performing the provisional measure and the degree of the latter’s cooperation in moving forward the procedure8. 20. Also to be taken into account is whether or not implementation of the provisional measure requires involvement of other third parties or whether the implementation involves outside elements, etc. 21. All in all, do the fluctuations of time limits really take into account all the endogenous and exogenous elements inherent in the implementation of the measure dictated by the Court? If not, how does one understand the sixty (60) days’ time limit decided in the instant Order? 22. In this case, it must also be said that the Order does not take into account the interest of justice and the need for the performing party to maintain the status quo until the conclusion of the proceedings pending before the Court. This is so because the Court's interest in monitoring execution of its decision is emptied of all its substance. The time limit lacks proportionality because it diminishes the State's obligation to report back to the Court. Moreover, it deprives the Court of the opportunity to keep a watchful eye on the rights of which it has the mandate to protect. 23. It is the foregoing reasons that led us to vote against paragraph (b) of the operative part of the Order. We hope the Court will adopt a consistent course of action in this area and be extremely demanding, as soon as the right to life comes under threat. 0 When It is established that the performing party is not inclined to full cooperation, the Court should give extremely short time limit, followed by repeated reminders if need be. 5