NGOs under European Convention on Human Rights / Tymofeyeva

and Others v. Italy, 469 there is a communication from AI, which this time took part in the proceedings before the Court as a third party. Consequently, it can be concluded that the Committee of Ministers gives any NGO an opportunity to file a submission, regardless of whether it took part in the proceeding before the Court or joined the case only at the execution stage. As in the situation with the Court, the Committee of Ministers mostly receives submissions from famous international NGOs, 470 and only on a rare occasion the communications are filed by small local NGOs. Rule 9 ‘Communications to the Committee of Ministers’ does not set forth any limits on their size or the territory of action. The only important feature of such an organisation is the aim of promoting and protecting human rights. Therefore, we may conclude that the Committee of Ministers may refuse to accept information from business entities and political parties. Nevertheless, if these subjects show that they actively take part in the endorsement of human rights, Rule 9 of Rules of the Committee of Ministers will be applicable to them to the same extent. There exist a considerable number of cases where NGOs use their right to participate in the supervision of the execution of judgments of the Court.The purpose of this section is not to place an exhaustive list of them, but to reiterate that NGOs precisely follow the activities of the governments in their countries and are a very effective source of obtaining the latest information. They care about the protection of human rights in the state, and for that reason actively cooperate not only with the Court, but also with the Committee of Ministers. In all the listed cases, non-profit organisations working in the area of human rights acted in the capacity of information providers. In theory, nothing precludes the Court from using the reports introduced by political parties and business corporations. On the other hand, on a very rare occasion the information that does not relate to a state of human rights may be of relevance for the Court. Duties of a provider of information Rule A1 of the Annex to the Rules of Court 471 on the implementation of on site investigations provides that the Court’s chamber may ask any institution of its choice to express an opinion or make a written report on any matter considered by it to be relevant to the case. Although, not explicitly determined in this provision, as far as the rights are grounds for identifying duties, 472 it can be concluded that NGOs are under an obligation to provide the Court with the required report. Even if the Convention does not envisage any control mechanism of such an obligation and does not set forth any exact rules on the responsibility for the refusal to provide the information, we can deduce that there is a sort of moral responsibility to assist such a significant human rights body as the Court. 469 Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 27765/09, ECHR 2012. 470 D. H. [GC], cited above. 471 Rule A1 – Investigative measures. Annex to the Rule sof Court (concerning investigations). 472 LINDBLOM, 2005, cited above, p. 123.

89