International Court of Justice — Jurisdiction — Forum prorogatum — Rules of Court, Article 38(5) — Application of principle — Whether consent required to be given in particular form — Consent limited to claims formulated in Application — Events mentioned in the Application — Related events occurring after Application filed

International Court of Justice — Procedure — Application — Rules of Court, Article 38(1) and (2) — Requirement that Application specify precise nature of claim, together with a succinct statement of the facts and grounds on which the claim is based — Whether particular form required — Application to be read as a whole

International criminal law — Mutual criminal assistance — Letters rogatory — Requirement to execute letter rogatory or give valid reasons for not doing so — Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters, 1986, between Djibouti and France — Witness summonses addressed to head of State and senior officials by foreign court

State immunity — Jurisdictional immunity — Head of State — Senior officials of State — Personal immunity of Head of State — Duty to accord respect to Head of State — Whether issuance of witness summons requesting his testimony a violation of immunity — Whether senior officials entitled to benefit from State immunity

International Court of Justice — Jurisdiction — Finality of judgments — Request for interpretation — Statute of the Court, Article 60 — Rules of Court, Articles 98-100 — Dispute as to the meaning or scope of a judgment — Differences between French and English texts of Article 60 — Dispute must concern question decided with binding force in the judgment — Avena Judgment regarding application of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 1963, Article 36 — Requirement that the United States take all measures necessary to ensure review and reconsideration of convictions and sentences of certain Mexican nationals — Whether dispute between Mexico and the United States regarding meaning and scope of obligation — Article 60 not a means for securing compliance with undisputed obligation

International Court of Justice — Provisional measures of protection — Nature and purpose of provisional measures — Requirement that rights to be protected are rights which might be adjudged to belong to one of the Parties in judgment on the merits — Request for provisional measures in the context of proceedings under Article 60 of the Statute of the Court

States — Federal States — Responsibility of State for acts of state and federal authorities — Capacity to speak for the State in international relations — Whether belonging exclusively to the federal executive — United States of America — Imposition of death penalty by state courts — Avena Judgment of International Court of Justice — Implementation

Human rights — Right to a fair trial — Right to liberty and security — Admissibility of applicant's complaint — Whether applicant's case heard by tribunal established by law under Article 6(1) of Convention — Whether German courts having reasonable grounds for establishing jurisdiction to try applicant for genocide — Articles 6(1) and 220a of Criminal Code — Whether public international law rule prohibiting applicant's conviction for genocide by German courts — Whether applicant lawfully detained after conviction by a competent court under Article 5(1) of Convention — Whether Germany violating Article 6(1) or 5(1) of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950

Jurisdiction — Universal — Article 6(1) of German Criminal Code codifying public international law principle of universal jurisdiction — Article 220a of Criminal Code — German courts trying applicant on charges of genocide committed outside Germany — Whether complying with international law provisions applicable in Germany — Interpretation of Article VI of Genocide Convention — Whether German courts having reasonable grounds for establishing jurisdiction

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Genocide Convention, 1948, Articles I, II and VI — German Criminal Code, Articles 6(1) and 220a incorporating Genocide Convention into German law — Interpretation of Article VI of Genocide Convention by German courts — Whether reasonable — Statutory provisions and case-law of other Contracting States to Convention — Statute and case-law of International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Human rights — Right to a fair trial — Admissibility of applicant's complaint — Assessment of evidence and its relevance — Appropriateness of calling witnesses — Application of Article 244 of Criminal Code by German courts — Refusal to call certain witnesses, inspect purported crime scene or have topographical map drawn up — Whether violation of full equality of arms principle — Whether rendering proceedings against applicant unfair as a whole — Whether German courts acting arbitrarily — Courts’ finding that applicant's guilt of particular gravity — Whether Germany violating Article 6(1) and (3)(d) of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950

Human rights — No punishment without law guarantee — Admissibility of applicant's complaint — Whether acts committed by applicant constituting criminal offence under German or international law at time of commission — Whether German courts’ wide interpretation of crime of genocide consistent with essence of offence — Whether reasonably foreseeable by applicant — Article 220a of Criminal Code — Whether intent to destroy group in physical or biological sense necessary — German courts’ finding that applicant's guilt of particular gravity — Whether Germany violating Article 7 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950

International criminal law — Genocide — Definition — Interpretation — Article II of Genocide Convention, 1948 — Article 220a of German Criminal Code — German courts interpreting crime of genocide widely — Whether interpretation having basis in German or public international law — Whether consistent with essence of offence — Whether risk of charge and conviction of genocide reasonably foreseeable by applicant at material time — Whether necessary to intend to destroy group in physical or biological sense — German courts’ wider interpretation supported by scholars and United Nations General Assembly Resolution 47/121 — Subsequent case-law of national and international courts, notably International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and International Court of Justice, supporting narrower interpretation — Relevance for applicant

Human rights — Prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment — Applicant HIV positive and suffering from AIDS-defining illnesses — Whether applicant’s return to Uganda would prevent her from accessing necessary medical treatment — Whether subsequent suffering and early death amounting to inhuman and degrading treatment — Whether very exceptional circumstances and compelling humanitarian considerations — Whether removal of applicant to Uganda would result in United Kingdom violating Article 3 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — The law of England

Human rights — Prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment — Applicant HIV positive and suffering from AIDS-defining illnesses — Whether applicant’s return to Uganda would prevent her from accessing necessary medical treatment — Whether subsequent suffering and early death amounting to inhuman and degrading treatment — Whether very exceptional circumstances and compelling humanitarian considerations — Whether removal of applicant to Uganda would result in United Kingdom violating Article 3 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950

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

International Tribunals — International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea — Provisional measures — Criteria for indication of provisional measures — Jurisdiction — Risk of irreparable harm — United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Article 290(1) — Conditions for prescription of provisional measures — Jurisdiction and Admissibility — Existence and nature of dispute between parties — Exchange of views requirement under Article 283 of the Convention — Whether contact between parties amounting to exchange of views within meaning of Convention — Whether dispute concerning interpretation or application of Convention — Threshold of evidence required to found jurisdiction — Whether Tribunal having prima facie Jurisdiction to consider request for provisional measures — Reasons for provisional measures — Protection of marine environment — Nature and extent of harm — Whether real or imminent threat to environment or rights of parties

Nationality — Creation of new State — Independence of former territory — Attribution of nationality on independence — Whether persons born in territory losing nationality of former sovereign — Dual nationality — Rights of residence — Persons born in Papua — Whether entitled to Australian citizenship on independence of Papua New Guinea

States — Independence — Creation of new State — Nationality of persons born in new State — Sovereignty over territory including power to relinquish that territory — Independence of Papua New Guinea from Australia — The law of Australia

State Immunity — Jurisdictional immunity — Alleged violations of human rights — Torture — Claim in respect of torture allegedly committed outside the forum State — Whether defendants entitled to immunity when accused of violating a jus cogens rule — Officials — Whether immunity of State applicable to officials sued in respect of official acts — Foreign States Immunities Act — Requirement that court consider entitlement to immunity proprio motu

Human rights — Freedom from torture — Status of prohibition of torture as jus cogens — Whether limiting entitlement to immunity of foreign State — The law of Australia

Relationship of International Law and Municipal Law — Treaties — Effect of treaty on interpretation of statute — Administrative law — Effect of treaty on exercise of discretionary powers — Immigration — Deportation of parent with Canadian-born dependent children — Status of ratified but unincorporated treaties in Canadian law — Convention on the Rights of the Child — Effect on municipal law — Whether Convention created legitimate expectation that best interests of Canadian child a primary consideration — Object and purpose of international and domestic legislation safeguarding rights and interests of children — Whether immigration officers having to take best interests of Canadian children as a primary consideration — The law of Canada

Treaties — Application — Territory subject to sovereignty of State but possessing own legal system — Hong Kong — Application of treaties to Hong Kong by the People's Republic of China — Vienna Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, 1980 — The law of France