PART 2: How to Bring a Case to the Court insufficient redress and request that the Court continue to examine the merits of the case.246 In this context it must be reiterated that civil or administrative proceedings that are aimed solely at awarding damages rather than identifying and punishing those responsible are not regarded as effective remedies in the context of Article 3 complaints.247 e) Unilateral Declaration The Court has also used its powers to strike an application out on the basis of socalled “unilateral declarations” submitted by respondent Governments, usually following the applicants’ rejection of a respondent Government’s offer of friendly settlement. Since 2012, unilateral declarations are governed by Rule 62A of the Rules of Court. Unilateral declarations submitted in cases involving very serious human rights abuses are examined with particular care. In the case of Tashin Acar v. Turkey,248 which dealt with the forced disappearance and ill-treatment of a Kurd by Turkish authorities, the Court developed several, non-exhaustive, factors under which a unilateral declaration is admissible: (i) the nature of the complaints made, (ii) whether the issues raised are comparable to issues already determined by the Court in previous cases, (iii) the nature and scope of any measures taken by the respondent Government in the context of the execution of judgments delivered by the Court in any such previous cases, (iv) the impact of these measures on the case at issue, (v) whether the facts are in dispute between the parties, (vi) whether in their unilateral declaration the respondent Government have made any admission(s) in relation to the alleged violations of the Convention, and (vii) the manner in which they intend to provide redress to the applicant.249 The applicant is given the possibility to submit comments as well as to refuse a unilateral declaration. However, the Court might nonetheless conclude that the unilateral declaration satisfies the abovementioned criteria and that therefore the case can be struck out of its list on the basis of Article 37 § 1 (c). Unlike the execution of friendly settlements, the Committee of Ministers is not empowered to supervise the fulfilment of unilateral declarations. If the government fails to comply with its declaration, the applicant may ask the Court to restore 246 The same argument would also be relevant if the Court decides to strike the case out on the basis of a unilateral declaration submitted by the respondent Government and despite the applicant’s rejection of the settlement offer. 247 See Tepe v. Turkey (dec.), no. 31247/96, 22 January 2002. For an analysis of the Court’s friendly settlement practice also see Helen Keller, Magdalena Forowicz and Lorenz Engi, Friendly Settlements before the European Court of Human Rights, Oxford University Press, 2010. 248 Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objection ) [GC], no. 26307/95, 6 May 2003. 249 Ibid., § 76. 91