The rules of international law concerning the interpretation of treaties are laid down in Articles 31-33 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Those rules have been constantly applied by international tribunals, but what distinguishes the European Court of Human Rights from other tribunals is its emphasis on four specific rules of interpretation, namely, Dynamic Interpretation, Autonomous Concepts, Effective Interpretation and Margin of Appreciation. The present study examines these rules and their application in the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights.

As in the case of national law, respect and protection of Human Rights is only effective if the executive legal systems can ensure access to an effective remedy. When such right is violated, access to the justice system is essential for the victim. Although the European Convention on Human Rights refers to some aspects of a Fair Hearing, there is no clear reference to the right of hearing within the concept of access to an effective remedy or the right to proceedings. The jurisprudence has broadened the scope of the mentioned subject matter beyond just the right to a fair and effective process system to the right to proceedings. However, provided that the restriction is subject to a legitimate purpose, the principle of proportionality is awarded and that the limitation has no effect on the nature of the stated right, the right of access to justice has proven not to be absolute in some instances.

The prolongation of criminal proceedings has long been a problem that has confronted the judicial system. Delays in proceedings exist to a greater or lesser extent in many judicial systems, so that the absence of delays in proceedings in a judicial system is considered strange. The phenomenon of delay in proceedings exists in both civil and criminal cases, but unfortunately, delay in proceedings, especially in criminal matters, has reached worrying dimensions in our country. One of the important issues related to the field of delay in proceedings is the issue of reasonable time in criminal proceedings. In other words, before talking about the causes of delay in proceedings, it should be basically determined how long the duration and time of handling a case is a normal and natural period and amount and when should we talk about delay in proceedings. In determining a reasonable time for criminal proceedings, the best source is the European Convention on Human Rights and the Court. This Convention discusses the reasonable and fair time limit for a criminal trial, and the European Court of Human Rights has explained the reasonable time limit for criminal trials in its various opinions. Therefore, in order to determine what is a reasonable and normal time limit for handling criminal cases, referring to this Convention and the opinions of the European Court can be very helpful. The Court uses criteria to determine a reasonable time limit; something that can also be applied in criminal trials in our country.

In 1998, the control system of the European Convention on Human Rights underwent a fundamental Change. In that year, the European Commission and Court of Human Rights were abolished and replaced by a single body, namely, the European Court of Human Rights. Shortly afterwards, the need for a new reform was felt. As a result, in 2004, the Council of Europe elaborated Protocol NO. 14 with a view to enhancing the efficacy of the control system of the European Convention. The present article aims to discuss the major changes brought about by the said Protocol.      

In the past two decades, Europe has had numerous conflicts resulting from the clash between freedom of expression and religious insults. The European legal system considers freedom of expression as one of the fundamentals of a democratic society and a basic condition for individual progress and self-actualization. The central approach of the European Court of Human Rights is that freedom of expression includes not only non-insulting statements but also offensive, shocking, or provocative statements. However, this court seeks to resolve the conflict between freedom of expression and blasphemy and create a balance among different interests. On the one hand, under “protecting others’ Rights,” the court spoke of banning severely insulting statements that cause significant distress to religious followers. On the other hand, from a societal perspective, the court considered the risk of a public outcry from religious societies due to religious insults. Recently, however, the court gave significant weight to the political, scientific, and artistic aspects of expression when balancing freedom of expression against religious sensitivities, thereby expanding freedom of expression’s scope. Nonetheless, the threat to public order remains a key factor in the court's decisions to restrict statements containing religious insults. This study used a qualitative method based on content analysis with a descriptive-analytical approach and employing library and internet sources.

By assuming competence for or authorizing the member states of the European Convention on Human Rights to take some actions, Doctrine of Margin of Appreciation provides them with the possibility to create a balance between requirements of their national interest while complying with their obligations according to the Convention. In fact, based on the Doctrine, the member states can interpret the provisions of the Convention in a way that they do not breach those provisions; however, they can secure their national interests.

"Deprivation of liberty" has been known as one of the traditional executive guarantees of criminal law, used in the form of punishment for convicts. However, today with certain social norms and necessities, we are witnessing the use of "deprivation of liberty" in other branches in the form of official, educational, hygienic, disciplinary, and similar guarantees. The increasing importance and the extending use of this type of non-criminal "deprivation of liberty" in recent years, has caused the laws of various countries and international documents to recognize this type of "deprivation of liberty". Among these documents is the European Convention on Human Rights, which. as an advancing legal document in the international realm, in its 5th article, has considered an independent nature of criminal "deprivation of liberty", by numerating the instances of non-criminal "deprivation of liberty", while accepting the notion of non-criminal "deprivation of liberty".

Human procreation and its various features are among the most important topics worldwide. One of the areas of this analysis deals with international Human Rights documents because these documents show international trends in reproductive Rights. Therefore, this paper aims to prepare a venue to understand the definition, nature or entity, scope and content, right - holder and duty bearer, and the obligations of duty-bearers regarding others’ reproductive Rights in international Human Rights organizations. The findings indicated there is no specific and agreed definition of reproductive Rights in these Human Rights documents. The theories (Hohfeld’s theory about a right, the Will - Choice Theory, and the Benefit - Interest Theory) cannot justify the nature of reproductive Rights well. There are many epistemological challenges regarding the content and the scope of these reproductive Rights and related states’ obligations in those treaties, which made the realization of these reproductive Rights difficult or even impossible.