According to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), unlike classic international treaties, the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) "comprises more than mere reciprocal engagements between contracting States. It creates, over and above, a network of mutual, bilateral undertakings, objective obligations which, in the words of the Preamble, benefit from a "collective enforcement". 1 From Article 1 of the Convention, in particular, it follows that "the primary responsibility for implementing and enforcing the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention is laid on the national authorities", 2 and especially on national courts, whose role in making the ECHR effective in domestic legal orders is of the utmost importance. 3 By ratifying the ECHR, the Contracting States undertake to ensure that their domestic legislation is compatible with it. 4 So, a breach of the ECHR can result from the mere existence of a law which introduces, directs or authorizes measures incompatible with the minimum standard of protection guaranteed by the Convention. Nonetheless, in order to establish that this minimum standard has been violated, reference should be made to the manner national authorities interpret and apply in concreto the Convention. The absence of a law expressly prohibiting a violation is not sufficient in itself to establish a breach since such a prohibition does not represent the sole method of securing the enjoyment of the rights and * While the authors equally share the responsibility for the entire essay, section 1 is by Nicola Napoletano and section 2 is by Andrea Caligiuri.