Dr. Ramute Remezaite obtained her PhD from the School of Law, Middlesex University in 2021. She currently works as a Senior Legal Consultant and Implementation Lead at the European Human Rights Advocacy Centre based in the School of Law, Middlesex University where she litigates human rights cases before the ECtHR and advocates for their implementation.

• AcknowledgmentsList of Figures1 Introduction1.1 Background and Problem Statement1.2 Key Aims and Research Questions of the Book1.3 Research Methodology1.3.1 Country and Case Selection1.3.2 Research Methods1.3.3 Structure of the Book2 Defining Compliance2.1 Defining and Measuring Compliance2.2 Compliance Theories2.2.1 Causality between Human Rights Judgments and States’ Behavior2.3 Modalities of Implementation in the Council of Europe System2.3.1 Scope and Procedure of cm Supervision2.3.2 Involvement of other Actors in the cm Supervision Process3 Azerbaijan The New Achilles Heel of the Council of Europe?3.1 Azerbaijan and CoE3.1.1 Azerbaijan’s Accession to the CoE3.2 Azerbaijan’s Compliance with ECtHR Judgments3.2.1 Azerbaijan and the Court3.2.2 Domestic Implementation System: One Man’s Land3.2.2.1 Dual Role of the Agent’s Office3.2.2.2 Allocation of Resources3.2.2.3 Absence of Formal Procedures for Coordination and Involvement in the Process3.2.2.4 Absence of Information and Public Scrutiny3.2.3 Systematic Failure of ‘Good Faith’ Engagement with the cm3.2.3.1 Triggers for Government’s Engagement with the cm Supervision Process3.2.3.2 What Systemic Change on the Ground?3.2.4 Explaining Azerbaijan’s Absence of Good Faith3.2.5 Adequacy of the Response of the cm and the CoE to Azerbaijan’s Acting in Bad Faith3.2.6 Why Does Azerbaijan Remain in the CoE?3.3 Conclusion4 Armenia’s Compliance with Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights A Litmus Test for the Council of Europe?4.1 Armenia and CoE: Historical and Contextual Setting4.1.1 Armenia and the ECtHR4.2 Armenia’s Compliance with ECtHR Judgments4.2.1 Domestic Implementation System4.2.2 Armenia’s Compliance with ECtHR Judgments: Good Practices and Challenges4.2.2.1 Factors Defining Compliance with ECtHR Judgments4.3 Strasbourg’s Contributions to Compliance with ECtHR Judgments in Armenia4.3.1 cm’s Engagement with the Supervision of Armenian Cases4.3.2 Contributions of other CoE Bodies and Domestic Actors to Compliance4.4 Conclusion5 Georgia as Council of Europe’s Success Story in the South Caucasus5.1 Georgia’s Accession and Its Membership in the Council of Europe5.1.1 Georgia and the ECtHR5.2 National System for the Implementation of ECtHR Judgments in Georgia5.2.1 Absence of Strong Culture of Accountability, and Politicization of the Process5.2.2 Insufficient Access to Information on the Implementation Process5.3 Georgia’s Compliance with ECtHR Judgments5.3.1 Georgia’s Engagement with the cm Supervision Process5.3.2 Domestic Factors Shaping Georgia’s Engagement with Strasbourg Processes5.3.2.1 Political Willingness as an Underlying Factor for Compliance5.3.2.2 Intrusion of ‘Traditional’ Values and Pervasive Discrimination as a Complex Political and Societal Issue5.3.2.3 ‘External’ Support to Compliance with ECtHR Judgments5.4 Conclusion6 Challenging the Unconditional Obligation Partial Compliance with ECtHR Judgments in the South Caucasus States6.1 What Is Partial Compliance?6.2 Forms of Partial Compliance6.2.1 Minimalistic Compliance6.2.2 Dilatory Compliance6.2.3 Contested Compliance6.3 Identifying Partial Compliance in the South Caucasus States: Methodological Considerations6.3.1 Prescriptiveness of Judgments6.3.2 Length of Time6.3.3 Engagement with the cm Process6.3.4 Diversification of Sources of Information6.4 Explaining Partial Compliance in the South Caucasus States6.4.1 Complexity of Human Rights Issues6.4.2 Domestic Political Climate: International Reputation versus Domestic Interests6.4.3 Effectiveness of Domestic Infrastructure for Compliance with ECtHR Judgments6.5 Conclusions7 Beyond Compliance Identifying Impact of European Court Judgments in the South Caucasus States7.1 Concept of Impact of ECtHR Judgments in the South Caucasus States7.2 Typologies of Impact7.2.1 Material Impact on Individual Victims7.2.2 Moral Impact on Individual Victims7.2.3 Documentation and Exposure of States’ Human Rights Abuses7.2.4 Wider Legal and Policy Impact of ECtHR Judgments7.2.5 Mobilization of Civil Society Groups and National Human Rights Institutions7.3 Conclusion8 ConclusionsAppendixBibliographyIndex

Dr. Ramute Remezaite obtained her PhD from the School of Law, Middlesex University in 2021. She currently works as a Senior Legal Consultant and Implementation Lead at the European Human Rights Advocacy Centre based in the School of Law, Middlesex University where she litigates human rights cases before the ECtHR and advocates for their implementation.

• AcknowledgmentsList of Figures1 Introduction1.1 Background and Problem Statement1.2 Key Aims and Research Questions of the Book1.3 Research Methodology1.3.1 Country and Case Selection1.3.2 Research Methods1.3.3 Structure of the Book2 Defining Compliance2.1 Defining and Measuring Compliance2.2 Compliance Theories2.2.1 Causality between Human Rights Judgments and States’ Behavior2.3 Modalities of Implementation in the Council of Europe System2.3.1 Scope and Procedure of cm Supervision2.3.2 Involvement of other Actors in the cm Supervision Process3 Azerbaijan The New Achilles Heel of the Council of Europe?3.1 Azerbaijan and CoE3.1.1 Azerbaijan’s Accession to the CoE3.2 Azerbaijan’s Compliance with ECtHR Judgments3.2.1 Azerbaijan and the Court3.2.2 Domestic Implementation System: One Man’s Land3.2.2.1 Dual Role of the Agent’s Office3.2.2.2 Allocation of Resources3.2.2.3 Absence of Formal Procedures for Coordination and Involvement in the Process3.2.2.4 Absence of Information and Public Scrutiny3.2.3 Systematic Failure of ‘Good Faith’ Engagement with the cm3.2.3.1 Triggers for Government’s Engagement with the cm Supervision Process3.2.3.2 What Systemic Change on the Ground?3.2.4 Explaining Azerbaijan’s Absence of Good Faith3.2.5 Adequacy of the Response of the cm and the CoE to Azerbaijan’s Acting in Bad Faith3.2.6 Why Does Azerbaijan Remain in the CoE?3.3 Conclusion4 Armenia’s Compliance with Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights A Litmus Test for the Council of Europe?4.1 Armenia and CoE: Historical and Contextual Setting4.1.1 Armenia and the ECtHR4.2 Armenia’s Compliance with ECtHR Judgments4.2.1 Domestic Implementation System4.2.2 Armenia’s Compliance with ECtHR Judgments: Good Practices and Challenges4.2.2.1 Factors Defining Compliance with ECtHR Judgments4.3 Strasbourg’s Contributions to Compliance with ECtHR Judgments in Armenia4.3.1 cm’s Engagement with the Supervision of Armenian Cases4.3.2 Contributions of other CoE Bodies and Domestic Actors to Compliance4.4 Conclusion5 Georgia as Council of Europe’s Success Story in the South Caucasus5.1 Georgia’s Accession and Its Membership in the Council of Europe5.1.1 Georgia and the ECtHR5.2 National System for the Implementation of ECtHR Judgments in Georgia5.2.1 Absence of Strong Culture of Accountability, and Politicization of the Process5.2.2 Insufficient Access to Information on the Implementation Process5.3 Georgia’s Compliance with ECtHR Judgments5.3.1 Georgia’s Engagement with the cm Supervision Process5.3.2 Domestic Factors Shaping Georgia’s Engagement with Strasbourg Processes5.3.2.1 Political Willingness as an Underlying Factor for Compliance5.3.2.2 Intrusion of ‘Traditional’ Values and Pervasive Discrimination as a Complex Political and Societal Issue5.3.2.3 ‘External’ Support to Compliance with ECtHR Judgments5.4 Conclusion6 Challenging the Unconditional Obligation Partial Compliance with ECtHR Judgments in the South Caucasus States6.1 What Is Partial Compliance?6.2 Forms of Partial Compliance6.2.1 Minimalistic Compliance6.2.2 Dilatory Compliance6.2.3 Contested Compliance6.3 Identifying Partial Compliance in the South Caucasus States: Methodological Considerations6.3.1 Prescriptiveness of Judgments6.3.2 Length of Time6.3.3 Engagement with the cm Process6.3.4 Diversification of Sources of Information6.4 Explaining Partial Compliance in the South Caucasus States6.4.1 Complexity of Human Rights Issues6.4.2 Domestic Political Climate: International Reputation versus Domestic Interests6.4.3 Effectiveness of Domestic Infrastructure for Compliance with ECtHR Judgments6.5 Conclusions7 Beyond Compliance Identifying Impact of European Court Judgments in the South Caucasus States7.1 Concept of Impact of ECtHR Judgments in the South Caucasus States7.2 Typologies of Impact7.2.1 Material Impact on Individual Victims7.2.2 Moral Impact on Individual Victims7.2.3 Documentation and Exposure of States’ Human Rights Abuses7.2.4 Wider Legal and Policy Impact of ECtHR Judgments7.2.5 Mobilization of Civil Society Groups and National Human Rights Institutions7.3 Conclusion8 ConclusionsAppendixBibliographyIndex

Dr. Ramute Remezaite obtained her PhD from the School of Law, Middlesex University in 2021. She currently works as a Senior Legal Consultant and Implementation Lead at the European Human Rights Advocacy Centre based in the School of Law, Middlesex University where she litigates human rights cases before the ECtHR and advocates for their implementation.

• AcknowledgmentsList of Figures1 Introduction1.1 Background and Problem Statement1.2 Key Aims and Research Questions of the Book1.3 Research Methodology1.3.1 Country and Case Selection1.3.2 Research Methods1.3.3 Structure of the Book2 Defining Compliance2.1 Defining and Measuring Compliance2.2 Compliance Theories2.2.1 Causality between Human Rights Judgments and States’ Behavior2.3 Modalities of Implementation in the Council of Europe System2.3.1 Scope and Procedure of cm Supervision2.3.2 Involvement of other Actors in the cm Supervision Process3 Azerbaijan The New Achilles Heel of the Council of Europe?3.1 Azerbaijan and CoE3.1.1 Azerbaijan’s Accession to the CoE3.2 Azerbaijan’s Compliance with ECtHR Judgments3.2.1 Azerbaijan and the Court3.2.2 Domestic Implementation System: One Man’s Land3.2.2.1 Dual Role of the Agent’s Office3.2.2.2 Allocation of Resources3.2.2.3 Absence of Formal Procedures for Coordination and Involvement in the Process3.2.2.4 Absence of Information and Public Scrutiny3.2.3 Systematic Failure of ‘Good Faith’ Engagement with the cm3.2.3.1 Triggers for Government’s Engagement with the cm Supervision Process3.2.3.2 What Systemic Change on the Ground?3.2.4 Explaining Azerbaijan’s Absence of Good Faith3.2.5 Adequacy of the Response of the cm and the CoE to Azerbaijan’s Acting in Bad Faith3.2.6 Why Does Azerbaijan Remain in the CoE?3.3 Conclusion4 Armenia’s Compliance with Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights A Litmus Test for the Council of Europe?4.1 Armenia and CoE: Historical and Contextual Setting4.1.1 Armenia and the ECtHR4.2 Armenia’s Compliance with ECtHR Judgments4.2.1 Domestic Implementation System4.2.2 Armenia’s Compliance with ECtHR Judgments: Good Practices and Challenges4.2.2.1 Factors Defining Compliance with ECtHR Judgments4.3 Strasbourg’s Contributions to Compliance with ECtHR Judgments in Armenia4.3.1 cm’s Engagement with the Supervision of Armenian Cases4.3.2 Contributions of other CoE Bodies and Domestic Actors to Compliance4.4 Conclusion5 Georgia as Council of Europe’s Success Story in the South Caucasus5.1 Georgia’s Accession and Its Membership in the Council of Europe5.1.1 Georgia and the ECtHR5.2 National System for the Implementation of ECtHR Judgments in Georgia5.2.1 Absence of Strong Culture of Accountability, and Politicization of the Process5.2.2 Insufficient Access to Information on the Implementation Process5.3 Georgia’s Compliance with ECtHR Judgments5.3.1 Georgia’s Engagement with the cm Supervision Process5.3.2 Domestic Factors Shaping Georgia’s Engagement with Strasbourg Processes5.3.2.1 Political Willingness as an Underlying Factor for Compliance5.3.2.2 Intrusion of ‘Traditional’ Values and Pervasive Discrimination as a Complex Political and Societal Issue5.3.2.3 ‘External’ Support to Compliance with ECtHR Judgments5.4 Conclusion6 Challenging the Unconditional Obligation Partial Compliance with ECtHR Judgments in the South Caucasus States6.1 What Is Partial Compliance?6.2 Forms of Partial Compliance6.2.1 Minimalistic Compliance6.2.2 Dilatory Compliance6.2.3 Contested Compliance6.3 Identifying Partial Compliance in the South Caucasus States: Methodological Considerations6.3.1 Prescriptiveness of Judgments6.3.2 Length of Time6.3.3 Engagement with the cm Process6.3.4 Diversification of Sources of Information6.4 Explaining Partial Compliance in the South Caucasus States6.4.1 Complexity of Human Rights Issues6.4.2 Domestic Political Climate: International Reputation versus Domestic Interests6.4.3 Effectiveness of Domestic Infrastructure for Compliance with ECtHR Judgments6.5 Conclusions7 Beyond Compliance Identifying Impact of European Court Judgments in the South Caucasus States7.1 Concept of Impact of ECtHR Judgments in the South Caucasus States7.2 Typologies of Impact7.2.1 Material Impact on Individual Victims7.2.2 Moral Impact on Individual Victims7.2.3 Documentation and Exposure of States’ Human Rights Abuses7.2.4 Wider Legal and Policy Impact of ECtHR Judgments7.2.5 Mobilization of Civil Society Groups and National Human Rights Institutions7.3 Conclusion8 ConclusionsAppendixBibliographyIndex