56 MAMATKULOV AND ASKAROV v. TURKEY JUDGMENT – JOINT PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION to reading a power to issue binding provisional measures into the Convention. 157. Another element to be examined, also discussed in Cruz Varas, is the subsequent practice of the Contracting Parties mentioned as an element of interpretation in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Article 31 § 3 (b) of that convention refers to “any subsequent practice in the application of the treaty which establishes the agreement of the Parties regarding its interpretation”. This practice was equally considered in Cruz Varas. After describing early unsuccessful attempts of the Convention institutions at adopting recommendations in the matter (pp. 34-35, § 96), the Court found that the prevailing – but not complete – compliance with provisional measures was inspired by the desire of States Parties to cooperate. There was, in other words, no evidence that that practice, as is required by the Vienna Convention, “established the agreement of the Parties regarding its interpretation”. That the contrary is true is first shown by the fact that, at its extraordinary meeting in early 1994, the Committee of Experts for the Improvement of Procedures for the Protection of Human Rights (DH-PR) received reform proposals from the European Commission of Human Rights on 31 January 1994 (docs. DH-PR(94)2 and DHPR(94)4). Both the Commission and the Court considered that the new Court should have the power to issue interim measures with legally binding effect and that this should be provided for in the Convention. The Court's proposal was similar to Article 63 § 2 of the 1969 American Convention on Human Rights. The Commission's preference was for the interim-measure rules of the Commission's (Rule 36) and the Court's (Rule 36) Rules of Procedure to be included in the text of the Convention. The Swiss delegation also submitted a proposal with a view to including an Article in the Convention on provisional measures to the effect that “the Court may ... prescribe any necessary interim measures” (doc. DH-PR(93)20, 22 November 1993). 158. All three proposals, if accepted, would have made it possible to argue (as with Article 41 of the ICJ's Statute) that the Court's interim measures must be regarded as mandatory. All three proposals were, however, rejected by the government experts. Later on, the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Demography suggested that interim measures indicated pursuant to Rule 36 of the Court's Rules of Procedure be made obligatory for member States (Draft Report, AS/PR(1997)2 revised, 19 February 1997). The Committee of Ministers declined to include a provision on interim measures in the Convention. This can only mean that the widespread acceptance of the practice in question rests on courtesy, cooperation and convenience, but not on an agreed interpretation. Nor has the Committee of Ministers seen fit to suggest the introduction of a provision on binding provisional measures in Draft Protocol No. 14. Again