48 ANDREJEVA v. LATVIA JUDGMENT – SEPARATE OPINION interpreted in accordance with the general rule of interpretation of international treaties. When a particular provision in national law is linked to the fact that a State has not taken over any obligations as regards welfare benefits promised by another State, it is contrary to both the taking of proper note of the facts of the case and the rules of interpretation used in applying the Convention to say that this is irrelevant. Certainly, other alleged property rights cases which have arisen in the context of the reunification of Germany and the dissolution of Yugoslavia have taken the particular context into consideration when applying the Convention (see, for example, Janković v. Croatia (dec.), no. 43440/98, ECHR 2000-X; Hadžić v. Croatia (dec.), no. 48788/99, 13 September 2001; and Schwengel v. Germany (dec.), no. 52442/99, 2 March 2000). The Court must take State continuity into consideration 18. The Court must take the demise of the Soviet Union and Latvia’s continuity into account in adjudicating the present case. The Court’s obligation derives from both its own case-law and general international law. The Court has long stated that one of the main principles of the application of the Convention provisions is that it does not apply them in a vacuum (see Loizidou v. Turkey (merits), 18 December 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI). Explaining in more detail its rules of interpretation, the Court has stated: “In addition, the Court has never considered the provisions of the Convention as the sole framework of reference for the interpretation of the rights and freedoms enshrined therein. On the contrary, it must also take into account any relevant rules and principles of international law applicable in relations between the Contracting Parties” (see Demir and Baykara v. Turkey [GC], no. 34503/97, § 67, ECHR 2008). 19. Indeed, since the Convention remains an international treaty, even with a special character, the rules of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969 provide the backbone for the interpretation of the Convention as a matter of international law. Article 31 of the Vienna Convention provides that, in addition to the ordinary meaning of the term, their context has to be taken into account. Article 31 § 3 (c) explains: “There shall be taken into account, together with the context: ... any relevant rules of international law applicable in the relations between the parties.” It is to be noted that Article 31 has the heading “General rule of interpretation”. There is one single rule of interpretation with several parts. However, “... not all parts will always be relevant in all cases; but when they are, they must be utilized” (D. French, “Treaty Interpretation and the Incorporation of Extraneous Legal Rules”, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, vol. 55, no. 2, April 2006, p. 301). Of course, the case will not become one about the use of force between States or the law of State