Jurisdiction — Conflicts of jurisdiction — International jurisdiction — Immunity from jurisdiction — Effects — Limits — Powers of the judiciary — Excessive exercise of powers — Denial of justice — Impossibility of a party to bring claim in a recognized jurisdiction

International organizations — African Development Bank — Immunity — Limits — International conventions — Diverse accords and conventions — Khartoum Accord of 1963 (African Development Bank) — Article 52 — Immunity from jurisdiction — Limits — The law of France

Human rights — Fundamental rights — Right to freedom — Right to equality — Right to privacy — Nepal Constitution — International human rights instruments ratified by Nepal — Whether infringement of fundamental rights of sexual minority — Change in traditional norms and values — Other jurisdictions — Discrimination — Whether Nepal discriminating against citizens on grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity — Responsibility of Nepal — Protection of rights and interests of sexual minority — Whether petitioners having locus standi — Whether issues of gender discrimination within scope of public interest litigation — Appropriate order for Nepal Government

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — International human rights conventions — Ratification by Nepal of significant international human rights conventions — International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, 1965 — International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 — International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966 — International Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, 1979 — Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989 — Implementation of resulting obligations — Vienna Convention on Law of Treaties, 1969 — Section 9 of Nepal Treaty Act 1991 incorporating ratified international conventions — Nepalese laws — Nepal Constitution — Interpretation — The law of Nepal

Aliens — Refugees — Applicants seeking refugee status in Hong Kong — Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, 1951, and 1967 Protocol (“Refugee Convention”) — Article 33(1) of Refugee Convention — Non-refoulement principle — Whether part of customary international law — Whether acquiring status of jus cogens — Determination of refugee status by Hong Kong Sub-Office of United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (“the UNHCR”) — Exercise of discretion by Director of Immigration on humanitarian grounds — Whether Hong Kong Government having legal obligation not to expel refugee — Whether Hong Kong Government having legal obligation to determine refugee status under customary international law and common law

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Refugee Convention — Refugee Convention not extended to Hong Kong — Customary international law — Whether universal rule of customary international law prohibiting refoulement of refugees — Whether rule acquiring peremptory norm status — Whether rule incorporated into Hong Kong domestic law — Hong Kong policy not to grant political asylum — Whether Hong Kong repudiated rule against refoulement of refugees — Whether Hong Kong Government having legal obligation not to expel refugee to frontiers of any territory where he would face persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership of particular social group or political opinion — Whether Hong Kong Government having legal obligation to determine refugee status — Exercise of discretion of Director of Immigration on humanitarian grounds

Sources of international law — Customary international law — Jus cogens — Whether universal rule of customary international law prohibiting refoulement of refugees — Academic opinion — Relevance — Requirements for existence of rule — Whether rule acquiring peremptory norm status — The law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region

Aliens — Claim for refugee status — Convention on the Status of Refugees, 1951 — Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 1984 — Applicant asylum seeker and torture claimant — Applicant entering Hong Kong on false passport — Secretary for Justice instituting criminal proceedings against applicant — Whether decisions of Secretary for Justice to prosecute applicant subject to judicial review — Hong Kong’s Basic Law — Duties of courts in respect of new constitutional order in Hong Kong — Whether decisions of Secretary for Justice lawful — Whether decisions contradicting Secretary for Justice’s own prosecution policy — Whether decisions undermining applicant’s rights to seek asylum and protection from torture

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Convention on the Status of Refugees, 1951 — Applicability — Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 1984 — Customary international law — Applicant asylum seeker and torture claimant — Obligations of Hong Kong — Whether Hong Kong undertaking never to prosecute claimant entering Hong Kong illegally — The law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region

Territory — Sovereignty — Occupation — Non-self-governing territories — East Timor — Portuguese colony — Indonesia occupying East Timor — Political turmoil and violence — Independence — Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste — United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor (“UNTAET”) — UNTAET Regulations — Constitution of Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste — Applicable law — Whether Indonesian law ever validly in force in East Timor

International criminal law — Crimes against humanity — Genocide — Definition — Whether defendant committing genocide in East Timor during political turmoil and violence — UNTAET Regulation 2000/15, Section 5.1 — Whether Special Panel erring in finding defendant lacking necessary mens rea for genocide under Section 5.1 of Regulation — Requirements under Section 5.1 — Whether requirement that defendant aware of widespread or systematic nature of attacks against civilian population throughout whole territory of East Timor — Applicability of Section 5.1 — Applicable law — The law of the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste

Territory — Colonies — Ceded colony — British Indian Ocean Territory (“BIOT”) — Governance — Removal of islanders from territory by Immigration Ordinance 1971 under BIOT Order 1965 — Bancoult (No 1) judgment — Press statement — Immigration Ordinance 2000 allowing islanders to return to outer islands — Section 9 of BIOT Constitution Order 2004 restoring full immigration control — BIOT Immigration Order 2004 — Validity of Orders — Whether limitations on Her Majesty in Council’s power to legislate for colony — Whether Crown having power to remove right of abode — Whether powers of Crown limited to legislation for “peace, order and good government of the territory” — Interests of United Kingdom — Relevance — Applicability of ordinary powers of judicial review — Whether decision to re-impose immigration control on islanders unreasonable or abuse of power — Whether islanders having legitimate expectation that right of abode continue — Self-determination — United Nations Charter, Article 73

Human rights — Right of abode — Nature of right — Whether fundamental — Whether Crown having power to remove islanders’ right of abode in BIOT territory

Relationship of international law and municipal law — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Human Rights Act 1998 — Whether having application to BIOT — Whether Crown’s actions in BIOT infringing Human Rights Act 1998 — Relevance of international law — United Nations Charter, Article 73 — The law of England