Chapter VIII - Conclusions: The Dialogic Potential of Convention-related Procedures

Summary

This chapter forms the conclusion to part 2 on the dialogic potential of Convention-related procedures as laid down in documents, such as the Convention, the Rules of Court and the Rules of the Committee for the Supervision of the Execution of Judgments and of the Terms of Friendly Settlements. The chapter is a compilation of the findings made in chapters V-VII. It thereby answers one of the questions posed in chapter IV, namely whether the Convention-related procedures have dialogic potential on paper. It integrates the findings made regarding the (pre-)merits and the execution phase and the PJP in the light of the seven indicators for dialogue. The last section of this chapter gives an overview of the level of dialogic potential the Convention-related procedures.

INDICATOR 1: PROCEDURAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR INVOLVEMENT OF ALL INTERLOCUTORS

Each interlocutor has an opportunity to become involved through one or more of the procedures and procedural steps discussed in chapters V-VII. The number of opportunities, however, differs as well as the manner in which the interlocutors can become involved and in which phase they can become involved. All interlocutors, except the Committee, can become involved in both the (pre-)merits and the execution phase; the Committee cannot become involved in the (pre-)merits phase.

The states may become involved in two capacities: as a respondent state and without being a party to a case. The respondent state logically has various opportunities for involvement in the both phases, because it must answer the applicant's allegations and, if it is held to be responsible for a violation, execute a judgment. That state also plays a special role in the PJP, through four opportunities for involvement which are virtually unique to the PJP. The respondent state can request the application of the PJP, give its opinion on whether the PJP should be applied and reach a friendly settlement with the applicant in the pilot case. Additionally, the state sometimes has the opportunity to solve adjourned cases itself. The state has, however little control over whether it can indeed use these possibilities and whether its involvement is of any consequence. States other than the respondent state can become involved in the (pre-)merits phase by way of hearings and third-party interventions. They have a right to become thus involved when one of their nationals is an applicant.