A New Strasbourg Approach to the Legal Consequences of Interim Measures

A Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (‘Court’) pronounced a radical analysis of the consequences under the European Convention on Human Rights (‘Convention’) when a State fails to abide by the indication of interim measures in the case of Mamatkulov and Askarov v Turkey.1 The applicants were Uzbek nationals who had been arrested in Turkey. The police detained Mamatkulov as he arrived at Istanbul airport under an international police warrant on suspicion of causing injuries by exploding a bomb in Uzbekistan and an attempted terrorist attack on the President of that State. Uzbekistan sought his extradition under a bilateral treaty. Two days after his arrest Mamatkulov was brought before a judge who remanded him in custody. A week later, on 11 March 1999, Mamatkulov, accompanied by his lawyer, was again interviewed by the judge who ordered his extradition under an expedited procedure. On the same day, Mamatkulov lodged an application against Turkey with the Court. On 15 March, Mamatkulov appealed to the Bakirkoy Assize Court against the extradition order, but the Assize Court dismissed his appeal on 19 March. Askarov entered Turkey, on a false passport, in December 1998. He was arrested by the police on 5 March 1999 following an extradition request from Uzbekistan, where he was suspected of homicide, causing injuries by a bomb and an attempted terrorist attack on the President. Two days later a judge remanded Askarov in custody. On 15 March, after a hearing, the Fatih Criminal Court made an order for the detention of Askarov pending his extradition. The Istanbul Assize Court dismissed his appeal on 26 March. Askarov lodged an application against Turkey with the Court on 22 March.

Appeal · Convention · Interim · Order (exchange) · Political science · State (computer science) · Terrorism · Treaty · European and International Law Studies · European Criminal Justice and Data Protection · International Law and Aviation · Law