Jurisdiction — Extraterritorial jurisdiction — Applicants complaining that Turkey violating rights of their relatives under European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Ruling on admissibility — Whether issue of jurisdiction requiring examination at this stage — Concept of jurisdiction — Whether Turkey exercising effective overall control of entire area of northern Iraq — Whether exercising effective control over particular portion of that territory — Available evidence — Whether establishing beyond reasonable doubt that Turkish armed forces conducting military operations in area where applicants’ relatives killed — Whether applicants’ relatives within jurisdiction of Turkey within meaning of Article 1 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950

Human rights — Right to liberty and security — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Article 5(4) — Whether failure to exhaust domestic remedies — Whether lack of remedy by which applicant could have lawfulness of his detention in police custody decided — Article 5(1) — Whether applicant being deprived of liberty unlawfully — Applicant intercepted by Kenyan agents — Applicant arrested and transferred to Turkey by Turkish officials — Whether cooperation between Turkey and Kenya — Whether Turkey acting extraterritorially in manner inconsistent with Kenya’s sovereignty — Whether applicant within jurisdiction of Turkey for purposes of Article 1 of European Convention — Whether applicant’s arrest and detention complying with Turkish law — Article 5(3) — Whether applicant being brought promptly before — Whether Turkey violating Article 5 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950

Jurisdiction — Extraterritorial jurisdiction — Whether Turkey acting extraterritorially in manner inconsistent with Kenya’s sovereignty — Whether proof in form of concordant inferences — Applicant intercepted by Kenyan agents — Applicant arrested and transferred to Turkey by Turkish officials — Applicant under Turkish authority — Applicant within jurisdiction of Turkey for purposes of Article 1 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Whether applicant’s arrest and detention complying with Turkish law — Whether cooperation between Turkey and Kenya — Balance between bringing fugitives to justice and protection of individual rights under European Convention — Whether applicant’s right to security under European Convention affected — Whether violation of Article 5(1) of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950

Human rights — Right to a fair trial — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Article 6(1) — Whether Ankara National Security Court independent and impartial — Whether applicant having reasonable concern regarding military judge — Whether proceedings in National Security Court fair — Legal assistance — Applicant’s access to case file — Access by applicant’s lawyers to case file — Whether Turkey violating Article 6 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950

Human rights — Right to life — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Article 2 — Applicant sentenced to death under Article 125 of Turkish Criminal Code — Turkey staying execution at request of European Court of Human Rights pursuant to Rule 39 — Turkey abolishing death penalty in peacetime — Whether implementation of death penalty constituting violation of Article 2 — Whether imposition of death penalty constituting violation of Article 2 — Whether Article 2 should be interpreted as no longer permitting capital punishment — Legal significance of practice of Council of Europe Contracting States as regards death penalty — Whether Turkey violating Article 2 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950

Human rights — Prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Article 3 — Whether implementation of death penalty constituting violation of Article 3 — Whether imposition of death penalty constituting violation of Article 3 — Whether imposition of death penalty following unfair trial amounting to inhuman treatment — Whether applicant’s conditions of detention amounting to inhuman treatment — When transferred from Kenya to Turkey — When in İmralı prison — Whether Turkey violating Article 3 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950

Treaties — Interpretation — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950, Article 2 — Whether Article 2 should be interpreted as no longer permitting capital punishment — Legal significance of practice of Council of Europe Contracting States as regards death penalty — Whether imposition of death penalty amounting to inhuman and degrading treatment per se — Whether imposition of death penalty violating Article 3 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950

Terrorism — Threat from terrorism — Relevance — Applicant convicted of terrorism charges in Turkey — Whether relevant to delay in bringing applicant before judge — Whether relevant to assessment of inhuman treatment — Whether relevant to risk of implementation of death sentence — Whether relevant to applicant’s conditions of detention — Balance between State and individual interests — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950

Human rights — Prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment — Applicants receiving mandatory sentences of life imprisonment in United Kingdom — Applicants given whole-life orders — Whether amounting to ill-treatment contrary to Article 3 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Possibility of review of sentences — Prospect of release — Domestic criminal justice system — Sentence review and release arrangements — Role of European Court of Human Rights — State’s margin of appreciation — Whether life sentences irreducible — Whether raising issue under Article 3 of European Convention — Whether requirements of Article 3 of European Convention met in relation to applicants — Whether applicants’ whole-life sentences irreducible — Absence of review mechanism in domestic law — Secretary of State having discretionary statutory power to release whole-life prisoners — Prison Service Order — Whether domestic law in various sources having sufficient clarity as to prospect of release of life prisoners — Whether whole-life orders amounting to ill-treatment contrary to Article 3 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950

Treaties — Interpretation — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950, Article 3 — Prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment — Whether applicants’ whole-life sentences compatible with Article 3 of European Convention — Whether life sentences irreducible — Possibility of review — Prospect of release — Whether legitimate penological grounds for continued detention — Human dignity — Aim of imprisonment — Rehabilitation — European penal policy — International law — United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Treatment of Prisoners — Article 10(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 — Human Rights Committee’s General Comment on Article 10 — Article 110(3) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court

International tribunals — Provisional measures of protection — International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea — United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 (“UNCLOS”), Article 290 — Requirements for the order of provisional measures — Jurisdiction — UNCLOS Articles 283 and 288 — Urgency — Protection of the respective rights of the parties — Parties not required to continue with negotiations when there is no prospect of success

State immunity — Immunity of warships under customary international law — UNCLOS Article 32 — Treaty interpretation — Application of immunity to internal waters — Whether breach of the immunity is considered to be a matter concerning the “interpretation or application” of UNCLOS — Whether detention of a vessel in internal waters is deemed to deprive the vessel of certain rights — UNCLOS Article 18(1)(b) — Freedom of passage in the territorial sea — UNCLOS Articles 87 and 90 — Freedom of the high seas

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — Effect — United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 (“UNCLOS”) — International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea established by UNCLOS — Orders of Tribunal — Whether Ghanaian courts obliged to enforce orders of Tribunal — Doctrine of incorporation — Article 75 of Ghanaian Constitution 1992 — Whether incorporating UNCLOS into Ghanaian law — Ghana’s international obligations under UNCLOS — Means of remedying any breaches — Whether orders of Tribunal valid basis for grant of certiorari

State immunity — Jurisdictional immunity — Warships — Commercial transactions — Enforcement of foreign judgments — Interpretation of waiver clause in contract — Foreign judgment finding that Argentina had contractually waived its sovereign immunity — Whether Ghanaian courts obliged to enforce foreign judgment — State’s sovereign right to waive contractually its sovereign immunity — Ghanaian court ordering seizure of Argentinian warship — Military nature of asset of foreign sovereign — Significance — Whether foreign warship immune from detention — Public policy considerations — Peace and security of Ghana — Clarification of common law of Ghana — Whether order of Ghanaian court to attach military vessel fundamentally erroneous decision — Whether valid basis for grant of certiorari — The law of Ghana

Human rights — Admissibility of author’s communication to Human Rights Committee — Consideration of merits — Right to freedom of association — Right to participate in conduct of public affairs — Right to freedom of expression — Imposition of fine on author for use by public association of computer equipment — Confiscation of equipment — Whether amounting to restriction of author’s rights — Whether restriction justified — Necessity of restriction in democratic society — International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966, Articles 22, 19 and 25 — Whether State Party violating Article 22(1), read in conjunction with Article 19(2) and with Article 25(a) of Covenant — Whether State Party violating its obligations under Article 1 of Optional Protocol to Covenant — Effective remedy

Human rights — Admissibility of authors’ communication to Human Rights Committee — Consideration of merits — Right to stand for election — Obligation on general election candidates to declare their communities — “Way of life” criterion — Paragraph 3(1) of Mauritius Constitution — National Assembly Election Regulations 1968 — Whether mandatory requirement to declare community affiliation based on objective, reasonable criteria which were neither arbitrary nor discriminatory — International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966, Article 25 — Whether State Party violating its obligations under Article 25(b) of Covenant — Effective remedy

Jurisdiction — Extraterritorial jurisdiction — Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms — Whether having extraterritorial application — Whether Charter applying during armed conflict in Afghanistan to detention of non-Canadians by Canadian Forces or their transfer to Afghan authorities — Section 32(1) of Charter — Interpretation of jurisdictional reach by courts — Judgments of Supreme Court — Hape — Khadr (No 1) — Whether Canada having effective control of detention facilities — Whether Afghanistan consenting to application or enforcement of Canadian law — Afghan compact — Applicable law — International law — International humanitarian law — Whether Charter applying if detainees at substantial risk of torture if transferred to Afghan authorities — General rule against extraterritorial application of Charter — Whether fundamental human rights exception to general rule — Concepts of territoriality and comity — Relevance of all circumstances

Human rights — Freedom from torture — Non-Canadian nationals detained by Canadian Forces in Afghanistan during armed conflict — Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms — Whether applicable if detainees at substantial risk of torture if transferred to Afghan authorities — General rule against extraterritorial application of Charter — Whether fundamental human rights exception to general rule — Whether detainees having rights under Charter — Applicable law — International humanitarian law — Afghan Constitution

Territory — Territorial sovereignty — Armed conflict in Afghanistan — Detention of non-Canadians by Canadian Forces — Whether Canadian Forces’ authorities having effective control of detention facilities — Banković — Canadian Forces in Afghanistan at request of Afghan Government — Whether Afghanistan consenting to extension of Canadian law over non-Canadian nationals — Afghan Compact — Whether Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms having extraterritorial application

War and armed conflict — Armed conflict in Afghanistan — Detention of non-Canadians by Canadian Forces — Law applicable to detainees — Whether Afghanistan consenting to extension of Canadian law over non-Canadian nationals — Whether Canadian Forces occupying force — Whether Canadian Forces’ authorities having effective control of detention facilities — Banković — Afghan Compact — International humanitarian law — Applicability of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms — The law of Canada

Aliens — Immigration and deportation — Applicant entering Cyprus illegally — Applicant HIV/AIDS carrier — Applicant seeking asylum — Applicant denied asylum — Refugee Review Authority dismissing applicant’s administrative appeal — Applicant appealing decision of Refugee Review Authority — Outcome of appeal awaited — Applicant subject to decrees ordering her detention and deportation on basis of being illegal immigrant and HIV/AIDS carrier — Article 6(1)(k) and 6(1)(c) of Aliens and Immigration Law (Chapter 105) — Applicant seeking review of decrees — Article 146 of Constitution of Cyprus — Whether applicant could be deported pending outcome of constitutional appeal — Whether applicant could be deported because HIV/AIDS carrier

Relationship of international law and municipal law — European Council Directive 2005/85/EC, Article 39(b) — Whether unconditional and sufficiently precise — Whether having direct effect — International Guidelines on HIV/AIDS and Human Rights 1996 (consolidated in 2006) — 2006 Note on HIV/AIDS and the Protection of Refugees, Internally Displaced Persons and Other Persons of Concern — Effect on municipal law — Whether deportation on basis of Article 6(1)(k) and 6(1)(c) of Aliens and Immigration Law (Chapter 105) lawful

Human rights — Right to an effective remedy — Asylum seeker — European Council Directive 2005/85/EC — Article 39(3)(a) of Directive providing for Member State discretion whether applicant could remain pending appeal decision — Article 39(3)(b) of Directive providing for possibility of legal remedy or protective measures if applicant not allowed to remain pending appeal decision — Whether applicant being denied right to effective remedy — Whether deportation on basis of Article 6(1)(k) of Aliens and Immigration Law (Chapter 105) lawful

Human rights — Principle of equality — Principle of non-discrimination — Applicant asylum seeker — Limitation of rights of freedom of movement and choice of residence on sole basis of HIV/AIDS — Whether discriminatory — International Guidelines on HIV/AIDS and Human Rights 1996 (consolidated in 2006) — United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees 2006 Note on HIV/AIDS and the Protection of Refugees, Internally Displaced Persons and Other Persons of Concern — Principle of non-refoulement — Whether applicant could be deported to Cameroon where would face discrimination as HIV/AIDS carrier — Whether deportation on basis of 6(1)(c) of Aliens and Immigration Law (Chapter 105) lawful — The law of Cyprus

International organizations — Immunity — Immunity from jurisdiction — Immunity from execution — Convention on the Immunities and Privileges of the Specialized Agencies of the United Nations, 1947 — Extent of immunity conferred — Effect given to the 1947 Convention in the law of the United Kingdom — International Organizations Act 1968 — Specialized Agencies of the United Nations (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1974 — UNESCO — Whether grant of immunity compatible with European Convention on Human Rights — Whether immunity dependent upon existence of an alternative forum for resolution of dispute

Human rights — Access to court — European Convention on Human Rights, Article 6 — Immunity of international organization from jurisdiction of national courts — Whether incompatible with rights under Article 6 — Whether compliance with international legal obligations a legitimate aim — Whether justifying restriction on right of access to court

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — Customary international law — International law on immunities of international organizations — UNESCO — Application in English law — Relationship with rights under European Convention on Human Rights

Treaties — Interpretation — Principles of interpretation codified in Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969, Articles 31-3 — Good faith — Convention on the Immunities and Privileges of the Specialized Agencies of the United Nations, 1947 — Whether to be interpreted in light of the European Convention on Human Rights — The law of England

Human rights — Prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment — Article 3 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Whether whole-life order infringing Article 3 of European Convention — Strasbourg jurisprudence — Kafkaris v. Cyprus — Irreducible life sentences possibly raising issue under Article 3 — Circumstances in which issue raised — Nature of issue raised — Test for deciding whether life sentence reducible — Whether whole-life order amounting to ill-treatment contrary to Article 3 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950

Treaties — Interpretation — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950, Article 3 — Scope — Article 3 of European Convention prohibiting torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment — Whether whole-life order infringing Article 3 — Strasbourg jurisprudence — Kafkaris v. Cyprus — Whether ruling irreducible sentence imposed by judge as appropriate punishment and deterrence for very serious offence resulting in detention violating Article 3 — Whether whole-life term irreducible sentence — Discretionary power of Secretary of State to release life prisoner — When potential Article 3 violation occurring — When Article 3 challenge could be made

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Domestic jurisprudence — European jurisprudence and other material — Strasbourg jurisprudence — Kafkaris v. Cyprus — Duty of national courts — United Kingdom law — Irreducible life sentence imposed by a judge to reflect appropriate punishment and deterrence for very serious offence — Whether Kafkaris ruling that sentence resulting in detention violating Article 3 of European Convention — Views of Council of Europe Member States — Views of United Kingdom — Schedule 21 to United Kingdom Criminal Justice Act 2003 — Irreducible life sentence imposed by judge to reflect appropriate punishment and deterrence for very serious offence — Whether resulting in detention infringing Article 3 of European Convention — Whether whole-life term irreducible sentence — Discretionary power of Secretary of State to release life prisoner — Requirement that United Kingdom comply with European Convention — The law of England