PART 2: How to Bring a Case to the Court 7. Applications that are manifestly inadmissible. 8. The Court classifies cases according to this system. If an applicant wishes his application to be treated with expedition full reasons should be given. The applicant should also make reference to the Court’s classification system. The Court has granted priority in several Article 3 cases. For instance, the Court often gives priority in extradition cases such as the case of Nizomkhon Dzhurayev v. Russia in which the applicant faced extradition to Tajikistan where he risked being subjected to ill-treatment.58 The Court may also grant priority to cases in which the issue at stake needs to be resolved urgently because, for example, the applicant is seriously ill or old. In the case of Mouisel v. France,59 which concerned the detention of an applicant suffering from leukaemia allegedly in violation of Article 3 of the Convention, the Court granted the case priority and it was concluded by a judgment in just over two years.60 Rule 41 has also been applied to conditions of detention. In the case of X v. Turkey the court expedited the case because the applicant was held in solitary confinement.61 It is important to note that even priority cases can take several years until the Court makes a decision. In the case of X v. Turkey, for example, the application was lodged in May 2009, but the Court rendered a decision in October 2012. Hence, the Court needed 3 years and 3 months to issue a judgment. In contrast, the case of Pretty v. the United Kingdom,62 where the Court had to decide about assisted suicide of a terminally ill person, the Court decided within four months only. Thus cases given priority could be processed very speedily, but there is no guarantee. 2.1.5 Interim Measures (Rule 39) a) Summary Since even applications that have been given priority can take several years, an applicant whose life is at risk or who is under a substantial risk of serious ill-treatment should ask for interim measures to be taken. Interim measures require the respondent State to immediately refrain from carrying out any act which could be detrimental to the Court’s examination of an applicant’s case. Interim measures under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court are predominantly granted in expulsion and extradition cases in order to prevent the removal of the applicant 58 59 60 61 62 Nizomkhon Dzhurayev v. Russia, no. 31890/11, 3 October 2013, §§ 3–4. Mouisel v. France, no. 67263/01, 14 November 2002. Ibid., §§ 3–4. X v. Turkey, no. 24626/09, 9 October 2012, §§ 1–2. Pretty v. The United Kingdom, no. 2346/02, 29 April 2002. 43