4.1 consider extending its
mandate under Article 46 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“the
Convention”, ETS No. 5) by introducing a competence to monitor compliance
with the letter and spirit of Rule 39 measures of which notice has
been given under Rule 39.2 of the Rules of Court;
4.2 fully use its competence pursuant to Article 46 of the
Convention in resolving the cases of non-compliance in a way which
fully and effectively upholds the Convention; ensure, in collaboration
with the Court, that a mechanism or working method is established
for follow-up in cases of non-compliance, and investigate cases
and/or publish statements in this connection;
4.3 give priority to judgments finding violations of Article
34 of the Convention in cases concerning expulsion and extradition
of aliens, while supervising their execution by respondent states
according to Article 46 of the Convention;
4.4 seek to adopt an interim resolution calling for member
states to take individual and/or general measures, in those cases
where an individual has been expelled to a state which has no wish
to return him or her;
4.5 co-operate with the Court and other relevant actors in
order to publish up-to-date Rule 39 statistics as well as information
on the extent of compliance by contracting parties;
4.6 assess current practice at national level and by the Court
in view of the increase in the number of Rule 39 applications against
some states and examine solutions to improve the efficiency and consistency
of national practice and the Court’s practice and procedure in dealing
with these applications;
4.7 organise, with relevant bodies of the Council of Europe
and the Court, an exchange of views with all relevant actors, including
civil society, on the challenges faced by the Court and governments
in dealing with interim measures, taking into account the fact that
the number of requests could increase greatly in the future;
4.8 create a working group to identify best practice in relation
to access to the Court and compliance with the letter and spirit
of Rule 39, taking into account, inter
alia, issues such as the circumstances in which “objective
impediments” may validly be raised and the steps that need to be
taken to rectify actions taken following any failure to follow interim
measures.
