28 MAMATKULOV AND ASKAROV v. TURKEY JUDGMENT 3. The Chamber may request information from the parties on any matter connected with the implementation of any interim measure it has indicated.” A. The Chamber judgment 93. In its judgment of 6 February 2003, the Chamber found as follows: “110. ... any State Party to the Convention to which interim measures have been indicated in order to avoid irreparable harm being caused to the victim of an alleged violation must comply with those measures and refrain from any act or omission that will undermine the authority and effectiveness of the final judgment. 111. Consequently, by failing to comply with the interim measures indicated by the Court under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, Turkey is in breach of its obligations under Article 34 of the Convention.” B. The parties' submissions 1. The applicants 94. The applicants' representatives stated that, despite requests to the authorities, they had been unable to contact their clients following the latter's extradition. The applicants had consequently been deprived of the possibility of having further inquiries made in order to obtain evidence in support of their allegations under Article 3. The applicants' extradition had thus proved a real obstacle to the effective presentation of their application to the Court. 2. The Government 95. The Government submitted that no separate issue arose under Article 34 of the Convention, as the complaint under that provision was the same as the one that the applicants had raised under Article 3 of the Convention, which the Government said was unfounded. 96. As regards the effects of the interim measures the Court had indicated in the instant case under Rule 39, the Government referred to Cruz Varas and Others, cited above, as authority for the proposition that the Contracting States had no legal obligation to comply with such indications. 97. In the Government's submission, it was clear from the very terms of the letter indicating the interim measure in the instant case that the measure was not intended to be binding. International courts operated within the scope of the powers conferred upon them by international treaties. If the treaty did not grant them power to order binding interim measures, then no such power existed.