PART 2: How to Bring a Case to the Court The Court subsequently invited the Government to clarify specific points concerning the measures that had been taken pursuant to Rule 39 to ensure that the applicant had a fair trial. The Government informed the Court that it was “not prepared to reply to the Court’s questions, as they went far beyond the scope of interim measures within the meaning of Rule 39”.80 However, the Government did comply with another interim measure requiring the Government “to take all necessary steps to ensure that the death penalty is not carried out so as to enable the Court to proceed effectively with the examination of the admissibility and merits of the applicant’s complaints under the Convention”.81 Although almost all interim measures are directed towards the respondent Government, there have been some exceptions. In the case of Ilaşcu and Others v. Moldova and Russia,82 for instance, the President of the Grand Chamber decided on 15 January 2004 to urge the applicant, under Rule 39, to call off his hunger strike. The applicant complied with the request on the same day. It is important to note that providing the Court with adequate evidence for it to grant an interim measure does not necessarily mean that the same evidence is sufficient for the Court to subsequently find a violation of Articles 2 or 3 of the Convention. For example, the evidence submitted by the applicant in the case of Thampibillai v. the Netherlands83 was sufficient for the Court to indicate to the respondent Government “that it was desirable in the interests of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings that the applicant should not be expelled to Sri Lanka pending the Court’s decision”.84 However, The evidence was not sufficient for the Court to conclude in its judgment that substantial grounds had been established “for believing that the applicant, if expelled, would be exposed to a real risk of being subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention”.85 c) Application Procedure for Interim Measures Requests for interim measures should comply with the requirements set out in the Practice Direction on “Requests for Interim Measures”.86 Furthermore, the reader 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 Ibid. Ibid. Ilaşcu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 48787/99, 8 July 2004, § 11. Thampibillai v. the Netherlands, no. 61350/00, 17 February 2004. Ibid., § 5. Ibid., § 68. European Court of Human Rights, “Requests for Interim Measures” available at: http://www.echr. coe.int/Documents/PD_interim_measures_ENG.pdf. 47