This Chapter examines interim remedies. These allow courts to order remedies to protect rights from immediate and irreparable harm. Part I examines how international adjudicators have recognized the importance of interim relief in enforcing rights to life and health. Domestic courts have applied common law concepts such as the balance of convenience and higher standards for mandatory injunctions that may not be appropriate in the human rights context. Part II examines the irreparable harm standard and suggests that in some contexts, courts should engage in a closer review of the merits of the applicant’s case. Part III examines how proportionality principles can provide principles for decisions about the balance of convenience by calling attention to the legitimacy of the state’s objectives that justify limits on remedies, the tailoring of the remedy to accommodate competing rights and social interests and its overall balance. Part IV argues that interim relief, as an individual remedy, is related to the court’s ability to adjudicate a dispute and provide effective remedies and should not be deterred by potential remedial failure. Even breaches of interim remedies can be the focus of subsequent remedies and focus attention on the irreparable harm caused by some rights violations.