Introduction to Human Rights Week 7: International mechanisms of implementation - 1st part VIII. Successive control (continuation) The interview of Professor Abdoulaye Soma clarifies the African protection mechanisms of Human and Peoples' Rights. At the European level, the European Court of Human Rights, which is based in Strasbourg, can be referred both by States - according to Article 33 of the European Convention on Human Rights - than by individual applications - according to Article 34 of the same Convention. We will now focus on the individual application within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention. Before that, I would like to say that while State applications do not exist at the universal level, they apply at the European level, according to Article 33 of the Convention. About 15 States applications were registered since the European Convention on Human Rights took office in 1959. It means that 15 States attacked other States to complain that Human Rights were not respected. Let us for example mention the application with which the Irish government attacked the United Kingdom regarding interrogation methods that were used by the British armed forces with suspected terrorists in Northern Ireland. Another example: the applications with which the Scandinavian States attacked Greece at the end of the 60's before what was, at the time, the European Commission on Human Rights to complain about the practices adopted when Greece was governed by an authoritarian government called the colonel government. There are not many Sates' applications in the practice of the European Court on Human Rights. However, when these applications are submitted, they most of the time, concern extremely important issues in terms of respect for Human Rights. An important reform of the European mechanism of Human Rights instruments occurred in 1998. Since then, the Strasbourg Court has been an international Court in charge of ensuring the respect for Human Rights. This Court is now permanent. Nowadays, successive control is the most sophisticated, successful and efficient mechanism to ensure the protection of the human person. This jurisdictional mechanism gives the right to control national practices. Indeed, once that the case is declared admissible, it is then set up in more detail and can lead to an extremely detailed judgment. The proposals might also interest other States. Let us, for example, mention a famous judgment delivered by the European Court of Human Rights in the second half of the 70s. This judgment concerned the Netherlands and the European Court observed a violation of the right to liberty and security within Article 5 of the European Convention of Human Rights regarding the military criminal procedure there was at the time. Further to this judgment, Switzerland - which was not part of the procedure but which had a very similar legislation of military criminal procedure that had been sentenced in the Netherlands - totally reformed its legislation of military criminal procedure in order to fit it to the standards of the Strasbourg Court. Let us also note that judgments delivered by a body such as the European Court of Human Rights are compulsory for the States they concern. States are therefore forced to deal with the violations observed by the Strasbourg Court. Contrary to a widespread opinion, the successive control of the respect for Human Rights does not come down to judging whether a violation of Human Rights occurred or not. The process that takes place before the jurisdictional bodies such as the European Court of Human Rights go through several successive stages. There are four of them. The first stage is very important: the examination of the admissibility of applications. Before the European Court of Human Rights as well as before bodies such as the United Nations Committee or before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, this examination leads to an extremely selective sorting of files submitted at the international level. A submitted application before the European Court of Human Rights implies the fulfilment of no less than 11 admissibility conditions. While some of these conditions, such as the prohibition of anonymous applications, are obvious and elementary, other applications frequently raise quite complex legal issues. It is for example the case of the obligation to first exhaust national bodies. Another complex application is the one concerning the lack of obvious failure to sufficiently substantiate the alleged violations at the international level. One of these conditions is of particular importance in our context. It is the requirement that a case which is referred to an international monitoring body cannot simultaneously be subjected to another international monitoring body. The idea here is to avoid a splitting or even a proliferation of control on the international stage regarding the same case concerning the same grievance but judged by different bodies. In practice, the examination of the admissibility of individual applications before the European Court of Human Rights fails in about 95% of the cases. In this context, decisions are final. It means that the files referred to this body have to be solid in order to have a little chance to win. Once that the case is declared admissible, comes the second stage: the amicable agreement. In this stage, the Court places itself at the applicant and at the State's disposal to try to find a solution to the dispute. This solution must respect Human Rights in order to avoid a ruling. The third stage concerns the inquiry. Here, the international body examines the file. If needed, the body can ask for additional information to the applicant or the respondent State. The body can even ask to other parties to intervene in the procedure in order to have a more complete view of the dispute. The idea here is to establish the facts for a judgment to be possible in full possession of the facts. Finally comes the fourth stage: the judgment. In this stage, the body sees if the facts that are presented represent a violation of the instrument in question, or not. The aim is to determine whether the State respected its international obligations as regards Human Rights, or not. Within the European Council, a follow-up procedure regarding the judgment given by the European Court of Human Rights exists. It is the Council of Europe's Committee of Ministers. It is an intergovernmental body which takes care of the execution of these judgements, within Article 46 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Contrary to commonly held perceptions, the respect for Human Rights do not necessarily ends with the ruling given by an international body. Of course, this stage is very important. Nevertheless, the case often needs to come back at the national level, where the violation of Human Rights comes from, in order to try to deal with the violation. The implementation of Human Rights is quite complex but it is fundamental. We will have the opportunity to talk about that next week, during the last course. In order to have a better understanding of the working and stakes that take place before the European Court of Human Rights, I suggest you to watch the interview of Mr. Giorgio Malinverni who used to be a judge at the European Court of Human Rights.