MAMATKULOV AND ASKAROV v. TURKEY JUDGMENT – JOINT PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION 53 rules of interpretation found in the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and, in particular, on the object and purpose of Article 41 of the Statute, which was and is a treaty provision binding on all States Parties. In connection with Article 41, the “object and purpose” in question are “to preserve the respective rights of either party” and to enable the court to render binding decisions in accordance with Article 59 of its Statute; and it certainly made sense to hold that this result depended on the binding character of the interim measures. There is here, in other words, a close relation between the enabling treaty provision and the aim pursued. 149. It is to be expected that the States Parties to other international dispute settlement mechanisms which contain provisions on interim measures using language similar to that of Article 41 of the Statute of the Hague Court will fall in line with the latter's new case-law. They are certainly entitled to do so since all that they will be doing is examining a provision on interim measures enshrined in the mechanism's constitutive instrument which they are authorised to interpret. 150. By contrast, no such provision can be found in the European Convention on Human Rights; and neither Article 26 (d) of that Convention, empowering the Court to enact Rules of Procedure, nor Article 34, instituting the right of individual application, is sufficiently connected to the issue under consideration to fill a “gap” in the Convention by instituting binding interim measures ex nihilo, thereby imposing on the States Parties to the Convention an obligation without their consent. To put it differently, there is a wide difference between the mere interpretation of a treaty and its amendment, between the exercise of judicial functions and international law-making. 151. What the Court's Grand Chamber has done, and the Chamber before it, in Mamatkulov and Askarov is to exercise a legislative function, for the Convention as it stands nowhere prescribes that the States Parties to it must recognise the binding force of interim measures indicated by this Court. This is why, in our view, the Court cannot go down the path shown by the Hague Court and why there is no reason to depart from the existing case-law. 4. The European Convention on Human Rights in the light of the canons of treaty interpretation 152. It has been shown that the existing case-law of the European Court offers no possibility or reason for reading a rule asserting the binding force of interim measures into the Convention; nor has such a reason or