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.

The right of peoples to self-determination, political participation, and its associated Rights—including political Rights and freedoms, the right to vote and be elected, the principle of equality, and the prohibition of discrimination—are among the treaty-based rules and internationally accepted norms derived from the principle of democratic legitimacy and subsequently guaranteed through treaty mechanisms. The relationship between democracy and Human Rights is akin to that between the body and the soul in a Human being. Democracy is the body, and Human Rights are its soul. Democracy is a modern institution—a structure for the distribution and containment of power. Human Rights are a collection of Human values in the modern world that operate within democratic regimes. Democracy is a method of governance, and Human Rights are values for living within that democratic method. Human Rights, like the soul, flow through democracy and give it life. If we accept democracy as a method and Human Rights as a value, the analogy of the relationship between democracy and Human Rights to that of the body and the soul is the most apt comparison. The main question of the present study is: how has the European Court of Human Rights interpreted the components of democracy that have been in tension with Human Rights in the cases brought before it? This study has been conducted using a descriptive-analytical method, relying on library and internet resources. The author's hypothesis is that the European Court of Human Rights has consistently emphasized that, although in the interpretation and application of the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights, a "margin of appreciation" is considered for states to express their views and take into account their cultural, political, and social values and interests, this margin of appreciation is accompanied by the Court’s oversight. This is to ensure that states do not ignore Human Rights values under the pretext of considering their own interests and values.

Human Rights violations include a large number of victims, often with similar injuries. This issue concerns the European Court of Human Rights with the issue of repetitive applications and excessive length of proceedings. The use of PilotJudgment Procedure and Class Action are solutions that the Court has been taken to ensure the speed of the trial. The main purpose of this paper is to examine these two methods of dealing with Human Rights violations and existing judicial procedures concerning them. Finally, it will be determined that these two methods of treatment will allow the Court to have a quick and effective hearing, but the manner in which the European Court of Human Rights uses them and the ambiguities regarding in way they are applied, violate the right of individual petition.

Nowadays, the development of new technologies and sciences has had a great impact in Human life. Genetic Science for instance, has significantly changed the medical world and provided better treatments. There is no doubt that genetics as a new and outstanding science offers helpful aids to Humanities. The rising of numbers of genetic laboratories that offers medical and preventive services demonstrate the magnitude of this new arrival science…..

One of the important achievements of Humanity, has been the modernist approach to the concept of religion and its transformation from a full-fledged government policy into a personal inherently faith. The right to freedom of religion is among the fundamental Human Rights identified and protected in international and regional Human Rights documents,However, it should be acknowledged that, firstly, due to its quiddity and its legal nature, in the international arena is conditional on the acceptance of the governments, and secondly, the approach of different states towards it, is different depending on the political, social and cultural conditions that govern them. This right in Europe is protected by the European Convention on Human Rights and its collateral entity, the European Court of Human Rights. In this study in addition to reviewing the international obligations of States in the field of the protection of religious freedom, we intend to assess, practice of Court in the field of elimination of religious intolerance and determination of territory of the right to freedom of religion. Because religious intolerance is one of the earliest causes of international conflict, the benchmarking of the European Court of Action's practical approach can be effective in reducing conflicts and promoting international and regional peace and security.

As one of the most comprehensive recognized principles in criminal law and national laws in the present era, the legality principle of criminal law has the same strength in international arena. One of the most important international legal – judicial institutions is the European Court of Human Rights, which operates within the framework of the European convention on Human Rights. In order to provide and protect of Human Rights and to consolidate the rule of law on one hand and to ensure the fair trial on the other hand, through the reconsidering of the legality principle, many of its ambiguities and exceptions against Human Rights have been eliminated. In order to develop fair trial guarantees for achieving Human Rights aims, the Court has essentially, through revising the elements of criminal law legality, elevated the concept of this fundamental principle qualitatively. In the present study, while revising the judicial precedent of the Court, based on the most important decisions with the emphasis on article 6 & 7 of the convention, the concept of the principle of legality in the light of the development of justice guarantees in the context of rethinking the concept of law, crime and punishment in judicial precedent has been inferred from European Court of Human Rights.

After the World War II, European countries decided to establish a convention which protects fundamental Human Rights in a comprehensive way. This act roots in two main reasons; first of all, as the war was initiated in Europe, it had to ratify a convention which reduces the probability of atrocities’ repetition, it also provides the opportunity for European countries to supervise each other. It should be noted that at the time of the ratification, European countries did not have the same condition from the Human Rights law’ s point of view. For instance, Ireland was the only country that ratified a national document which obligates the government to protect its citizens’ different Human Rights. In addition, many countries did not have any constitutional Court in order to evaluate the consistency between constitutional law and other national laws. European Court of Human Rights was established with the aim of protecting European citizens’ Rights by the convention’ s content. This Court permits the citizens of European countries to lodge their applications against the implication of governments in Human Rights field. Although this organization does not have a direct mechanism to change national legal orders, it can affect the legal system of European countries indirectly. The research on the case law of European countries indicates that judges in national Courts refer to the procedure of European Court of Human Rights in many cases, which are dealing with Human Rights issues. It should be noted that if the Court finds out that the Human Rights of an individual is breached according to the convention, it forces the governments to pay the compensation. After decades, governments realized that they can change their national laws in accordance with the convention in order to avoid paying compensation. This solution leads to the process which is called the Incorporation of European Convention of Human Rights in national legal orders. As it mentioned before, European countries implicated convention in different ways; this difference is based on the legal position of European Document in European countries. Convention in some countries such as Austria has the same hierarchical position as the constitution. In other countries like France or Portugal, the convention is placed upper than normal laws and lower than the constitution. At last in some countries like Britain, the convention is considered the same as normal laws. From another point of view, the approach of European governments to international law affects their behavior with convention as an international document. Some countries like Italy, has a monistic approach, which means that they adapt international law sources such as convention into their national legal order. But the other countries for instance France by choosing dualistic approach have different mechanism for the implication of international documents in comparison with national legal orders. Choosing each of these approaches leads to the different incorporation process of the convention. Usually national judges use two main solutions in order to incorporate convention in the national legal procedure. They try to interpret their national laws in the light of the convention, or they refuse to apply the implication of laws which are in conflict with the convention. The procedure of national Courts indicates that incorporation of convention is a gradual process which is continued up to now. In spite of the different positions of European national legal orders, this convention is considered as an enforceable law. However, high number of applications which is lodged in European Court of Human Rights, indicates that in many cases governments ignore this enforceable position.

Providing the legal systems with stability and dynamism requires the existence of stable rules and at the same time with a necessary degree of flexibility to ensure that the legal system would be practical and effective if important and real changes occur in social situations. International judicial authorities, in the course of litigation, identify the basis and reality of the rules and legal principle through interpretation and adaptation with the subject matter of the cases, and in this way, meet the needs arising from developments in the international situation. The European Court of Human Rights, whose main function is to resolve disputes arising from the European Convention on Human Rights, in some cases, through the use of a static interpretation, against dynamic interpretations, has insisted on the provisions of the Convention and, in some cases, having due regard to the structure of the European community, used the evolutionary and dynamic interpretation of the provisions of the Convention. The Court, in many cases, referred to a concept called “ the European Consensus” to justify implementing the dynamic interpretation of the Convention and responded to the new situations. This approach has been faced with various agreements and disagreements. The European Court of Human Rights by applying the dynamic interpretation method takes into account the will of States as a key element in the evolution of rules and obligations in international law and at the same time has undermined the need for expressing State’ s will to accept these developments. In this way, the Human Rights rules and obligations enshrined in the Convention are evolving with changes in the requirements of the present time and social realities.

"public morality" is one of the most important restricting concepts of Human Rights and freedoms, Despite its inclusion in many Human Rights instruments, there is no precise definition and clear explanation of its meaning and conditions for imposing its limitations on individual Rights. To avoid arbitrary restrictions to these Rights, and in the absence of laws and regulations that can provide a complete and comprehensive formulation of the conditions for the application of general ethical constraints on individual Rights, the reference to the case laws of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) as a leading, active and innovative institution in the field of Human Rights could be promising. In context of conflicts between individual Rights and public morality, ECHR has adopted different approaches: regarding conflict between individual and sexual morality, mostly public morality overcomes individual Rights, although in homosexuality cases, unlike the usual case laws, ECHR prefers individual Rights to public morality. In non-sexual case laws, united approaches cannot be deduced from ECHR precedent. Although the lack of a definition of public morality and the granting of "broad margin of appreciation" to member states in defining the concept of universal morality and its implications are the greatest weaknesses of the ECHR precedent, the precise formulation of the conditions for imposing restrictions is one of the greatest achievements of the Court.