52 MAMATKULOV AND ASKAROV v. TURKEY JUDGMENT – JOINT PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION 145. The precedent described above was recently confirmed by the Court, in connexion with its own provisional measures – which had not been heeded by the defendant State – in Čonka v. Belgium ((dec.), no. 51564/99, 13 March 2001). The majority's view in the present case – that in Cruz Varas the Court had examined the Commission's power to order interim measures and not its own – is not very persuasive in the light of the Čonka decision, where the Court reiterated the principles set out in Cruz Varas with regard to its own jurisdiction. We do not think that there has been any change since Čonka which would justify the Court on a reexamination of its case-law reaching a diametrically opposite conclusion. As stated in the present judgment, “in the interests of legal certainty and foreseeability, [the Court] should not depart, without good reason, from its own precedents” (see paragraph 121). 146. The above-mentioned case-law means, in essence, that while the Court is entitled to interpret the provisions of the Convention it may not – by way of interpretation or through the enactment of rules of procedure, or both – write new rules into the Convention, not even if there is a fairly widespread practice in the desired sense, as long as that practice is not uniform (see Belgium's attitude in Čonka or that of Turkey in the present instance), accompanied by a corresponding opinio juris. Only the States Parties as a whole may amend the Convention by supplementing it. A comment to be added here is that if the binding character of interim measures could be derived from the necessity of giving full effect to the right of individual application enshrined in Article 34 of the Convention, what would the situation in inter-State cases be? Would measures indicated in such cases continue to be optional? Or would they be considered binding, by analogy, to give the fullest effect possible to Article 33 (inter-State cases) of the Convention? 3. The case-law of the ICJ: LaGrand 147. The Court's judgment relies on the recent decision of the ICJ in LaGrand (judgment of 27 June 2001, ICJ Reports 2001, §§ 48 and 117). This reliance seems misguided, as there is an essential difference between the position in which the ICJ found itself and this Court's situation. 148. In LaGrand the ICJ was called upon to interpret a provision of its own constitutive treaty, that is, Article 41 of its Statute. The States Parties to that Statute had unquestionably acquiesced in that Article and were bound by it. Consequently, the issue was one of pure treaty interpretation, namely, whether the verb “indicated” used in Article 41 must be taken to mean that measures formulated under that provision are binding on the States parties to the dispute. After years of avoiding coming to grips with this issue, the ICJ, in LaGrand, reached an affirmative conclusion, basing itself on the