58 MAMATKULOV AND ASKAROV v. TURKEY JUDGMENT – JOINT PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION level. In other words, the principle cannot be transposed to the business of international courts. 162. There must, however, be a customary rule allowing international courts and tribunals, even in the absence of a treaty provision, to enact Rules of Procedure, a rule which may include the power to formulate interim measures. But that rule cannot be taken to include the power to prescribe such measures. 6. Conclusion 163. It follows from all the above that the compulsory nature of interim measures “indicated” by this Court cannot be derived from the rules of general international law, nor from Articles 34 (right of individual application) or 26 (d) (right of the Court to enact rules of procedure) of the Convention, as interpreted in the light of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 23 May 1969. The same conclusion results from the practice of the European Court of Human Rights itself, including its initial attitude in the instant case (see paragraph 24 of the present judgment). 164. Our basic conclusion is, therefore, that the matter examined here is one of legislation rather than of judicial action. As neither the constitutive instrument of this Court nor general international law allows for holding that interim measures must be complied with by States, the Court cannot decide the contrary and, thereby, impose a new obligation on States Parties. To conclude that this Court is empowered, de lege lata, to issue binding provisional measures is ultra vires. Such a power may appear desirable; but it is up to the Contracting Parties to supply it.