Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights: A Practitioner’s Handbook In expulsion cases, respondent Governments often seek to counter applicants’ claims by proffering so called diplomatic assurances. The country of destination provides the expelling respondent Government a diplomatic assurance that guarantees that the applicant will not be subjected to the treatment he or she complains of. However, it must be stressed that the Court will approach diplomatic assurances with caution if it perceives that there is a real risk of ill-treatment in the receiving country. For example, in its judgment in the case of Chahal v. the United Kingdom74 the Court observed that the British authorities had sought and received assurances from the Indian authorities to the effect that the applicant, if returned to India, would not be subjected to ill-treatment. The Court, while not doubting the good faith of the Indian Government in providing the assurances, observed that despite the efforts of that Government, the Indian National Human Rights Commission, and the Indian courts to bring about reform, the violation of human rights by members of the security forces in Punjab and elsewhere in India was a recalcitrant and enduring problem. Against this background, the Court was not persuaded that the Indian diplomatic assurances would have provided Mr Chahal with an adequate guarantee of safety.75 For more on diplomatic assurances, see Section 3.3.2 Besides expulsion and extradition, interim measures have also been applied to a broad range of other issues. In the case of Aleksanyan v. Russia,76 the Court required Russia to transfer the applicant into a specialist AIDS hospital. In the case of Paladi v. Moldova, 77 interim measures were invoked in order to prevent the applicant’s transfer from a neurological centre to a prison hospital. Perhaps the most far-reaching interim measure indicated by the Court was the one issued in the case of Öcalan v. Turkey,78 which concerned the arrest and subsequent trial, by a State Security Court, of the leader of the PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party) for offences that were punishable by death under the Turkish legislation in force at the time. The Court requested the Turkish Government to take interim measures within the meaning of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, notably to ensure that the requirements of Article 6 were complied with in proceedings which had been instituted against the applicant in the State Security Court and that the applicant was able to exercise his right of individual application to the Court effectively through lawyers of his own choosing.79 74 75 76 77 78 79 46 Chahal v. The United Kingdom [GC], no. 22414/93, 15 November 1996, § 37. Ibid., §§ 92 and 105. Aleksanyan v. Russia, no. 46468/06, 22 December 2008, § 4. Paladi v.Moldova, no. 39806/05, 10 March 2003, § 4. Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, 12 May 2005. Ibid., § 5.