Implementing judgments in the field of asylum and migration on odd days II.2. ECtHR judgment execution mechanism According to Art. 46 of the Convention, contracting parties must abide by the final judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties. However, states are, in principle, free to choose the means to be used to implement the judgment. In practice, this obligation is fulfilled through implementing two types of measures: (1) Individual measures, aimed at fully remedying injured parties in order to restore, as far as possible, the situation existing before the breach (e.g. payment of compensation, re-opening of unfair criminal proceedings, enforcement of domestic court decisions, etc.). (2) General measures target the states’ obligation to prevent similar violations in the future (e.g. adopting or amending domestic legislation, introducing a new policy or procedure, or ensuring a certain judicial practice). Once a judgment or decision becomes final, it is transferred to the CM to supervise its implementation. Within a maximum of six months after the judgment becomes final, the respondent state is expected to provide its action plan, setting out the steps it has already taken/will take in order to fully implement the judgment. When all the measures described in the action plan and its updates have been adopted, the state makes a final update by turning it into an action report, listing the measures planned and the actions taken, and inviting the CM to end its supervision of the case. Where no measures are required, or if the necessary measures have already been taken earlier, the state directly submits an action report. If the CM considers the judgment implemented, it closes the examination of the case.8 8 EIN, Implementation of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, 2018, https://static1.squarespace.com/ static/55815c4fe4b077ee5306577f/t/5e1c2ac53d0fa72e53f955c4/1578904366756/202001_EIN_HandbookEN_Website.pdf. 7