Chapter 4 first analyzes how Article 13 was dealt with during the drafting of the Convention. A central conclusion is that the drafting does not explain the Court’s timid development of Article 13 in early years and that it, rather, may provide support for a further development of Article 13 in the present. The chapter then describes how the number of cases concerning Article 13 has increased in tandem with the general rise in the Court’s case law and how, in more recent years, the Court actually considers whether Article 13 has been violated, in addition to substantive Articles. However, the Court rarely explains why this is necessary. This makes it difficult to distinguish between similar remedial requirements arising under both Article 13 and substantive Articles. However, as the chapter explains, this could be necessary in order to underline specific remedial purposes and to avoid undercommunicating remedial goals, most notably achieving sufficient redress, but, also, procederual requirements necessary in order to ahcieve redress. The chapter, also, provides a more detailed overview of how Article 13 has been dealt with in conjunction with substantive Articles.