MAMATKULOV AND ASKAROV v. TURKEY JUDGMENT 31 v. Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 48787/99, § 11, ECHR 2004-VII). Cases of States failing to comply with indicated measures remain very rare. 106. Rule 36 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Commission of Human Rights, which came into force on 13 December 1974, provided: “The Commission, or when it is not in session, the President may indicate to the parties any interim measure the adoption of which seems desirable in the interest of the parties or the proper conduct of the proceedings before it.” Even before the provisions regulating the question of interim measures came into force, the Commission had not hesitated to ask respondent Governments for a stay of execution of measures liable to make the application pending before it devoid of purpose. The Commission adopted that practice very early on, particularly in extradition and deportation cases, and the States concerned proved very cooperative (see, inter alia: Greece v. the United Kingdom, no. 176/56, Commission's report of 26 September 1958, unpublished; X v. the Federal Republic of Germany, no. 2396/65, Commission's report of 19 December 1969, Yearbook 13; Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands v. Greece, nos. 3321/67, 3322/67, 3323/67 and 3344/67, Commission's report of 5 November 1969, Yearbook 12; Denmark, Norway and Sweden v. Greece, no. 4448/70, Commission's report of 4 October 1976, Decisions and Reports (DR) 6; and E.R. v. the Federal Republic of Germany, no. 5207/71, Commission decision of 13 December 1971, Collection of Decisions 39). In Brückmann v. the Federal Republic of Germany (no. 6242/73, Commission's report of 14 July 1976, DR 6), the respondent State even stayed the execution of a domestic measure of its own motion while the case was pending before the Commission. 107. Rule 36 of the Rules of the former Court, which came into force on 1 January 1983, provided: “1. Before the constitution of a Chamber, the President of the Court may, at the request of a Party, of the Commission, of the applicant or of any other person concerned, or proprio motu, indicate to any Party and, where appropriate, the applicant, any interim measure which it is advisable for them to adopt. The Chamber when constituted or, if the Chamber is not in session, its President shall have the same power. ...” The most noteworthy case concerning the indication of interim measures by the former Court is Soering, cited above, in which the Court indicated to the British Government under Rule 36 of its Rules that it would be undesirable to extradite the applicant to the United States while the proceedings were pending in Strasbourg. In order to abide by the Convention and the Court's decision, the British Government were forced to default on their undertaking to the United States (p. 17, § 31, and pp. 44-45, § 111). Thus, the judgment resolved the conflict in this case between a State