122 CYPRUS v. TURKEY JUDGMENT – PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE MARCUS-HELMONS sent to Strasbourg, that condition was rapidly supplemented and qualified by the principle that exhaustion must be effected “according to the generally recognised international law” (ibid., in particular p. 462 and especially p. 497). That wording ultimately became “according to generally recognised rules of international law”. Why were the requirement for the exhaustion of domestic remedies and especially the reference to generally recognised rules of international law made? While it is proper for the domestic courts first to be given the possibility of putting an end to the violation of a fundamental right where that possibility is an effective one, it is equally obvious that the authors of the Convention did not wish to be excessively formal and create additional obstacles for applicants wishing to apply to Strasbourg. The authors of the Convention sought to be rational, but above all effective and to offer a rapid remedy in Strasbourg when no other practical alternative exists. Their concern over effectiveness and fairness was reinforced by the fact that generally recognised rules do exist in this sphere in international law. 3. Indeed, the European Court of Human Rights has interpreted former Article 26 of the Convention on a number of occasions and its interpretation has been consistent with the generally recognised rules of international law (see, among other authorities, the Open Door and Dublin Well Woman v. Ireland judgment of 29 October 1992, Series A no. 246-A, p. 23, §§ 48 and 50, and the Akdivar and Others v. Turkey judgment of 16 September 1996, Reports 1996-IV, p. 1212, § 72). Public international law What are the generally recognised rules of international law in this sphere? Legal opinion is unanimous on this subject: The exhaustion of domestic remedies must never pose a theoretical obstacle to an international solution (through diplomatic protection or an international court). It is a clear rule of international law that while domestic remedies will normally require to be exhausted before recourse is had to international solutions, that requirement will never need to be satisfied if the domestic remedies are futile, ineffective, theoretical, non-existent or the domestic remedy is inoperative under the settled case-law. 1. Ch. Rousseau, Droit international public, Sirey, Paris, 1953, pp. 36667. 2. D.P. O'Connell, International Law, Stevens, London, 1965, vol. II, pp. 1143-44. 3. M. Sorensen ed., Manual of Public International Law, Macmillan, London, 1968, pp. 588-90. 4. N. Quoc Dinh, Droit international public, LGDJ, Paris, 1975, p. 644. 5. G. Schwarzenberger and E. Brown, A Manual of International Law, 6th ed., Professional Books Limited, Oxon, 1976, p. 144: “If a State lacks