International Court of Justice — Jurisdiction — Finality of judgments — Revision — Statute of the International Court of Justice, Article 61 — Requirement of newly discovered facts — Whether facts must have existed at the time of the judgment in respect of which revision sought — Subsequent facts — Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (“FRY”) — 1996 Judgment upholding jurisdiction under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 1948 — Subsequent admission of FRY as Member State of the United Nations — Whether implying FRY was not party to Statute or Genocide Convention at time of 1996 Judgment — Whether new facts within the meaning of Article 61

State succession — Succession and continuity of States — Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia — Whether FRY the continuation of the former Yugoslavia — Membership of the United Nations — Participation in treaties — Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 1948

International Organizations — United Nations — Membership — Yugoslavia — Status of Yugoslavia between 1992 and 2000 — Whether Member of the United Nations — Whether party to the Statute of the International Court of Justice — Whether bound by Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 1948

Human rights — Prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment — Applicant serving mandatory sentence of life imprisonment in Cyprus — Meaning of life imprisonment — Whether Cyprus violating Article 3 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Whether life sentence compatible with Convention — Whether life sentence irreducible — Whether applicant deprived of any prospect of release — System of sentence review and release arrangements — Standards prevailing amongst Council of Europe Member States — Whether applicant’s continued detention constituting inhuman or degrading treatment — Requirement of minimum level of severity of ill-treatment — Whether suffering exceeding that inevitable in form of legitimate punishment — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950, Article 3

Human rights — Right to liberty and security of person — Applicant serving mandatory sentence of life imprisonment in Cyprus — Whether Cyprus violating Article 5(1)(a) of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Whether continuing detention of applicant after 2 November 2002 justified — Whether applicant’s complaint under Article 5(4) of Convention falling within scope of examination — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950, Article 5

Human rights — No punishment without law — Applicant serving mandatory sentence of life imprisonment in Cyprus — Whether Cyprus violating Article 7 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Whether violation with regard to quality of law applicable at material time — Rule of law — Meaning of law in Article 7 — Concept of penalty — Criminal law applicable at material time — Whether sufficiently precise — Meaning of life imprisonment — Criminal Code providing that life imprisonment amounting to imprisonment for remainder of life — Prisoner Regulations providing for release after twenty years — Prisoner law repealing Prison Regulations — Whether violation with regard to retrospective imposition of heavier penalty with regard to sentence and changes in prisoner law — Criminal Code — Penalty of life sentence — Prison law repealing Prison Regulations — Whether imposition of heavier penalty on applicant than that applicable at time of commission of offence — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950, Article 7

Human rights — Prohibition of discrimination — Applicant serving mandatory sentence of life imprisonment in Cyprus — Whether Cyprus violating Article 14 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Differences of treatment — When discriminatory — Whether difference of treatment between applicant and other life prisoners released since 1993 discriminatory — Whether treatment between applicant and other prisoners under prison law discriminatory — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950, Article 14

Human rights — Prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment — Applicant lodging application against Italy with European Court of Human Rights — Admissibility of applicant’s complaints — Whether deportation of applicant to Tunisia would violate Article 3 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Whether substantial grounds shown for believing real risk applicant would be subjected to ill-treatment if deported to Tunisia — Absolute nature of Article 3 — Rigorous examination of risk — Foreseeable consequences of deportation — Reports from independent international human rights protection agencies or governmental sources — Requirement of minimum level of severity of treatment — Applicant involved in international terrorism — Relevance — Whether Tunisia providing diplomatic assurances requested by Italy — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950, Article 3

Terrorism — Applicant involved in international terrorism — Terrorism threatening communities — Undesirable or dangerous conduct of person — Whether relevant — Whether affecting risk of ill-treatment if applicant deported to Tunisia — Whether affecting absolute nature of Article 3 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950

Human rights — Prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment — United States of America seeking extradition of applicants from United Kingdom — Applicants indicted in United States on terrorism charges — Applicants lodging application against United Kingdom with European Court of Human Rights — Admissibility of applicants’ complaints — Whether applicants at real risk of ill-treatment if extradited and convicted in United States — Whether United Kingdom would be in violation of Article 3 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 if applicants extradited to United States — Prison conditions at super-maximum security detention facility in United States — Whether meeting Article 3 requirements — Solitary confinement — Outdoor exercise — Mental health of detainee — Special administrative measures — Length of possible sentences — Whether sentences grossly disproportionate — Whether sentences amounting to ill-treatment contrary to Article 3 — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950, Article 3

Treaties — Interpretation — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950, Article 3 — Prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment — Relevant international law on non-refoulement — Approach of Human Rights Committee — Article 7 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 — Article 19 of Charter on Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Council of Europe Guidelines — Articles 3 and 16(2) of United Nations Convention against Torture, 1984

Extradition — 1972 United Kingdom–United States Extradition Treaty superseded by 2003 Treaty — United States of America seeking extradition of applicants from United Kingdom — Applicants contesting proposed extradition in English courts — Applicants lodging application against United Kingdom with European Court of Human Rights — Whether applicants at real risk of ill-treatment if extradited and convicted in United States — Whether United Kingdom would be in violation of Article 3 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 if applicants extradited to United States

Extradition — Extradition Treaty between United Kingdom and United States of America — United States seeking extradition of claimants from United Kingdom — Prison conditions claimants would face at super-maximum security detention facility in United States — Whether meeting requirements of Article 3 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — European Court of Human Rights deciding extradition compatible with Article 3 of European Convention — Claimants seeking to prevent extradition — Claimants seeking review of decision of European Court of Human Rights — Individual challenges of claimants

Human rights — Prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment — Prison conditions at super-maximum security detention facility in United States — Whether incompatible with Article 3 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — European Court of Human Rights deciding prison conditions compatible with Article 3 of European Convention — Whether European Court of Human Rights misunderstanding evidence about prison conditions — Whether mistaking length of time that those subject to special administrative measures could serve in solitary confinement in prison’s Special Security Unit — Whether European Court of Human Rights should have accepted claimants’ evidence on issue — Whether European Court acting unfairly in refusing to admit claimants’ evidence responding to United Kingdom Government evidence — Whether trial fair — Whether violation of Article 6 of European Convention or other fundamental principles of justice — Whether extradition of claimants by United Kingdom to United States contravening European Convention on Human Rights, 1950

Relationship of international law and municipal law — International tribunals — European Court of Human Rights’ decision — Effect in United Kingdom law — Section 2 of Human Rights Act 1998 — Whether English court having reason to depart from decision of European Court — Whether European Court erring in its decision — Whether analysis clear and cogent — Decision of Grand Chamber of European Court of Human Rights not to refer case — Relevance — Whether prison conditions incompatible with Article 3 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — The law of England

State immunity — Jurisdictional immunity — Canada State Immunity Act 1982 — Exceptions to immunity — No exception for acts of torture occurring outside Canada — Whether State Immunity Act thereby violating Section 7 of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms — Whether State Immunity Act consistent with Charter — Whether plaintiff’s action for damages resulting from alleged detention and torture barred by Section 3 of State Immunity Act 1982 — Whether defendants entitled to absolute immunity

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — Canada State Immunity Act 1982 — Whether State Immunity Act complying with international law and Canada’s treaty obligations — Canada party to treaties condemning and prohibiting torture — International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 — Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 — Convention against Torture, 1984 — Whether Canada’s signature of treaties requiring amendment to State Immunity Act to include exception for claims for foreign torture — Whether Parliament having sole responsibility for amendments to State Immunity Act 1982 — Whether State Immunity Act consistent with Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Human rights — Freedom from torture — Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms — Whether Section 7 of Charter creating further exception to State immunity for acts of torture occurring outside Canada — The law of Canada

Human rights — Right to enter country of nationality — Positive obligation on States to issue passports to nationals for repatriation — Intersection of United Nations Security Council resolutions with domestic human rights legislation — Standard of fairness to be observed by Minister of Foreign Affairs in refusing passports to Canadian nationals — Section 6(1) of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

International organizations — United Nations — United Nations Security Council — Committee established pursuant to resolutions 1267 (1999) and 1989 (2011) — Al-Qaida Sanctions List — Asset freeze and travel ban — Proper interpretation of travel ban — Whether travel ban preventing repatriation

Relationship of international law and municipal law — United Nations Security Council resolutions — 1267 Committee — Al-Qaida Sanctions List — Travel ban — Proper interpretation — Whether preventing repatriation — Constitutional provisions — Interpretation — Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Section 6(1) — Canadian Passport Order, Section 10.1 — National security as justification for breach of human rights — Judicial review — Remedy

Terrorism — United Nations — Security Council Committee — Resolution 1267 (1999) — Sanctions — Al-Qaida Sanctions List — Asset freeze and travel ban — Proper interpretation of travel ban — Whether travel ban preventing repatriation to Canada — Section 6(1) of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms — The law of Canada

Aliens — Expulsion — Non-refoulement — Immigration Ordinance Cap. 115 1972 — Domestic policy not to deport a person to a country where his claim of risk of torture in that country is well founded

Human rights — Freedom from torture — Intersection of Refugees Convention, 1951 and Convention against Torture, 1984 — Whether determination of United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees as to refugee status relieving Secretary for Security of duty to consider torture claim independently — Standard of fairness to be observed by Secretary of State in determining torture claim

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — Immigration Ordinance Cap. 115 1972 — Domestic policy on non-refoulement — Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 — Convention against Torture, 1984 — Refugees Convention, 1951 — The law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China

Human rights — Right not to be subjected to inhuman or degrading punishment — Constitutional guarantee — Whether breached in respect of appellant — Appellant receiving mandatory death sentence — Appellant awaiting execution on death row — Whether constituting inhuman and degrading punishment — Whether breaching Section 7 of Constitution

Human rights — Right to a fair hearing — Constitutional guarantee — Whether breached in respect of appellant — Appellant sentenced to death — Abolition of death penalty — Appellant’s death sentence deemed to be sentence of penal servitude for life — Comparison of mandatory death sentence and mandatory life sentence — Whether mandatory life sentence disproportionate and arbitrary — Whether any safeguards existing — Whether possibility of intermediate release — Whether mandatory life sentence would have violated Articles 3 and 5 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Effect and constitutionality of mandatory life sentence — Whether mandatory life sentence contrary to Section 10 of Constitution — The law of Mauritius

Relationship of International Law and Municipal Law — Treaties — International human rights instruments — International jurisprudence — International standards — International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 — New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 affirming New Zealand’s commitment to International Covenant — Sections 9 and 23(5) of Bill of Rights Act 1990 giving effect to Articles 7 and 10(1) of International Covenant — Relationship between Section 23(5) and Section 9 of Bill of Rights Act 1990 — Relevance of international standards — Standard of behaviour required of New Zealand authorities — Treatment in prison — International obligation to give effective remedy — Article 2(3) of International Covenant — Whether obligation part of New Zealand’s domestic law

Human rights — Prohibition of cruel, degrading or disproportionately severe treatment or punishment — Prison inmates — Conditions — Segregated cell confinement — Lack of exercise opportunity — Practice of strip-searching — Failure to check mental health conditions — Whether constituting cruel, degrading or disproportionately severe treatment or punishment — Relevance of legislative standards — Interpretation of Section 9 of Bill of Rights Act 1990 — Relationship between Section 23(5) and Section 9 of Bill of Rights Act 1990 — Approach in determining whether breach of Section 9 of Bill of Rights Act 1990 — International human rights instruments and resulting jurisprudence — Relevance — International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 — Section 9 of Bill of Rights Act 1990 giving effect to Article 7 of International Covenant — Whether breaches of Section 9 of Bill of Rights Act 1990

Human rights — Right to natural justice — Prison inmates — Appellants alleging breaches of Section 27(1) and Section 9 of Bill of Rights Act 1990 in addition to finding of breach of Section 23(5) — Whether Behaviour Management Regime (“BMR”) lawful — Whether breaching Section 9 of Bill of Rights Act 1990 in amounting to cruel, degrading or disproportionately severe treatment or punishment — Whether deprivation of right to natural justice contributing to severity of treatment under BMR — Whether declaration of breach of Section 27(1) of Bill of Rights Act 1990 necessary

Damages — Compensation — Human rights violations — Breach of Bill of Rights Act 1990 — International obligation to give an effective remedy — Article 2(3) of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 — Whether part of New Zealand’s domestic law — Whether declaratory relief sufficient for breach of Bill of Rights Act — Whether awards of compensation appropriate as remedy — Quantum of awards — Whether properly assessed — Whether excessive — The law of New Zealand

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — Effect — United Nations Convention against Corruption, 2003 — Southern African Development Community Drugs and Corruption Protocols — African Union Convention — Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act — South African Constitution — Duty of State to fight corruption — Source of obligation — Nature of obligation — Content of obligation — Section 7(2) of Constitution — Duty of State to respect, protect, promote and fulfil rights in Bill of Rights — Impact of corruption on ability to fulfil duty — Impact of international law on Republic of South Africa — Status of international agreements — Section 231 of Constitution — Interpretation of Bill of Rights — Section 39(1)(b) of Constitution — South Africa’s obligations under international law — Whether South Africa obliged under international law to establish independent anti-corruption unit — Whether obligation existing and enforceable in domestic sphere — Whether Constitution imposing obligation on State to establish independent anti-corruption agency — National legislation establishing Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation (“DPCI”) — Whether DPCI meeting requirement of independence — Whether national legislation constitutionally valid

Treaties — Effect — Status of international agreements in South Africa — Section 231 of South African Constitution — Section 231(2) of Constitution providing treaties approved by Parliament binding on South Africa — Section 231(4) requiring incorporation by national legislation for treaty to bind South Africa — Effect of treaties in international and domestic spheres — Rights and obligations contained in treaties — Nature of rights and obligations in domestic sphere

Human rights — Bill of Rights — Interpretation — Duty of State to respect, protect, promote and fulfil rights in Bill of Rights — Section 7(2) of South African Constitution — Section 39(1)(b) of Constitution — Fight against corruption — Corruption undermining State’s ability to fulfil duty in relation to rights in Bill of Rights — Whether constitutional duty to establish independent anti-corruption unit — Definition of independence — Obligations in international agreements on combating corruption binding South Africa — Whether anti-corruption unit established by national legislation having necessary independence — The law of South Africa