Not so. The UK, for instance, appears to treat these rulings as binding. This is why the UK conservatives want to scrap the Human Rights Act and replace it with

Not so. The UK, for instance, appears to treat these rulings as binding. This is why the UK conservatives want to scrap the Human Rights Act and replace it with a supposedly identical Bill of Rights, the key difference being a presumption that the UK's supreme court would cease to defer to the convention court. A couple of examples relating to this that come to mind: * Deporting refugees to Rwanda was stopped by an injunction from the ECHR * Depriving prisoners of votes was ruled illegal in 2005 or so There are a few others but these two come to mind. My understanding is that although the treaties (plural?) of the CoE and ECHR don't assume judgements are binding, a number of countries made them binding in their legal systems via domestic legal instruments.