At the very core of the ‘fragmentation’ discourse, human rights law is often depicted as the self-contained regime par excellence, benefitting from somewhat specific rules and principles, which often derogate from general international law. However controversial and debatable, this stance may be at least partially founded with reference to the issue of treaty interpretation. The rule provided under Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties is often stretched and applied in a more flexible way by human rights instances charged with the interpretation and application of human rights treaties, such as the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights. In the recent Nait-Liman case, nevertheless, the latter seems to have embraced a different and more restrictive attitude towards interpretation, downplaying the concerns surrounding the effet utile of the provision under Article 6 of yhe European Convention on Human Rights.