MAMATKULOV AND ASKAROV v. TURKEY JUDGMENT 41 CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE CABRAL BARRETO (Translation) I concur with the majority's view that Turkey has failed to comply with its obligations under Article 34 of the Convention in the instant case. Turkey's failure to comply with the request for it not to extradite the applicants to Uzbekistan before the Court had examined the case made an effective examination of the application impossible. Accordingly, the applicants have been hindered in the effective exercise of their right of individual application (see paragraph 127 of the judgment). However, I find it difficult to agree with the majority's conclusion that: “A failure by a Contracting State to comply with interim measures is to be regarded as preventing the Court from effectively examining the applicant's complaint and as hindering the effective exercise of his or her right and, accordingly, as a violation of Article 34.” (see paragraph 128 of the judgment). This general conclusion constitutes a departure from the principles that were established in Cruz Varas and Others v. Sweden (judgment of 20 March 1991, Series A no. 201) some years ago and effectively reaffirmed in Čonka v. Belgium ((dec.), no. 51564/99, 13 March 2001). If I have correctly understood the reasoning of the majority, the mere fact that a Government have failed to comply with a request to take interim measures per se entails a violation of Article 34 of the Convention. It is this “mechanical” finding of a violation of Article 34 which I am unable to agree with. To my mind, the fact that the States have always refused to accord binding force to interim measures prevents the Court from doing so and imposing on the States obligations which they have declined to accept. The States Parties to the Convention have, however, undertaken not to hinder the exercise of the right of individual application. Thus, if a refusal to comply with a request for interim measures has hindered the exercise of the right of application, the conclusion must be that there has been a violation of the obligations arising under Article 34 of the Convention. However, the conclusion has to be different if, despite such a refusal, it has been possible for the applicant to exercise his right of application effectively and the Court to examine the case properly. That, in my opinion, is the effect of the provisions of the Convention and the Rules of Court and warranted highlighting in the judgment. I see situations in which, despite a Government's failure to comply with a request by the Court, the applicant has been able to exercise his right of individual application effectively and the Court to conduct a proper examination of the application in satisfactory conditions.