Human rights — Prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment — Admissibility of applicants’ complaints — Prohibition in absolute terms — Fundamental value of democratic society — Derogation only permissible when public emergency threatening life of nation — Whether treatment attaining minimum level of severity necessary — Whether applicants’ situation comparable to irreducible life sentence — Whether detention under Part 4 of Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 breaching applicants’ rights — Whether United Kingdom violating Article 3 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950

Human rights — Right to an effective remedy — Admissibility of applicants’ complaints — Whether United Kingdom denying applicants effective remedy for Article 3 complaints — Whether applicants using available civil and administrative law remedies to complain about detention conditions — Whether guarantee of remedy allowing challenge to primary legislation before national authority on ground of being contrary to Convention — Whether United Kingdom violating Article 13 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950

Human rights — Right to liberty and security — Admissibility of applicants’ complaints — Whether applicants’ detention unlawful — Whether applicants’ detention falling within exception to right to liberty in Article 5(1)(f) of Convention — Whether deportation or extradition proceedings in progress — Whether United Kingdom validly derogating from its obligations under Article 5(1) — Whether public emergency threatening life of nation — Whether derogation measures strictly required by exigencies of situation — Proportionality — Whether measures discriminating between nationals and non-nationals — National authorities having wide margin of appreciation — Role of Court — Whether United Kingdom violating Article 5(1) of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950

Human rights — Right to have lawfulness of detention decided by a court — Admissibility of applicants’ complaints — Whether procedure before domestic courts to challenge applicants’ detention complying with requirements of Article 5(4) of Convention — Court's role — Whether proceedings fair as whole — Evidence withheld on public interest grounds — Balancing right to procedural fairness against important public interests — Certification proceedings before SIAC — Open and closed evidence — Lack of full disclosure in national security cases — Role of special advocate to counterbalance procedural unfairness — Whether applicants in position to challenge effectively allegations against them — Whether United Kingdom violating Article 5(4) of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950

Human rights — Right to enforceable right to compensation — Admissibility of applicants’ complaints — Whether violations found giving rise to enforceable claim for compensation before national courts — Whether United Kingdom violating Article 5(5) of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950

Damages — Compensation — Whether monetary compensation appropriate — Court having wide discretion — Factors to be taken into account — Public emergency threatening life of nation — Obligations on United Kingdom Government — Costs and expenses — Default interest — Article 41 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950

Terrorism — Aliens — Discrimination — Indefinite detention of suspected foreign international terrorists — National security — Part 4 of Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 — Whether international terrorism creating public emergency threatening life of nation — Whether derogation measures strictly required by exigencies of situation — Threat of terrorist attack posed by nationals and non-nationals — Proportionality — Whether derogation measures discriminating unjustifiably between nationals and non-nationals — Whether United Kingdom validly derogating from its obligations under Article 5(1) of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950