Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights: A Practitioner’s Handbook to a country where he or she may be subjected to treatment in violation of Articles 2 and/or 3 of the Convention. According to the Court’s established case law, Contracting Parties have a duty to comply with any interim measure indicated to them.63 Interim measures are often sought but rarely granted. For an interim measure to be granted, the applicant must demonstrate an imminent risk of irreparable damage to life or limb in terms of Articles 2 or 3 of the Convention.64 This section includes practical information for filing interim measure requests. Furthermore, the reader may refer to the sample application for an interim measure and the Practice Direction on Interim Measures in Appendices 8 and 4, respectively. b) Discussion As pointed out above, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court authorizes interim measures and provides as follows: a. The Chamber or, where appropriate, its President may, at the request of a party or of any other person concerned, or of its own motion, indicate to the parties any interim measure which it considers should be adopted in the interests of the parties or of the proper conduct of the proceedings before it. b. Notice of these measures shall be given to the Committee of Ministers. c. The Chamber may request information from the parties on any matter connected with the implementation of any interim measure it has indicated. The Court applies a threefold test when considering interim measures: 65 1. there must be a threat of irreparable harm of a very serious nature; 2. the harm threatened must be imminent and irremediable; and 3. there must be an arguable (prima facie) case. Most interim measures have been applied in cases in which an applicant risks expulsion or extradition to a country where he or she might face ill-treatment or death. In this context, one of the most noteworthy cases concerning the indication of interim measures is that of Soering v. the United Kingdom,66 which concerned the extradition by the British authorities of a German national to the United States where the authorities wanted to put him on trial for murder. If convicted, the applicant was liable to be sentenced to death. Mr. Soering argued that his surrender to the authorities of the United States of America might, if implemented, give rise to a breach by the United Kingdom of Article 3 of the Convention because he would 63 64 65 66 44 See, e.g. Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi v. the United Kingdom, no. 61498/08, 2 March 2010, §§ 160–166. See e.g. Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey [GC], nos. 46827/99 and 46951/99, 4 February 2005, § 104. Philip Leach, Taking a Case to the European Court of Human Rights, Oxford University Press, 2011, p. 31. Soering v. the United Kingdom, no. 14038/88, 7 July 1989.