1 A survey is given in Nadelmann, , “The Judicial Dissent—Publication v. Secrecy,” 8 A. J. Comp. La 415 (1959)Google Scholar; also in idem, Conflict of Laws: International and Interstate 363 (1972).

2 See Nadelmann, “Non-Disclosure of Dissents in Constitutional Courts: Italy and West Germany,” 13 A. J. Comp. Law 268 (1964); also in idem, note 1 above, at 383.

3 References in Nadelmann, Conflict of Laws: International and Interstate 392 (Postscript) (1972).

4 Convention of Nov. 4, 1950, 213 U.N.T.S. 222 and 262. Text also in I. Brownlie (ed.), Basic Documents on Human Rights 291 (1971); A. Luini del Russo, International Protection of Human Rights 271 (1971).

5 See A. H. Robertson, The International Protection of Human Rights 6–10 (1970); Buergenthal, , “Human Rights: The European Convention and its National Application—Some Introductory Observations,” 18 A. J. Comp. La 233 (1970)Google Scholar; Golsong, , ‘Implementation of International Protection of Human Rights,” 110 Hague Academy, Recueil des Cour 1 (1963)Google Scholar; Greenberg, & Shalit, , “New Horizons for Human Rights: European Convention, Court and Commission on Human Rights,” 63 Col. Law Re. 1384 (1963)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Waldock, , “The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,” 34 Brit. Yr. Bk. Int. La 356 (1958)Google Scholar.

6 An institution of the ancien régime preserved by Napoleon. See M. L. Rassat, Le Ministère Public 7 (1967); cf. R. David and H. P. de Vries, The French Legal System 20 (1958).

7 See P. Herzog, Civil Procedure in France 120, 165 (1967); M. Cappelletti and M. Pernio, Civil Procedure in Italy 128, 281 (1965).

8 Arrêté of Prince Sovereign of March 15, 1815, providing Rules for Cassation Proceedings, Art. 39, 3 Pasinomie Beige 486 (1860). Today: Code judiciaire, Art. 1109 (1967).

9 Entire proceedings, in French and English, in Series B: Pleadings, Oral Arguments, Documents 1969–1970 Delcourt Case (hereafter Pleadings), publication of the European Court of Human Rights.

10 Judgment, in French and English, in Series A: Judgments and Decisions—Delcourt Case, Judgment of Jan. 17, 1970 (hereafter, Judgment), publication of the European Court of Human Rights. French text in 85 Journal des Tribunaux 98 (Belgium, 1970); 7 Cahiers de Droit Européen 190 (1971). Comments by Marcus-Helmons, 7 ibid, at 203; van Heyst, [1972] Nederlands Juristenblad 50, 54; Alkema, ibid, at 212, 221–222.

11 The relevant data are summarized in the judgment of the Court, Judgment at 6–7, and given in greater detail in the Report of the Human Rights Commission of Oct. 1, 1968, Pleadings at 8, 11–14.

12 Partial decision of Feb. 7, 1967. Text in 10 (1967) Yearbook of the European Convention on Human Rights 238–281 (1969) (hereafter Yearbook); final decision of April 6, 1967, ibid, at 283–321.

13 Art. 6(1) provides that “in the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charges against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.” For a discussion see J. E. S. Fawcett, The Application of the European Convention on Human Rights 121, 137, 155 (1969); Buergenthal, “Comparative Study of Certain Due Process Requirements of the Human Rights Convention,” 18 Buffalo Law Rev. 18, 24–27 (1966).

14 For a case which was settled, see Velu, , “Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights in Belgian Law,” 18 A. J. Comp. La 259, 280–281 (1970)Google Scholar.

15 Report of Oct. 1, 1968. Text in Pleadings 8–124.

16 Messrs. Sørensen (Denmark), Castberg (Norway), Delahaye (Belgium), Walter (Luxembourg), Sperduti (Italy), Fawcett (U.K.), O’Donoghue (Ireland).

17 Messrs. Eustathiades (Greece), Susterhenn (Germany), Ermacola (Austria), Trantafyllides (Cyprus), Balta (Turkey), Lindal (Iceland).

18 The majority opinion is in Pleadings at 56–63; concurring opinion by Castberg and Delahaye at 59; dissenting opinion at 59–63. The doctrine of “equality of arms” had been defined in the so-called “Austrian” cases (mentioned in the Judgment in No. 15, at page 8) by the Commission and the Council of Ministers. See, in particular, Ofner and Hopfinger, 6 Yearbook 676, 705, 709, where the fact was noted especially that, in the cases involved, the Attorney General had not been present at the secret deliberation and that the Austrian law allowing such presence had been changed. Cf. Buergenthal, note 13 above, at 26.

19 Decision of Dec. 16, 1968, Pleadings at 6.

20 Convention, note 4 above, Art. 43; Rules of Court 2 (1958–59) Yearbook 2 (1960), Rules 21, 22.

21 Rule 21(6). On the Rules see Robertson, “The European Court of Human Rights,” 9 A. J. Comp. Law 1, 20 (1960).

22 See minutes of March 4, 1969; Pleadings at 126–127. The judge from Norway, first substitute judge, replaced the Irish judge who was unable to sit because of illness. See Minutes of the Public Hearing, Pleadings at 156.

23 Minutes in Pleadings 156–243.

24 Letters of Sept. 24 and 25, 1969, Pleadings at 150, 154.

25 Minutes in Pleadings at 248.

26 See De Meyer argument, Pleadings at 181–183.

27 See critical analysis in H. Rolin, “De la nature de la fonction de la Court de Cassation” (Introduction to Book V: Procédure en cassation), in 3 La Réforme de la Procedure 228, 275 (Centre d’études pour la réforme de l’Etat, Brussels, 1939).

28 Sec. 25 of the judgment, Judgment at 13–15, referring mutatis mutandis to the judgment of June 27, 1968, in Wemhoff v. Germany, “As to the law,” par. 8, Judgment at 23.

29 Sees. 33 and 34, Judgment at 18.

30 Sec. 35, ibid, at 19.

31 See Sec. 74(2) of the Commission’s Report, Pleadings at 70.

32 See, e.g., Rex v. Sussex Justices ex p. McCarthy, [1924] 1 K.B. 256.

33 The “tribunal de commerce” is a good example. For France see Herzog, note 7 above, at 144–146. In Belgium, too, until the recent reform giving the presidency to a career judge, the greffier, called référendaire, was adviser on law to the tribunal. See 1 A. Brass, Précis de Procédure Civile 108 (3rd ed., 1945).

34 Sec. 41, Judgment at 20.

35 Ibid.

36 See E. Faye, La Cour de Cassation 238 (1903); 1 T. Crépon, Pourvoi en Cassation en matière civile 204–205 (1892). Cf. for the Conseil d’Etat, 2 J. M. Auby & R. Drago, Traité du Contentieux Administratif 276 (1982).

37 Codice di procedura civile, Art. 379 (1942). See Cappelletti & Perillo, note 7 above, at 281.

38 Art. 38 of the Arrêté of March 15, 1815, note 8 above; Law of Feb. 25, 1925, on Cassation Procedure in Civil Matters, [1925] Pasinomie Beige 33, Art. 19. See “Pourvoi en Cassation en matière civile,” No. 329, in 9 Répertoire pratique du droit beige 627 (1938). Today: Code judiciaire, Art. 1107(2) (1967).

39 See 1967 address by the then First President of the Court of Cassation, Charles Bornet, “La logique judiciaire devant la Cour de Cassation,” in 5e Colloque des Institutes d’Etudes Judiciaires, Paris, 1967, La Logique Judiciaire 85, 87 (1969).

40 See “Pourvoi en Cassation,” note 38 above.

41 Ibid.: “to meet the inconvenience resulting from the ban on passing a note after the presentation by the Ministère public.” (Our translation.)

42 See Report, sec. 72, Pleadings at 59.

43 See Memorial of the Commission of May 22, 1969, Pleadings at 133, 134–135.

44 Seven cases had been decided before Delcourt: Lawless (State concerned: Ireland), 1960–1961; De Becker (Belgium), 1962; “Languages” (Belgium), 1965–1968 (by Plenary Court); Wemhoff (Germany), 1967–1968; Neumeister (Austria), 1966–1968; Stögemtiller (Austria), 1967–1969; Matznetter (Austria), 1967–1969.

45 Vita of each judge in Yearbook covering his election. See 2 Yearbook 143 (Rolin), 147 (Wold), 4 ibid. 93 (Zekia), 6 ibid. 59 (Favre), 8 ibid. 45 (Cremona), 9 ibid. 53 (Waldock), 55 (Wiarda).

46 See, e.g., Mosler, , “La procédure de la Cour Internationale de Justice et de la Cour Européenne des Droits de 1’Homme,” in 1 Rene Cassin Amicorum Discipulorumque Libe 196, 201 (1969)Google Scholar.

47 Cf. Sørensen rebuttal, Pleadings at 235–240. The Delegates did not avail themselves of the right under Rule 29(1) of the Rules of Court to have themselves assisted by any person of their choice who, under Rule 37, could also be called upon to speak in the hearing. In the “Vagrancy” Cases De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v. Belgium, the Plenary Court, by judgment of Nov. 18, 1970, on “A Question of Procedure” by a vote of sixteen against one, ruled that, in accordance with their notice of intention, the Delegates could choose as their assistant the lawyer who had represented the original claimants before the Commission. See also the discussion of the relation between Commission and Applicant in the Lawless case. A. H. Robertson, Human Rights in Europe 116–126 (1963).

48 See 2 D. G. Valentine, The Court of Justice of the European Communities 30–35 (1965); cf. E. H. Wall, The Court of Justice of the European Communities 190, 252 (1966).

49 See Mosler, note 46 above, at 201–202, 212.

50 See sec. 36 of the judgment, Judgment at 19.

51 Biographical data on Professor Rolin’s service as Senator are in Melanges offerts a Henri Rolin xxi (1964). And see note 110 below.

52 The systems providing for review are discussed in M. Cappelletti, Judicial Review in the Contemporary World 45–51 (1971). The question was the subject of the Sixièmes Journées d’Etudes juridiques Jean Dabin, Louvain, Oct. 1971, reported by M. Wolff in 87 Journal des Tribunaux 90 (Belgium, 1972).

53 See Appendix VI to Commission Report, Pleadings at 122, 123, reproducing Memorandum of March, 1965, provided to Senate Committee by Hayoit de Termicourt, Procureur Gén. (with reference to his study “Propos sur le Ministère public,” 16 Revue de Droit Pénal et de Criminologie 961 (Belgium, 1936)).

54 Prof. Jan De Meyer, Pleadings at 187.

55 See De Meyer Memorandum to Commission of Feb. 27, 1968 (Doc. D. 23.411), excerpt reproduced in Commission Report, Pleadings 32 at 35.

56 See sec. 15, last part of first par., of judgment, Judgment at 8.

57 Sec. 4 of Memorial of May 22, 1969, note 43 above, at 134.

58 The Commission not having supplied data, the Court could have collected them under powers granted by Rule 38 of the Rules of Court, note 20 above.

59 Rule 48(1) of the Rules of Court, note 20 above.

60 See Pleadings, Case “Relating to Certain Aspects of the Laws on the Use of Languages in Education in Belgium,” Vol. I, p. 399.

61 Sec. 30, last par., of judgment, Judgment at 17.

62 Much quoted in the common law countries (e.g., Rex v. Sussex Justices ex p. McCarthy, [1924] 1 K.B. 256, 259, per Lord Hewart, C.J.), but also in the civil law world (e.g., Cislain, “Du Ministère public dans les affaires civiles,” 25 Belgique Judiciaire, col. 337 at 339 (1867)).

63 Sec. 31 of the judgment, Judgment at 17.

64 Other Court decisions involving Art. 6( 1) have not been unanimous. See Judgment of Nov. 10, 1969, in the Matznetter Case (dissent by Cremona, J., at 46, 50); Judgment of June 27, 1968 in the Neumeister Case (dissents by Holmback and Zekia, J. J., at 46 and 47, respectively). The right to open dissent is secured by the convention, Art. 51(2); cf. Rule 50(2).

65 Letter from Registrar of Sept. 25, 1969, Pleadings at 154.

66 Answer to Letter of Procureur Gén. of Sept. 26, 1969, read to Court by counsel (Me J. Faures), at public hearing, Pleadings at 190, 213–214.

67 See survey in Nadelmann, note 1 above.

68 On the different style of opinion writing, see J. G. Wetter, The Styles of Appellate Judicial Opinions (1960); J. P. Dawson, The Oracles of the Law 407–411 (France), 494–495 (Germany) (1968).

69 Lacking, in particular, is an assessment of the respective political powers of Ministère public and government in the countries concerned.

70 References in note 8 above. Cf. D. J. Veegens, Cassatie in burgerlijke zaken 19–21 (2d ed., 1971). No corresponding provision is in the arrêté of July 19, 1815, 4 Pasinomie Beige 276 (1860), covering the same subject for the Liège district.

71 Text in 3 Pasinomie Beige 95 (1860).

72 The exercise of powers during the period is sketched in a “History,” in 3 Pasinomie Beige vii (1860); and see Rolin, note 27 above, at 239. Cf. Verdam, , “Franse civiele cassatie in Noord-Nederlandse zaken (1810–1815),” 39 Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedeni 553, 574 (1971)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

73 Relevant legal texts are collected in Appendix IV to the Report of the Commission, Pleadings at 109, 111, 112.

74 “La cour jugera autant que possible séance tenante. En matière de cassation le Ministère public a le droit d’assister à la déliberation lorsqu’elle n’a pas lieu à l’instant et dans la même salle d’audience, mais il n’a pas voix déliberative.” Note 8 above, and Pleadings at 112. It will be noticed that nothing is said for the case where the court does not withdraw.

75 Pleadings at 112.

76 Decree of March 30, 1808, 16 Duvergier, Collection des Lois 282 (1826), Art. 88. Cf. Pannier, Vices de 1’administration de la justice (1825), quoted in R. Bordeaux, Philosophie de la procédure civile 474, note 1 (1957). In Belgium, overruling a decision of the Court of Cassation, the Parliament in 1949 strengthened the provision by adding that a violation voids the judgment rendered. See Pleadings at 110. For the history of the Act of April 19, 1949, see Annex V of the Commission’s Report, Pleadings at 118; cf. opening of Annex VI, ibid, at 122. Today: Code Judiciaire, Art. 768 (1967).

77 Ordinance of Jan. 15, 1826, regulating the procedure in the Court of Cassation, 26 Duvergier, Collection des Lois 4 (1829), Art. 39. See Faye, note 36 above, at 238.

78 Antonin Besson, “Cassation,” No. 755, in 1 [Dalloz] Répertoire de Procédure civile et commerciale 329, 384 (1956).

79 See 1 Crépon, note 36 above, at 206 (No. 461).

80 On Lasagni (1773–1857) who served previously on the Rota and the “French” Chamber of the Rome Court of Appeals, see Tribunal de la Cour de Cassation, Notices sur le Personnel 1791–1879, p. 159 (1879). Cf. 1 M. Rousselet, Histoire de la Magistrature Françise 230 (1957). For Lasagni as judge rapporteur in a case involving Ministère public presence on the appellate level, see Case of Cour Royale de Poitiers, Cass., Ch. req., March 19, 1845, [1845] D. I 133 (presence censured contrary to Ministère public (Dupin) recommendation).

81 Thus the law clerks of the members of the United States Supreme Court have no access to the deliberations of the Court.

82 See Faye, note 36 above, at 256, 648. Faye was a member of the Court of Cassation. Perhaps even more significant, there is nothing on it in J. L. E. Ortolan & L. Ledeau, Le Ministère public en France (1831).

83 See Bomet, note 39 above, at 87.

84 Even though France has not yet ratified the convention. On this subject, see Besancon Nov. 5–7, 1970, Colloque, , “La France devant la Convention Européenne des Droits de l’Ho-mme,” 3 Human Rights Journa 350 (1970)Google Scholar, noted in 23 Revue Internationale de droit comparé 130 (1971).

85 See Calamandrei, , “Cassazione civile,” No. 11, in 2 Nuovo Digesto Italian 981, 989 (1937)Google Scholar. Details in 1 P. Calamandrei, La Cassazione Civile, Ch. XXX, pp. 709 et seq. (1920). Cf. Cappelletti & Perillo, note 7 above, at 40.

86 Ordinamento Giudiciario of Dec. 6, 1865, No. 2626, Art. 143(1): “II Ministero pubblico presso la Corte di Cassazione assiste alle deliberazioni per le decisioni delle cause civili. . . .”

87 See 4 L. Mattirolo, Diritto Giudiziario Civile (No. 1167) 1047 (5th ed., 1901, 1931 reprint).

88 Cf. L. Mortara, Istituzioni di ordinamento giudiziario 142 (1896). For more recent discussions see references in Gianturco, “SulT assistenza del P. M. alle deliberazioni delle sentenze civili della Corti di Cassazione,” [1971] Giurisprudenza italiana IV, 119, note 1. And see 2 R. de La Grasserie, De La Justice en France et à l’étranger au XXe siècle 501,514–517 (1914).

89 De Faldo draft, Art. 29 (1872), Vigliani draft, Art. 15, Tajani draft, Art. 89, according to Mattirolo, note 87 above.

90 See 2(2) G. Nappi, Commentario al Codice di procedure civile 1200 (1943) (prelim, draft, Art. 382, definitive draft, Art. 396). In support of the exclusion the draftsmen said: “The obligatory participation of the p. m. in the proceedings is maintained, but excluded is for obvious reasons of convenience more than principle (italics added) its intervention at the formation of the decision in chambers.” [Italy], Ministero di Grazia e Giustizia, Codice di Procedure Civile, Projetto preliminare e Relazione, No. 18, at 355–356 (1937).

91 See Nappi, cited above, at 1202.

92 Codice di procedure civile, Art. 380(1) (1942); Ordinamento Giudiziario of Jan. 30, 1941, No. 12, Art. 76( 1). Cappelletti & Perillo, note 7 above, at 281; G. di Federico, La Corte di Cassazione 231 (1969). For comments see, e.g., G. Lembo, Esposizione e commento del nuovo Codice di Procedura civile 376 (1941); 1 S. Satta, Commentario al Codice di Procedura civile 242 (1959); 2 id. 265. A recent attack is in Gianturco, note 88 above.

93 See Cappelletti, note 52 above, at 66, note 76; Cassandro, , “The Constitutional Court of Italy,” 8 A. J. Comp. La 1 (1959)Google Scholar; cf. G. Branca, Collegialita nei giudizi della Corte Costituzionale 7–9 (1970).

94 Law of March 11, 1953, No. 87, Art. 23. See 2 C. Mortati, Istituzioni di Diritto Pubblico 1260 (8th ed., 1969); Bonifacio, “Corte costituzionale e autorità giudiziaria,” in La Giustizia Costituzionale 41, 49–52, 370 (G. Maranini, ed., Vallecchi: Florence, 1966).

95 See Italian Constitution, Arts. 24 and 25; P. Barile, Corso di Diritto Costituzionale 211 (2d ed., 1964); L. P. Comoglio, La garanzia costituzionale dell’ azione ed il processo civile 150, 156 (1970). Cf. Cappelletti, , “Social and Political Aspects of Civil Procedure—Reforms and Trends in Western and Eastern Europe,” 69 Mich. Law Re. 847, 865, note 84 (1971)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

96 Arista v. Minardi, Di Stefano, Corte Suprema di Cassazione, Sezioni unite civili, Oct. 4, 1969, No. 3179, [1969] II Foro Italiano I 2754.

97 At 2759.

98 For a critical evaluation of the Court of Cassation’s handling of its interim responsibility for judicial review before the Constitutional Court started its operation, see Cappelletti, note 52 above, at 64, with a reference to Calamandrei, “Come si fa a disfare una Costituzione,” in Dieci Anni Dopo: 1945–1955. Saggi sulla vita democratica italiana 209 (1955), reprinted in 3 P. Calamandrei, Opere Giuridiche 511 (M. Cappelletti ed., 1968). And see Merriman, & Vigoriti, , “When Courts Collide: Constitution and Cassation in Italy,” 15 A. J. Comp. La 665 (1967)Google Scholar.

99 [1970] II Foro Italiano IV 89.

100 The Delcourt Chamber opined that “no one could ever seriously suggest” that, in civil matters, the Ministère public becomes the opponent of a litigant with whose case its submissions do not agree. Sec. 33 of the judgment, Judgment at 18. Probably, all who have said so (references in notes 88 above and 106 below) need not be “taken seriously.”

101 See, e.g., the well-known Virgin Islands divorce mill case, Granville-Smith v. Granville-Smith, 349 U.S. 1, 5–8 (1955), noted in Cavers, D. F., “Contemporary Conflicts Law in American Perspective,” 131 Hague Academy, Recueil des Cour 75, 266 (1970, III)Google Scholar.

102 Prof. De Meyer, referring to a statement by Procureur Gén. Leclercq, Pleadings at 187.

103 Prof. De Meyer, Pleadings at 188, referring to the statement submitted by Procureur Gén. Hayoit de Termicourt to the Parliament in 1965, Pleadings at 122, 123.

104 See sec. 36 of the judgment, Judgment at 19. Cf. Memorial of the Belgian Government of July 17, 1969, Pleadings 140, 146.

105 No identification is made of the authors of “Ministère public” and “Pourvoi en cassation en matière répressive” in the Répertoire pratique du droit beige, cited by the Belgian Government, Pleadings at 146, note 3.

106 Reference may be made to authorities collected, e.g., in Bekaert, “La Mission du Ministère public en droit privé,” in 2 Mélanges en 1’honneur de Jean Dabin 419, 441–442, note 5 (1963); R. Warlomont, Le Magistrat—son Statut et sa Fonction 228 (1950) (beginning with Gislain, note 62 above, at col. 340).

106a A query in the Belgian Senate about removal of the right of presence was given a negative response by the Minister of Justice who referred to the Human Rights Court decision. Sénat, Questions et réponses, No. 25, 1969–1970, April 7, 1970, pp. 1122, 1123, according to Marcus-Helmons, note 10 above, at 205.

107 See the Court’s judgment of June 27, 1968, in the Wemhoff case, “As to the law,” par. 8, Judgment at 23, and the dissent by Zekia, J., Judgment at 35, 38–39.

108 See Règlement de Procédure de la Cour de Justice des Communautés européennes, Art. 27(2), reproduced, e.g., in Ch. van Reephingen & P. Orianne, La Procédure devant la Cour de Justice des Communautés européennes 125 (1961).

109 Sec. 30, last par., of judgment, Judgment at 17.

110 Interesting in this respect is the 8–to-7 split of the Plenary Court of Human Rights in the “Language” case, Case “relating to certain aspects of the laws on the use of languages in education in Belgium (Merits),” Judgment of 23rd July, 1968. In that case, incidentally, Judge Rolin had disqualified himself under convention (note 4 above) Art. 43, and Rule 24 (2) of the Rules of the Court (note 20 above) because he had personally participated as Senator in the elaboration of the laws in issue before the Court. Pleadings, Vol. I, p. 370 (1967). In addition to “required” disqualification, there is also discretionary withdrawal under Rule 24 (3) of the Rules when a judge considers that he should withdraw from consideration of a particular case or if the President considers such withdrawal to be desirable. On the distinction, for American law see Nadelmann, “Disqualification of Constitutional Judges for Alleged Bias?”, 52 Judicature 27 (1968), and in Scritti in onore di Gaspare Ambrosini 1399 (1970) and 19 Jahrbuch des öffentlichen Rechts (N. F.) 323 (1970).

111 Convention, Art. 52.

112 Convention, Art. 27 (1) (b). Cf. Buergenthal, “The Effects of the European Convention of Human Rights on the International Law of Member States,” in The European Convention on Human Rights 79, 100 (Int. & Comp. Law Q. Supp., Pub. No. 11, 1965).

113 Rule 48 of Rules of Court, note 20 above.

114 Under the convention, acceptance of the right of individual petition is made optional (Art. 25). It was accepted by eleven governments, including Belgium; likewise, the jurisdiction of the Court must be accepted (Art. 46), which was done by the same governments. See Buergenthal, note 5 above, at 235, note 8.

115 In Glaser, “Quelques aspects d’une procédure pénale européenne,” 24 Revue internationale de droit comparé 689, 702 (1970), the interesting suggestion is made that another convention should spell out the meanings of “independent court” and procedural due process of law. Cf. also Frank Newman, “The Convention and Worldwide Human Rights: Some Iconoclastic Inquiries,” in 3e Colloque international sur la Convention européenne des Droits de l’Homme, Brussels, 1970 (1972).

116 See A. B. McNulty, Bilan de la Convention européenne des Droits de l’Homme (1971).

117 On the International Institute of Human Rights (Fondation René Cassin), see Robertson, , “The European Convention on Human Rights: Educational Aspects,” 18 A. J. Comp. La 352, 362 (1970)Google Scholar.

118 For an endeavor to establish better contacts between Commission and Court, see Fawcett, “The European Convention on Human Rights: Recent Trends,” 24 [1971] Current Legal Problems 246, 256.