHR Second report on human rights defenders’), para 438, citing I Case of Penitentiaries in Mendoza, IACHR, Order of 22 November 2004, para 16.

  52. 52.

    Ibid. See further, Precautionary Measures of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Legal Status and Importance, Rodriguez-Pinzón 2014.

  53. 53.

    HRCtee Lyubov Kovaleva and Tatyana Kozyar v Belarus CCPR, Comm. No. 2120/2011, 27 November 2012.

  54. 54.

    Ibid., para 6.3.

  55. 55.

    Ibid., para 9.5.

  56. 56.

    ECtHR Andrey Lavrov v Russia Application No. 66252/14), 1 March 2016.

  57. 57.

    Ibid., para 28. Similar arguments were made and rejected in the cases of Amirov v. Russia, above n. 40, para 62 and Khloyev v Russia, Appl. No. 46404/13, Judgment of 5 February 2015, Appl. No. 46409/13, para 63 and Kondrulin v Russia: Appl. No. 12987/15, Judgment of 20 September 2016, para 37.

  58. 58.

    Kondrulin v Russia Application No. 12987/15, 20 September 2016, para 47.

  59. 59.

    ECtHR Soering v UK App. No. 14038/88, Judgment of 7 July 1989 para 31, para 111; ECtHR Mamatkulov and Askarov v Turkey, op cit, para 107; ECtHR Rrapo v Albania App. No. 58555/10, Judgment of 25 September 2012, para 86, HRCtee Weiss v Austria, CCPR, Comm. No. 1086/2002 15 May 2003, paras 5.2–5.3 and 7.1–7.2.

  60. 60.

    ECtHR Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi v UK App. No. 61498/08, Judgment of 2 March 2010.

  61. 61.

    Ibid., para 81.

  62. 62.

    Ibid., para 161.

  63. 63.

    Ibid., para 162.

  64. 64.

    Ibid, para 162.

  65. 65.

    Ibid., para 166.

  66. 66.

    Paladi v Moldova, App. No. 39806/05, Judgment of 10 March 2009.

  67. 67.

    Ibid, paras 83 and 103–104.

  68. 68.

    Ibid., para 93.

  69. 69.

    Ibid., para 89.

  70. 70.

    Paladi v. Moldova, op cit para 90.

  71. 71.

    Ibid. See further Olaechea Cahuas v. Spain, ECtHR, Application No. 24668/03, Judgment of 10 August 2006, para 81.

  72. 72.

    Ben Khemais, ECtHR, Application No. 246/07, Judgment of 24 February 2009.

  73. 73.

    Ibid., para 74.

  74. 74.

    Ibid., para 86.

  75. 75.

    Trabelsi v. Belgium, ECtHR, Application No. 140/10, Judgment of 4 September 2014.

  76. 76.

    Ibid., para 143.

  77. 77.

    Ibid., para 150.

  78. 78.

    Ibid., para 151.

  79. 79.

    Press Release, Governments, applicants and their lawyers urged to co-operate fully with European Court, following “alarming rise” in requests to suspend deportation, No. 127, 11 February 2011.

  80. 80.

    Ibid.

  81. 81.

    Practice Direction, Requests for Interim Measures, issued by the President of the Court in accordance with Rule 32 of the Rules of Court on 5 March 2003 and amended on 16 October 2009 and on 7 July 2011.

  82. 82.

    See, CDDH, Report on Interim measures under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, CDDH(2013)R77 Addendum III, 22 March 2013, para 11.

  83. 83.

    High Level Conference on the Future of the European Court of Human Rights, Interlaken Declaration, 19 February 2010.

  84. 84.

    As well as subsequently in the Drafting Group “G” on the Reform of the Court (GT-GDR-G) established following the Brighton Conference and its Drafting Group “C” on Reform of the Court (GT-GDR-C).

  85. 85.

    See for example, DH-PS Meeting Report, 3rd Meeting, 19–21 October 2011, DH-PS(2011)R3, para 25.

  86. 86.

    Ibid.

  87. 87.

    Committee of experts on a simplified procedure for amendment of certain provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights (DH-PS), Comments of the International Commission of Jurists, Amnesty International, Liberty, JUSTICE, the AIRE Centre and Interights, March 2011, https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/ior61/0002/2011/en/. Accessed 20 January 2020.

  88. 88.

    See comments of Amnesty International, the International Commission of Jurists, the AIRE Centre and Interights on the Draft Declaration for the Izmir High Level Conference (Draft of 22 March 2011), http://www.icj.org.

  89. 89.

    High Level Conference on the Future of the European Court of Human Rights, Izmir, Turkey, 26–27 April 2011, Declaration of 27 April 2011.

  90. 90.

    Ibid., preamble, para 12.

  91. 91.

    Ibid., para A.3.

  92. 92.

    Ibid., para A.3.

  93. 93.

    Report of the CDDH, CDDH(2012)R75 Addendum I.

  94. 94.

    CDDH Final Report on a simplified procedure for amendment of certain provisions of the Convention CDDH(2012)R75, Addendum I.

  95. 95.

    High Level Conference on the Future of the European Court of Human Rights, Brighton Declaration, 20 April 2012.

  96. 96.

    CDDH Report containing conclusions and possible proposals for action concerning the procedure of the amendment of the Rules of Court and the possible “upgrading” to the Convention of certain provisions of the Rules of Court, CDDH(2014)R82 Addendum 1, 21 November 2014, para 1.

  97. 97.

    Ibid., para 20.

  98. 98.

    Brighton Declaration, op cit, para 12.e.

  99. 99.

    Ibid., para A.1.d.

  100. 100.

    CDDH Report on Interim Measures under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, CDDH(2013)R77 Addendum III, 22 March 2013.

  101. 101.

    Ibid., paras 42–43.

  102. 102.

    Ibid., para 45.

  103. 103.

    Ibid., para 48.

  104. 104.

    Ibid., para 51.

  105. 105.

    High-level Conference on the “Implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights, our shared responsibility”, Brussels Declaration, 27 March 2015.

  106. 106.

    Ibid., preamble.

  107. 107.

    The Interlaken Process and the Court (2016 Report) 1 September 2016.

  108. 108.

    Ibid., para 20.

  109. 109.

    According to the European Court of Human Rights 2018 statistics, in 2018 62 requests for interim measures were granted and 269 refused.

  110. 110.

    See Documents of the Extraordinary Session of the OAS Permanent Council, OAS Doc OEA/Ser.G CP/ACTA 1809/11, 29 June 2011.

  111. 111.

    Amato 2012, p. 4.

  112. 112.

    BBC, “Comissão da OEA deve ‘revisar decisão’ sobre Belo Monte, diz secretário-geral”, 4 May 2011, original Portuguese, unofficial translation, http://www.bbc.co.uk/portuguese/noticias/-2011/05/110502_insulza_jc.shtml.

  113. 113.

    Report of the Special Working Group to Reflect on the Workings of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights with a View to Strengthening the Inter-American Human Rights System for Consideration by the Permanent Council, OAS Doc, OEA/Ser G GT/SIDH-13/11 rev.2, 13 December 2011, Original in Spanish, OAS translation, para VIII(ii)(2), p. 10.

  114. 114.

    Ibid.

  115. 115.

    Ibid., para VIII (ii)(2)(A)(j), p. 11.

  116. 116.

    IACHR, Reply of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to the Permanent Council of the Organization of American States regarding the recommendations contained in the Report of the Special Working Group to Reflect on the Workings of the IACHR with a View to Strengthening the Inter-American Human Rights System, Washington D.C., 23 October 2012, p. 18.

  117. 117.

    Ibid., para 62.

  118. 118.

    Ibid., para 63.

  119. 119.

    Ibid., para 65.

  120. 120.

    Ibid., paras 72–73.

  121. 121.

    Ibid., para 77.

  122. 122.

    Ibid., para 80.

  123. 123.

    Resolution 1/2013 of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of 18 March 2013 on Reform of the rules of procedure, policies and practices.

  124. 124.

    OAS General Assembly Resolution AG/RES.1 (XLIV-E/13) of 22 March 2013—Results of the Process of Reflection on the Workings of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights with a View to Strengthening the Inter-American Human Rights System, adopted at the plenary session, held on 22 March 2013.

  125. 125.

    It should be noted that the OPIC, the third optional protocol to the CRC, is modelled on the ICESCR Protocol.

  126. 126.

    In 2002, the UN Commission on Human Rights established the Open-ended working group to discuss options for an Op-ICESCR. However, it is only in 2006 with its resolution 1/3, that the Human Rights Council changed the mandate of the Working Group to start negotiating the text of an Optional Protocol.

  127. 127.

    Report of the third session of the Open-Ended Working Group, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2006/47, page 12. Paras 66–68.

  128. 128.

    See ICJ-IIDH, Commentary on the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, pp. 70–72, 2008 (English edition 2010).

  129. 129.

    See. e.g. ECtHR, Andrey Lavrov v Russia, Application No. 66252/14, 1 March 2016 and ECSR, International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) and European Council for Refugees and Exiles (ECRE) v. Greece, Complaint No. 173/2018, Decision on Admissibility and on Immediate Measures, 23 May 2019.

References

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Europe and Central Asia Programme, International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), Rue de la Source 66, 1060, Brussels, Belgium

    Roísín Pillay

Authors
  1. Roísín Pillay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Roísín Pillay .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for State and Law, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

    Eva Rieter

  2. Centre for State and Law, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

    Karin Zwaan

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 T.M.C. Asser Press and the authors

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Pillay, R. (2021). The Politics of Interim Measures in International Human Rights Law. In: Rieter, E., Zwaan, K. (eds) Urgency and Human Rights. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-415-0_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-415-0_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-414-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-415-0

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation