NGOs under European Convention on Human Rights / Tymofeyeva

The truth is that the Court usually refers to the work of well-known NGOs with international status, 464 but this practice does not preclude it from also taking into account reports from NGOs with regional or local status. For example, in the case of Kasymakhunov and Saybatalov v. Russia, it quoted the report entitled ‘Whether Hizb ut-Tahrir is an extremist organisation?’ published by the SOVA Centre for Information and Analysis, a local Russian non-governmental organisation. 465 The givenexamples showthat the interest of theCourt in the provision of information by human rights NGOs is enormous. Further, we will look at the submissions from NGOs in the course of the execution of the Court’s judgments. Providing information in the course of the execution of judgments In accordance with Rule 9 of the Rules of the CoE Committee of Ministers, in the course of implementing the Court’s judgments under Article 46, paragraph 2 of the Convention, the Committee of Ministers is authorized to discuss any submissions of non-governmental organisations. The body responsible for such a discussion is the Secretariat of the Committee of Ministers. It brings, in an appropriate way, any communication received to the attention of the Committee of Ministers. In addition, Rule 8, paragraph 2 of the Rules of the Committee of Ministers envisages that the information provided by NGOs to this committee must be publicly accessible. 466 Although the Committee of Ministers is entirely responsible for the adoption of the necessary execution measures, it is, however, assisted by the Department for the Execution of Judgments of the Court (hereafter referred to as ‘the Department for the Execution’). It fulfils a considerable part of the tasks primarily designed for the Committee of Ministers. The detailed information, concerning the state of enforcement of the Court’s judgments in each and every case can be found on the website of the Department for the Execution. 467 For example, if we have a look at how the execution of the judgment in the case of D. H. and Others v. the Czech Republic 468 proceeded, the electronic report from the archives not only contains the case’s general information, but also the texts of the submissions of the respondent government and the NGO communications in accordance with Rule 9. Communications in this case have been provided by a number of significant organizations, among them AI, OSJI and ERRC. Only the last one participated in the case in the capacity of a representative. As for AI and OSJI, these two NGOs were not even a third party in the proceedings. In a report on the execution of judgment in the case of Jamaa Hirsi 464 In the case of Delfi AS v. Estonia [GC] (no. 64569/09, 16 June 2015), third-party comments were received from the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights; Article 19; Access; Media Legal Defence Initiative (MLDI), acting together with its twenty-eight associated organisations; and the European Digital Media Association (EDiMA), the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA Europe) and the pan-European association of European Internet Services Providers Associations (EuroISPA), acting jointly. 465 Kasymakhunov and Saybatalov v. Russia , nos. 26261/05 and 26377/06, 14 March 2013. 466 Rules of Court. 467 See accessed 20 July 2015. 468 D. H. [GC], cited above.

88