Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights: A Practitioner’s Handbook 2.1.24 Execution of Judgments While the Court’s decisions and judgments are binding upon States, they enjoy a degree of discretion on how to comply with a judgment by the Court. It is primarily for the respondent state, under the supervision of the Committee of Ministers, to identify execution measures.270 However, Article 46 of the Convention obliges respondent states to put an end to the breach, make reparation and, as far as possible, restore the situation existing prior to the violation if the Court finds the respondent state in breach of a Convention right.271 This means, member States have to realize the principle of restitutio in integrum.272 The aim of Article 46 of the Convention is thus to “put the applicant, as far as possible, in the position he would have been in had the requirements of the Convention not been disregarded.” 273 The Court explained that a judgment in which the Court finds a breach imposes on the respondent State a legal obligation not just to pay those concerned the sums awarded by way of just satisfaction, but also to choose, subject to supervision by the Committee of Ministers, the general and/or, if appropriate, individual measures to be adopted in their domestic legal order to put an end to the violation found by the Court and to redress so far as possible the effects.274 The Court developed three different remedies through which judgments can be executed and, if possible, the original situation be restored: (a) just satisfaction, (b) individual measures, and (c) general measures. These three types of remedies are explained below by reference to the Court’s Article 3 jurisprudence. a) Just Satisfaction Just satisfaction is the Court’s principle remedy.275 It is regulated in Article 41 of the Convention, which provides: 270 Committee of Ministers, Supervision of the Execution of Judgments and Decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, 6th Annual Report of the Committee of Ministers 2012, p. 24, available online: http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution/Source/Publications/CM_annreport2012_en.pdf. 271 Philip Leach, Taking a Case to the European Court of Human Rights, 3rd edn, Oxford University Press, 2011, p. 475. 272 Dinah Shelton, Remedies in International Human Rights Law, Oxford University Press, 2006, p. 272; Antoine Buyse, Post-Conflict Housing Restitution. The European Human Rights Perspective with a Case Study on Bosnia and Herzegovina, Intersentia, 2008, pp. 116–117; Tom Barkhuysen and Michiel L van Emmerik, “A Comparative View on the Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights”, in Theodora A Christou and Juan Pablo Raymond (eds), European Court of Human Rights. Remedies and Execution of Judgments, British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 2005, p. 4. 273 See e.g. Youth Initiative For Human Rights v. Serbia, no 48135/06, 25 June 2013, § 31. 274 Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy, nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, 13 July 2000, § 249. 275 Mark W Janis, Richard S Kay and Anthony Bradley, European Human Rights Law, 3rd edn, Oxford University Press, 2008, p. 98; Philip Leach, “Beyond the Bug River – A New Dawn for Redress Before the European Court of Human Rights”, in European Human Rights Law Review, vol. 2, 2005, p. 150. 98