312 | PRACTITIONERS GUIDE No. 6• Other Grounds: complaints must be lodged in writing, relate toa provision of the Charter accepted by the State Party and indicatein what respect the State Party has not ensured the satisfactoryapplication of the provision. 1353Although it is not properly an admissibility ground, the European Courtof Human Rights has modified its Rule 47, with effect from 1 January2014, according to which, from now on, the Court will have the powerto refuse to examine an application that does not satisfy all the formalrequirements of this Rule. As noted above, the six months time limitof Article 35 ECHR will stop running from the moment of receipt of anapplication fully compliant with these formal requirements. 13543. Interim measuresInterim, precautionary or provisional measures are orders issued by theinternational mechanism in the preliminary phase of the internationaldispute in order to assure that a situation of potential violation does notlead to irreparable harm from before the case can be adjudicated on themerits. Interim or provisional measures are often indicated in situationsof expulsions, where the international body requests the State to staythe expulsion measure until a final decision is reached. Interim measuresmight also be prescribed for a situation of forced eviction, wherea stay of the eviction is ordered before the final ruling.Interim measures are a corollary of the right to international petitionand have therefore been held to be binding on the States which haveaccepted the international individual complaints mechanism. 1355They are an essential element of procedure before international tribunals,with particular significance for tribunals that adjudicate on humanrights, and are widely recognised as having binding legal effect.The binding nature of interim measures has its roots in both procedureand substance: it is necessary, first, to preserve the rights of the partiesfrom irreparable harm, protecting against any act or omission that1353 Article 4 AP-ESC.1354 See, Rule 47, ECtHR Rules of Procedure. Under Article 4 of the new Protocol No. 15 to theECHR, the time limit for applications to the Court is reduced to four months. The Protocol,approved on 24 June 2013, is not yet into force and requires the ratification of all ContractingParties to the ECHR.1355 See, LeGrand (Germany v. United States of America), ICJ, op. cit., fn. 837, at p. 503,para. 103; Zhakhongir Maksudov and Others v. Kyrgyzstan, CCPR, op. cit., fn. 324,paras. 10.1–10.3; Dar v. Norway, CAT, op. cit., fn. 1309, paras. 16.3–16.5; Brada v. France,CAT, Communication No. 195/2002, Views of 24 May 2005, para. 13.4; Pelit v. Azerbaijan,CAT, op. cit., fn. 339, para. 10.2; Tebourski v. France, CAT, op. cit., fn. 353, paras. 8.2–9;Singh Sogi v. Canada, CAT, op. cit., fn. 334, paras. 10.2–10.11; Shamayev and Others v.Georgia and Russia, ECtHR, op. cit., fn. 434, paras. 470–473; Mamatkulov and Askarov v.Turkey, ECtHR, op. cit., fn. 441, paras. 100–112; Al-Sadoon and Mufti v. United Kingdom,ECtHR, op. cit., fn. 439, paras. 160–161.
MIGRATION AND INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW | 313would destroy or remove the subject matter of an application, wouldrender it pointless, or would otherwise prevent the Court from consideringit under its normal procedure; 1356 and second, to permit the Court togive practical and effective protection to the Convention rights by whichthe Member States have undertaken to abide. 1357The binding nature of interim measures has been recognised bythe International Court of Justice, 1358 the European Court of HumanRights, 1359 the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, 1360 the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, 1361 the African Commission onHuman and Peoples’ Rights, 1362 the Human Rights Committee 1363 and1356 Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey, ECtHR, op. cit., fn. 441, paras. 101–108; Paladi v. Moldova,ECtHR, Application No 39806/05, Judgment of 10 March 2009, para. 87; Ben Khemaisv. Italy, ECtHR, op. cit., fn. 361, para. 81.1357 Ibid., para. 125; Aloumi v. France, ECtHR, Application No. 50278/99, Judgment of 17 January2006, para. 103.1358 LeGrand (Germany v. United States of America), ICJ, op. cit., fn. 837, at p. 503, para. 102.1359 Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey, ECtHR, op. cit., fn. 441; Shamayev and Others v. Georgiaand Russia, ECtHR, op. cit., fn. 434; Aloumi v. France, ECtHR, op. cit., fn. 1260; Paladi v. Moldova,ECtHR, op. cit., fn. 1356; Aleksanyan v. Russia, ECtHR, op. cit., fn. 769; Shtukaturov v.Russia, ECtHR, Application No. 44009/05, Judgment of 27 March 2008; Ben Khemais v. Italy,ECtHR, op. cit., fn. 361, Savriddin Dzhurayev v. Russia, ECtHR, Application No. 71386/10,Judgment of 25 April 2013, para. 213: “The crucial significance of interim measures is furtherhighlighted by the fact that the Court issues them, as a matter of principle, in truly exceptionalcases on the basis of a rigorous examination of all the relevant circumstances. In mostof these, the applicants face a genuine threat to life and limb, with the ensuing real risk ofgrave, irreversible harm in breach of the core provisions of the Convention. This vital roleplayed by interim measures in the Convention system not only underpins their binding legaleffect on the States concerned, as upheld by the established case-law, but also commandsthe utmost importance to be attached to the question of the States Parties’ compliance withthe Court’s indications in that respect [...]. Any laxity on this question would unacceptablyweaken the protection of the Convention core rights and would not be compatible with itsvalues and spirit [...]; it would also be inconsistent with the fundamental importance of theright of individual application and, more generally, undermine the authority and effectivenessof the Convention as a constitutional instrument of European public order [...]”.1360 Chunimá v. Guatemala, IACtHR, Series E, Order of the Court of 15 July 1991; James v.Trinidad and Tobago, IACtHR, Series E, Order of the Court of 24 November 2000; LoayzaTamayo v. Peru, IACtHR, Series E, Order of the Court of 13 December 2000; Haitians andDominican nationals of Haitian origin in the Dominican Republic v. the Dominican Republic,IACtHR, Order of the Court of 14 September 2000. See further the extrajudicial comments ofAsdrúbal Aguiar, former judge of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, “Apuntes sobrelas medidas cautelares en la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos”, in La Cortey el sistema Interamericano de Derechos Humanos, Rafael Nieto Navia, Editor, 1994, p. 19.1361 See, Letter to Center for Constitutional Rights and Centro por la Justicia y el Derecho Internacional(CEJIL) from the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Ref: DjamelAmeziane, Precautionary Measures No. 211-08, United States, 20 August 2008, available athttp://ccrjustice.org/files/2008-08-20 IACHR Initial Response.pdf.1362 International Pen and Others v. Nigeria, ACommHPR, Communications Nos. 137/94, 139/94,154/96 and 161/97, 24 th Ordinary Session, 31 October 1998, para. 114.1363 Piandiong v. the Philippines, CCPR, Communication No. 869/1999, Views of 19 October 2000,para. 5.1; Khalilov v. Tajikistan, CCPR, Communication No. 973/2001, Views of 13 April2005, para. 4.1; Mansaraj and Others v. Sierra Leone, CCPR, Communications Nos. 839/98,840/98 and 841/98, Views of 16 July 2001, para. 5.1; Ashby v. Trinidad and Tobago, CCPR,Communication No. 580/1994, Views of 19 April 2002, para. 4.11.