Human rights — Right to life — Right to humane treatment — Right to a fair trial — Right to judicial protection — American Convention on Human Rights, 1969 (“the Convention”) — Peru party to the Convention — Human rights violations — Peruvian State agents assassinating and seriously injuring persons in Barrios Altos incident — Peruvian legislation granting amnesty to agents responsible — Articles 4, 5, 8 and 25 of the Convention — Whether Peru violating the Convention — Whether Peru failing to comply with Articles 1(1) and 2 of the Convention

Relationship of international law and municipal law — American Convention on Human Rights, 1969 — Peruvian Amnesty Laws — Whether compatible with the Convention — Whether Peru violating international obligations in adopting Peruvian Amnesty Laws — Whether Peruvian Amnesty Laws having any legal effect — Whether Peru failing to comply with Articles 1(1) and 2 of the Convention — Whether Peru violating Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention

State responsibility — Recognition of international responsibility expressed by Peruvian State — Acquiescence — Effect — Inter-American Court of Human Rights

International tribunals — Inter-American Court of Human Rights — Judgment on the merits — Meaning and scope — Whether applicable only to instant case — Request for interpretation — Admissibility of request — Whether decision in judgment on merits on Peruvian legislation having generic effects — Article 67 of the Convention — Article 58 of Court Rules of Procedure

Damages — Reparations — Monetary and other — Agreement on reparations between parties — Inter-American Court of Human Rights — Competency to decide on reparations — Articles 62 and 63(1) of the Convention — Whether agreement on reparations compatible with Convention — Whether justly compensating victims and next of kin — Whether repairing consequences of human rights violations

Human rights — Property rights — Recognition of indigenous land rights — Indigenous Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community in Nicaragua — Property rights to communal ancestral lands and natural resources — Use and enjoyment of property — Nature and content of right to property — Article 21 of American Convention on Human Rights, 1969 (“the Convention”) — Interpretation — Nature of relationship of Community with its traditional communal land and natural resources — Conservation — Indigenous custom and tradition — Right to property linked to physical and cultural survival of indigenous people — Whether Community having right that Nicaragua carry out delimitation, demarcation and titling of Community property — Whether Nicaragua having to abstain from granting concessions to third parties — Whether Nicaragua violating Article 21 of the Convention in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of the Convention

Human rights — Right to judicial protection — Article 25 of the Convention — Whether effective procedure in Nicaragua for demarcation and titling of indigenous communal lands — Whether domestic legal measures adequate — Whether amparo remedy filed by Community members processed within reasonable time — Whether Nicaragua violating Article 25 of the Convention in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of the Convention

International tribunals — Inter-American Court of Human Rights — Case referred by Inter-American Commission on Human Rights — Procedure — Jurisdiction — Preliminary objection by Nicaragua — Exhaustion of domestic remedies — Articles 46 and 47 of the Convention — Competence of Court — Article 62(3) of the Convention — Admissibility — Merits — Evaluation of evidence — Reparations — Provisional measures — Court to monitor compliance with judgment

State responsibility — Human rights violations — State responsibility rules applicable under international human rights law — State responsible for actions or omissions by public authority — Article 1(1) of the Convention

Relationship of international law and municipal law — American Convention on Human Rights, 1969 — Constitution of Nicaragua — Indigenous community seeking demarcation of ancestral lands through Nicaraguan courts — Amparo remedy — Protection of ancestral lands and natural resources — Logging concession without Community consent — Whether constitutional — Whether Nicaragua adopting effective measures to ensure Community’s property rights — Whether Nicaragua providing effective remedy — Whether Nicaragua violating Articles 1(1), 2, 21 and 25 of the Convention

Damages — Reparations — Nicaragua to adopt measures to create effective mechanism for demarcation and titling of indigenous communal property — Nicaragua to carry out demarcation and titling of Community property and to abstain from granting concessions meanwhile — Judgment on merits — Monetary compensation for immaterial damages — Costs and expenses — Article 63(1) of the Convention

Environment — Marine pollution — Oil — Liability — Exemptions — Damage to ship — Scope — Whether confined to physical injury to the ship or its equipment caused by some positive act — International Convention for Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil, 1954, Article IV — International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution by Ships (MARPOL), 1973, Annex I, regulation 11(b) — Objects — Travaux préparatoires

Treaties — Interpretation — Primacy of text — Need to consider objects and purpose — Treaties to be interpreted more liberally than domestic legislation — Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969, Article 31 — The law of Australia

Human rights — Discrimination — Sex discrimination — Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, 1979 — Travaux préparatoires — Objects — Concept of discrimination under Convention — Whether requiring denial of equality of treatment in relation to men — Application to distinctions made on basis of marital status — Married person undergoing change of gender — Whether discriminatory to refuse alteration to register of births on grounds of marital status — Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, 1979, Articles 1, 2, 3, 5(a), 11(2)(a), 16(1)(d) — The law of Australia

Human rights — Responsibility of States — Transfer of individuals to custody of other State — Whether transferring State responsible for subsequent treatment of individuals — Torture — Capital punishment — Whether transferring State required to seek assurances from other State prior to transfer — Circumstances in which real risk of torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment to be presumed — Transfer of individuals in Bosnia and Herzegovina to United States forces — Subsequent transfer to Guantanamo Bay

Human rights — Liberty and security — Arbitrary detention — Pre-trial detention — Court ordering release — Transfer of detainees to custody of other State after order for release — Other State subsequently holding detainees — Whether engaging responsibility of transferring State

Human rights — Fair trial — Presumption of innocence — Limits — Administrative decisions taken on basis of prosecution

States — Federal States — Whether actions of component of federation engaging responsibility of national authorities — The law of Bosnia and Herzegovina

State immunity — Jurisdictional immunity — International organizations — Institutions of the European Communities — Whether Euratom enjoying immunity from criminal jurisdiction — Functional immunity — Euratom Treaty, 1957, Article 191 — Protocol on Privileges and Immunities of European Communities, 1965 — Applicable criterion

Environment — Protection of environment through criminal law — Whether Euratom immune from criminal jurisdiction — The law of the Netherlands

Nationality — Diplomatic protection — Whether national entitled to require State to exercise right of protection — Whether Government may be required by court to make specific diplomatic representations — Threatened violations of human rights

Diplomatic relations — Diplomatic protection — Nationals of State in territory of other State — Whether State of nationality required to make diplomatic representations on their behalf — Whether presumption that nationals likely to be ill-treated

Human rights — Death penalty — Whether death penalty as such contrary to international law — Fair trial — Arbitrary deprivation of liberty — Whether international law recognizing individual has a right to protection from State of nationality

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Constitution of South Africa — Relationship to customary international law — Whether Constitution applicable outside territory of South Africa — Whether Constitution requiring South African Government to exercise right of diplomatic protection in respect of nationals abroad — Degree of discretion enjoyed by Government — The law of South Africa

Treaties — Interpretation and application matters — Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, 1980 — Objective of Convention — Wrongful removal of children from country of habitual residence — Policy of prompt return so courts of country may resolve question of custody — Exceptions — Grave risk of physical or psychological harm to child or placing of child in otherwise intolerable situation — Content — Manner of application

War and armed conflict — State of war — Significance — Child removed from Israel — Whether return to Israel would give rise to risk of physical or psychological harm — Whether existence of a state of war in country of return determinative — The law of England

State immunity — Head of State immunity — Allegations of torture — Whether universal jurisdiction principle overriding immunity afforded to Head of State — Common law embodying customary international law — Absolute immunity — State Immunity Act 1978 — Whether Head of State liable to arrest or detention — The law of England

State immunity — Head of State — Immunities — Dignity of Head of State — Duty to respect and protect dignity — Whether King of Saudi Arabia immune from suit by claimant alleging she was his estranged wife — Whether court correctly exercising discretion to afford King protection from scrutiny and comment — Private hearings — Whether claim to sovereign immunity public claim demanding open litigation — Private acts — Boundaries of immunity — Legitimate public interest — Protection of identity of sovereign — Whether legitimate ground for imposing reporting restrictions — Respondent to respond to appeal in open court — Whether breach of Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961, Article 29 — Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964 — State Immunity Act 1978 — The law of England