Furthermore, the ECtHR has accepted that persons (especially close relatives) who are very close
to the real victim within the meaning of Article 34 may exceptionally be regarded as a “victim”
if, for practical purposes, it is impossible for the real victim to exercise his right of individual
petition, for instance because she is deceased or suffering from some other incapacity. The
ECtHR also admits petitions from close relatives on behalf of the victim, if the application was
brought with the consent of the victim of the alleged breach and would avoid actio popularis
applications.156 The ECtHR thus allows for nominal complainants.
Individual applicants may submit applications themselves, but legal representation is recom-
mended, and even required if the Chamber so decides.157 The Council of Europe has set up a
legal aid scheme for applicants who do not have sufficient means.158 The expenses of witnesses,
experts and other persons whom the ECtHR hears at the request of an individual applicant may
at the ECtHR’s discretion be borne by the Council of Europe,159 in contrast to the cost allocation
to the individual applicant under the American system. This alleviates substantially the monetary
costs for applicants and thus augments the expected net benefit from a complaint.
All final judgments of the ECtHR are binding on the respondent States concerned. The responsi-
bility for supervising the execution of judgments lies with the Committee of Ministers of the
Council of Europe.160 The Committee of Ministers verifies whether States in respect of which a
violation of the ECHR is found have taken adequate remedial measures to comply with the spe-
cific or general obligations arising out of the ECtHR’s judgments. Nevertheless, the problem of
systemic161 violations led to the consideration that the ECtHR should render precise measures in
its judgments,162 and should identify systemic problems - recommendations the ECtHR followed
156 Case of Ilhan v. Turkey (Appl. No. 22277/93), Judgment of 27 June 2000, 2000-VIII Eur.Ct.H.R at para. 52
et seq. The dissenting opinion by Judge Golcüklü at para 4. contests “the recognition given to the notion of
“victim by proxy” accepted by the Court.“
157 Rule 36 of the Rules of the Court of March 2005, available at:
<http://www.echr.coe.int/Eng/EDocs/RulesOfCourtMarch2005.pdf>.
158 See Art. 58 ECHR and Chapter X of the Rules of the Court as well as van Dijk/van Hoof, supra note 8, at
100.
159 Rule A5 (6); Annex to the Rules of the Court.
160 Art. 46 of Protocol No. 11, supra note 88. The implementation of the cases poses a problem especially in
repeated violations cases, e.g. lengthy judicial procedures. See for an overview concerning the Court,
Opinion No. 209/2002 on the Implementation of the Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights,
supra note 20.
161 The term „systemic“ is used by the Court, but in other judicial bodies the term „systematic“ is used. See for a
detailed discussion Pia Carazo, “Schwere und systematische Menschenrechtsverletzungen: Praxis und
Rechtsprechung der regionalen Menschenrechtsschutzsysteme”, doctoral thesis, Heidelberg forthcoming
2006, on file with the author.
162 Resolution (2004) 3 of the Committee of Ministers on Judgments Revealing an Underlying Systemic
Problem. Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 12 May 2004 at its 114th Session, available at:
<https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=743257&Lang=fr> recommending at para. I and II that the ECtHR
should: ”... as far as possible, [...] identify, in its judgments finding a violation of the Convention, what it
considers to be an underlying systemic problem and the source of this problem, in particular when it is likely
to give rise to numerous applications, so as to assist states in finding the appropriate solution and the
Committee of Ministers in supervising the execution of judgments; to specially notify any judgment
containing indications of the existence of a systemic problem and of the source of this problem not only to
the state concerned and to the Committee of Ministers, but also to the Parliamentary Assembly, to the
Secretary General of the Council of Europe and to the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights,
and to highlight such judgments in an appropriate manner in the database of the Court.”
35