42 MAMATKULOV AND ASKAROV v. TURKEY JUDGMENT – CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE CABRAL BARRETO I have in mind, in particular, detention cases in which a person is suffering from an illness in conditions which may come within Article 3 of the Convention and are so bad as to justify interim measures being taken to bring the situation to an end. In such cases, the procedural aspects do not come into play. While the Government's failure to comply with the Court's request may entail a finding of a violation, even an aggravated violation, of Article 3, it will not give rise to a violation of Article 34 as the applicant has exercised his right of application and the Court has duly examined the complaint. Another type of case that also comes to mind is where a person is extradited to a country which has the death penalty despite a request from the Court not to extradite before the application has been examined. However, the fact that the applicant was represented by a lawyer who worked in the requesting State will have allowed useful contact between the applicant and his lawyer and, in a way, helped the applicant to present his complaint in better conditions. While regretting that the member States of the Council of Europe have not given the Court the power to impose binding interim measures, I am forced to conclude that there will be a violation of Article 34 of the Convention only if the Contracting State's failure to comply with interim measures prevents the applicant from exercising his right of application and thereby makes an effective examination of his complaint by the Court impossible.