According to the principles of the Council of Europe, when a new state joins this international organization, it assumes the obligation to respect the legislation and practices of that organization.
One of the obligations is to respect the rights and freedoms of people provided in the ECHR. According to this treaty, the state has two obligations: the first is not to commit acts that violate the ECHR and the second obligation is to defend the rights and freedoms provided by the ECHR within the territory of the member state.
As a rule, international treaties provide for a control mechanism on its compliance by the member state. The ECHR provides for the creation of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). The European Court (ECtHR) has the rules of activity and examination of received applications. Until you reach the ECtHR, you must first exhaust all the effective remedies created by the member state. Also, the application to the ECtHR must be submitted within 4 months after the last effective remedy has been exhausted.
This is where the biggest problems arise. Approximately 50% of requests submitted to the ECtHR are declared inadmissible because the request was submitted late or without exhausting effective internal remedies. Another approximately 40% of applications are rejected because the ECtHR does not see the need to examine them. This does not mean that there was no violation of the ECHR at the national level. This means that the ECtHR does not see the need to examine this request. The cases can be different: 1. The ECtHR does not want to appear as the 4th national court, 2. The examination of the case is not in the interest of the EC or the ECtHR, 3. The examination of the case is not rational, etc.
Precisely for these reasons, in all cases when the ECtHR issues a conviction decision – the situation is very serious. In all these cases the state is responsible for the violation of the ECHR and the conviction. The guilt arises because the state: 1. Violated the ECHR, 2. Did not create the effective mechanisms for the protection of human rights, 3. Has legislation or practices incompatible with the ECHR or has other problems at the national level.
The state is responsible because its organs or persons employed by the state committed the violation of the ECHR. In all cases of state condemnation, the ECtHR verifies whether the violation of the ECHR was committed by a state organ or by a person employed by the state and exercising its power. If the state is not responsible for the violation of the ECHR, then the ECtHR does not condemn the state and issues the decision regarding the rejection of the request.