Quick answer
In Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey (Grand Chamber, 4 February 2005, applications nos. 46827/99 and 46951/99), the European Court of Human Rights held — by fourteen votes to three — that by extraditing the applicants to Uzbekistan despite the Court’s indication under Rule 39 that they should not be removed, Turkey had failed to comply with its obligations under Article 34. The judgment established that interim measures indicated by the Court are legally binding.
Background and facts
The applicants, Uzbek nationals, were detained in Turkey and faced extradition to Uzbekistan, where they were wanted on charges connected with alleged terrorism and where they said they would be at real risk of torture and an unfair trial. The Court, under Rule 39 of its Rules of Court, indicated to Turkey that the applicants should not be extradited while it examined the case. Notwithstanding that indication, Turkey extradited them to Uzbekistan, after which the Court’s ability to communicate with them and to examine their complaints effectively was gravely impaired.
The complaint
- Article 3 — a real risk of torture or ill-treatment on return to Uzbekistan;
- Article 6 — a real risk of a flagrantly unfair trial; and
- Article 34 — that the extradition, in breach of the Rule 39 measure, hindered the effective exercise of the right of individual application.
The Court’s reasoning
On the substantive complaints, the Court held — on the material available to it, and given the state of its knowledge at the time of the extradition — that it could not conclude that there had been a violation of Article 3, and it likewise found no violation of Article 6 in respect of the criminal proceedings.
The decisive issue was Article 34, which requires States not to hinder in any way the effective exercise of the right of individual application. The Court held that, by extraditing the applicants in defiance of the Rule 39 indication, Turkey had prevented the Court from properly examining their complaints and from affording them effective protection. It reasoned that interim measures play a vital role in avoiding irreversible situations, and that a failure to comply with them undermines the effectiveness of the right of individual application. It therefore held that such measures are binding, and that Turkey had failed to comply with its obligations under Article 34.
The judgment
- by fourteen votes to three, no violation of Article 3, and no violation of Article 6 § 1 as regards the proceedings in Uzbekistan; but
- by fourteen votes to three, that Turkey had failed to comply with its obligations under Article 34.
Legacy and subsequent case law
Mamatkulov is the landmark authority establishing that Rule 39 interim measures are binding. It underpins the Court’s practice of halting extraditions, deportations and other irreversible measures pending examination, and has been applied in many later cases, including Paladi v. Moldova. It is a central safeguard for anyone resisting removal on human-rights grounds.
What this means for applicants
- Interim measures under Rule 39 are binding; a State that removes a person in breach of them violates Article 34.
- They are the key tool for preventing irreversible harm — such as extradition to a real risk of ill-treatment — before the Court can rule.
- Urgent applications for interim measures may be essential where removal is imminent.
This page summarises a leading judgment and is not legal advice on any individual case.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey decide?
The Grand Chamber held that by extraditing the applicants to Uzbekistan despite the Court’s Rule 39 indication not to, Turkey failed to comply with its obligations under Article 34. It established that interim measures are binding.
Are Rule 39 interim measures binding?
Yes. This judgment established that a State’s failure to comply with an interim measure indicated by the Court hinders the effective exercise of the right of individual application and breaches Article 34.
Why are interim measures important?
They allow the Court to prevent irreversible harm — such as extradition or deportation to a real risk of ill-treatment — while it examines a case.
Convention Articles engaged
Cases against this state
Related ECHR cases
- Selmouni v. France
- Gäfgen v. Germany
- M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece
- Aksoy v. Turkey
- Bouyid v. Belgium
- Othman (Abu Qatada) v. the United Kingdom
Facing a similar case?
Our lawyers represent individuals before the European Court of Human Rights. Speak to an ECHR lawyer, learn how to apply to the ECHR, or check the admissibility criteria.