Part III draws together the central threads in the preceding chapters and takes the analysis a step further. Chapter 8 draws particular attention to the importance of context in ECtHR jurisprudence relating to ECHR Article 9, contending that in taking different approaches and reaching different outcomes in ostensibly similar Article 9 cases, the ECtHR is not necessarily being inconsistent. Rather, its approach can be explained by recognising the significance of the facts; the facts help the ECtHR identify what is at stake in a particular case and respond accordingly. In developing this, this chapter explores the importance placed on contextual differences between, and within, Member States by the ECtHR in Article 9 cases, and refers to the major role of the facts in cases concerning other ECHR Articles. Finally, it explores some of the broader cultural, social and political factors the ECtHR may legitimately take into account in Article 9 assessments, and considers the impact of the increased focus on the local context in declarations on reform of the ECHR system on the ECtHR.

Chapter 3 focuses on the ECtHRs general principles concerning ECHR Article 9 in its jurisprudence. It contends that the ECtHR recognises the forum internum and forum externum relationship, intuitively understanding that, because actions flow from the forum internum, the forum internum is always relevant to some degree in Article 9 cases. As such, this chapter recommends conceptualising the forum internum and forum externum aspects of the right on a continuum. Whilst, this chapter argues, forum internum relevance is the principal factor weighing in favour of the applicant, it contends that it is not the only factor the ECtHR takes into consideration in Article 9 cases; the ECtHR balances in all Article 9 cases, weighing up factors pointing to a violation of Article 9 (primarily, but not forum internum relevance) with countervailing factors pointing away from a violation, to reach its decision. Given the ECtHR offers a range of protection as a result, this chapter suggests that a useful way of grouping Article 9 cases for analysis is a loose concentric circles model, comprising three circles, as this better reflects the ECtHR jurisprudence than a binary and hierarchical framework.