MAMATKULOV AND ASKAROV v. TURKEY JUDGMENT – JOINT PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION 57 this must have been so because there was no agreement on making such measures compulsory and not because the Committee thought it superfluous to do anything on the assumption that provisional measures were binding. 159. In the present case, the Court itself considered its interim measures to be optional. This is evident from the wording of Rule 39, which uses the words “indicate” and “should be adopted”, as well as from the text of the letter of 18 March 1999 addressed to Turkey, the respondent State, which reads: “La Présidente de la première section a décidé aujourd'hui d'indiquer à votre Gouvernement, en application de l'article 39 du Règlement de la Cour, qu'il était souhaitable, dans l'intérêt des parties et du bon déroulement de la procédure devant la Cour, de ne pas extrader le requérant vers la République ouzbèke avant la réunion de la chambre compétente, qui se tiendra le 23 mars 1999.”1 160. What, finally, about the “relevant rules of international law applicable in the relations between the Parties”, relied on by the Chamber on the basis of Article 31 § 3 (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties? It is true that many treaties constitutive of international courts and tribunals do authorise the “indication” of provisional measures, that being the term used in most of them. The meaning attributed to it by the ICJ in the recent LaGrand case will undoubtedly have a considerable impact on the interpretation of these treaties; but it cannot have such an impact on the present Court as long as the latter's constitutive instrument – the European Convention – contains no authorisation to “indicate” interim measures at all. 5. The relevant rules of international law 161. There remains the question of whether the Court may, on the basis of a rule of general international law or a general principle of law recognised by civilised nations: (i) indicate provisional measures; and (ii) order such measures. If that were the case, the Court could justify the enactment of mandatory interim measures by such a rule or principle even in the absence of any enabling treaty provision. Regarding general principles of law recognised by civilised nations, there may well be a widespread rule on obligatory interim measures on the domestic level, based on the rule of compulsory jurisdiction applicable on that level. By contrast, as pointed out earlier (see paragraph 16 above), that rule does not prevail on the international level, which is why it cannot be applied as such on that 1. Translation: “The President of the First Section has decided to indicate to your government, on the basis of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, that it is desirable, in the interest of the parties and of the smooth progress of the proceedings before the Court, not to extradite the applicant to the Republic of Uzbekistan prior to the meeting of the competent Chamber, which will take place on 23 March 1999.” 1