Human rights — Treaties — Scope of application — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Article 1 — Jurisdiction — Events in Crimea — Whether Russian Federation exercising jurisdiction over Crimea — Nature of jurisdiction under Article 1 of Convention — Territoriality principle — Whether facts complained of falling within jurisdiction of Russian Federation within meaning of Article 1 of Convention — Whether Russian Federation exercising effective control over Crimea during relevant period — Evidence — Military presence, strength and conduct — Whether Russian Federation adopting administrative practice of human rights violations in Crimea — Whether Russian Federation violating Articles 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 14 of Convention, and Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No 1 and Article 2 of Protocol No 4 to Convention — Complaints of administrative practice during relevant period in violation of Convention provisions — Whether admissible

Treaties — Ratification — Interpretation — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Article 1 — Concept of jurisdiction — Meaning of jurisdiction in public international law — Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969 — Article 29 — Presumption jurisdiction exercised normally throughout State’s territory — Whether any assertion of change to status of Crimea by States upon ratification of European Convention — Whether Russian Federation having jurisdiction over Crimea — Assumption that nature of jurisdiction not territorial

International tribunals — European Court of Human Rights — Jurisdiction — Scope of case — Temporal scope of complaints — Whether interim measure to be lifted — Subject matter of dispute — Whether issue of legality, as matter of international law, of Crimea’s purported integration into Russian Federation constituting subject matter of dispute — Whether issues raised legal — Whether political aspects depriving questions of their legal character — Preliminary issues — Whether Russian Federation complying with any obligation under Article 1 of Convention — Preliminary objections — Whether application lacking requirements of genuine application — Whether Russian Federation’s preliminary objection of incompatibility ratione loci to be dismissed — Whether Court having competence under Article 19 of Convention — Whether preliminary objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies to be dismissed — Whether facts complained of falling within jurisdiction of Russian Federation within meaning of Article 1 of Convention — Whether Court having competence under Article 19 of Convention — Admissibility of complaints

Evidence before international courts and tribunals — European Court of Human Rights — Assessment of evidence — Approach to evidence — Types of evidence examined — Principles of assessment — Burden of proof — Standard of proof — As to alleged existence of an “administrative practice” — As to jurisdictional issues — Examination of admissibility of complaints in inter-State case

Human rights — Genocide — Definition of genocide — Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 1948 — Actus reus of genocide — Mens rea — Specific intent to destroy protected group — Dolus specialis — Proof — Whether existence of intent can be inferred from pattern of conduct — Relationship between genocide and other violations of humanitarian law and human rights — Ethnic cleansing — Responsibility for genocide — Whether genocide established in principal claim — Whether genocide established in counter-claim — Armed conflict in territory of Croatia in 1991-95 — Whether breaches of Genocide Convention

International Court of Justice — Jurisdiction — Scope — Consent to jurisdiction — Basis for jurisdiction — Article IX of Genocide Convention — Court confined to disputes regarding genocide — Whether dispute between Parties falling within Article IX of Genocide Convention — Respondent raising preliminary objections relating to jurisdiction of Court and admissibility of Application — Whether Court having jurisdiction to entertain Croatia’s Application

International Court of Justice — Jurisdiction — Scope — Basis for jurisdiction — Article IX of Genocide Convention — Whether Court having jurisdiction — Respondent’s first preliminary objection — Capacity to participate in proceedings before Court — Articles 34 and 35 of Statute of Court — Whether Parties satisfying general conditions — Whether Respondent having access to Court on basis of Article 35(1) of Statute — Admission to United Nations on 1 November 2000 — Whether Respondent acquiring status of party to Statute of Court on 1 November 2000 — Whether Court “open” to Respondent — Issues of jurisdiction ratione materiae — Declaration and Note of 27 April 1992 — Nature and effect on position of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in relation to Genocide Convention — Whether declaration having effect of notification of succession to treaties — Whether Respondent party to Genocide Convention, including Article IX, at date of institution of proceedings until at least 1 November 2000 — Whether Court having jurisdiction to entertain Croatia’s Application

International Court of Justice — Jurisdiction — Scope — Basis for jurisdiction — Article IX of Genocide Convention — Whether Court having jurisdiction — Respondent’s second preliminary objection — Issues of jurisdiction ratione temporis — Whether claims based on acts and omissions which took place prior to 27 April 1992 beyond jurisdiction of Court and inadmissible — Distinction between objection to jurisdiction and objection to admissibility — Whether second preliminary objection possessing an exclusive preliminary character — Whether possible to determine questions raised by objection without determining issues properly pertaining to merits — Whether Court having jurisdiction to entertain Croatia’s Application

International Court of Justice — Jurisdiction — Scope — Basis for jurisdiction — Article IX of Genocide Convention — Whether Court having jurisdiction — Respondent’s third preliminary objection — Whether claims referring to submission of persons to trial within jurisdiction of Court — Whether claims concerning provision of information on missing Croatian citizens within jurisdiction of Court — Whether claims concerning return of cultural property within jurisdiction of Court — Whether Court having jurisdiction to entertain Croatia’s Application

International Court of Justice — Jurisdiction — Scope — Basis for jurisdiction — Article IX of Genocide Convention — Issues of jurisdiction and admissibility to be determined at merits stage — Issues of jurisdiction ratione temporis — Whether Court’s jurisdiction extending to acts prior to 27 April 1992 — Whether provisions of Genocide Convention retroactive — Logic — Article 28 of Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969 — Whether acts said to have occurred before 27 April 1992 falling within scope of jurisdiction under Article IX due to Article 10(2) of International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility — Whether acts said to have occurred before 27 April 1992 falling within scope of jurisdiction under Article IX due to law of State succession — Whether Respondent bound by obligations under Genocide Convention — Whether Court having jurisdiction to entertain Croatia’s Application with respect to acts prior to 27 April 1992

State succession — Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia — Dissolution — Republics becoming independent States — Distinction between successor State and continuing State — Federal Republic of Yugoslavia claiming to be continuation of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia — Serbia and Montenegro — Republic of Serbia — Consent to jurisdiction of International Court of Justice — Whether Serbia sole Respondent — Treaty commitments — Genocide Convention — Whether Federal Republic of Yugoslavia party by succession to Genocide Convention — Membership of United Nations — Status and position of Respondent State in relation to the Statute of the International Court of Justice and to Genocide Convention

Treaties — Accession — Parties — Signature — Ratification — Genocide Convention — Process by which State becoming bound by treaty as successor State or remaining bound by treaty as continuing State — Signature of Genocide Convention by the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia on 11 December 1948 — Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia depositing instruments of ratification, without reservation, on 29 August 1950 — Whether the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia party by succession to Genocide Convention from beginning of its existence as a State — Declaration and Note of 27 April 1992 — Nature and effect on position of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in relation to Genocide Convention — Whether Serbia party to Convention at date of Application on 2 July 1999

Treaties — Interpretation — Application — Genocide Convention — Applicable law — Article II of Genocide Convention — Constituent elements of genocide — Actus reus and mens rea of genocide — Dolus specialis — Requirement of specific intent to destroy group in whole or part — Evidence — Mens rea of genocide — Meaning and scope of destruction of group — Destruction of group in part — Evidence of dolus specialis — Actus reus of genocide — Relationship between Genocide Convention and international humanitarian law — Meaning and scope of physical acts — Whether genocide established in principal claim — Whether alleged acts established — Whether falling into categories listed in Article II of Genocide Convention — Whether committed with intent to destroy protected group, in whole or in part — Quantitative element — Geographic location — Pattern of conduct — Whether genocide established in counter-claim — Whether breaches of Genocide Convention

International criminal law — Genocide — Definition of genocide — Obligations under Genocide Convention — Role of International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia — Proof of genocide

Evidence before international courts and tribunals — Evidence — Burden of proof — Standard of proof — Methods of proof — Relevance of findings by International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia — Whether conclusive evidence crimes committed — Whether conclusive evidence regarding attribution of acts

State responsibility — Attribution — Responsibility of State for acts of State organs — Engagement of international responsibility of acts unlawful even if author of acts acting contrary to instructions or exceeding authority — International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility 2001 — Relevance — Determination of responsibility of State if genocide established — Whether genocide established — Whether breaches of Genocide Convention

War and armed conflict — Armed conflict in territory of Croatia as it had existed within the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1991-95 — Allegations of acts of genocide — Whether breaches of Genocide Convention

Human rights — Right to fair trial — Right to defence — African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 1981, Article 7 — International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966, Article 14 — Due process in criminal trial — Right to cross-examine witnesses — Bar on retroactive legislation — Retroactive application of law legitimate when effect was to reduce sentence — Right to freedom of expression and opinion — African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Article 9(2) — International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 19 — Limits on freedom of expression — Rwanda — Prohibition of negation of genocide — Whether legitimate — Whether penalty proportionate

International tribunals — African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights — Jurisdiction — Material jurisdiction — Whether Court having jurisdiction to hear the application — Admissibility — Whether application admissible

Damages — Reparations — Claim for damages for violation of African Charter of Human and Peoples’ Rights, 1981 and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 — Release from imprisonment — Pecuniary damages — Whether evidence substantiating claims — Moral damages — Whether violation of applicant’s rights negatively impacting family members — Whether close family members eligible to receive moral damages — Medical evidence

Evidence before international courts and tribunals — African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights — Claim for damages for violation of African Charter of Human and Peoples’ Rights, 1981 and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 — Requirement of evidence of material prejudice arising from violation of human right — Whether link shown between material loss and violation — Presumption of moral prejudice on part of applicant due to detention conditions — Whether medical evidence violation of applicant’s rights negatively impacting close family members

Arbitration — United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 (“UNCLOS”), Part XV and Annex VII — Award on Jurisdiction — Award on Merits — Russia in breach of its obligations to the Netherlands under UNCLOS — Heads of damage for which compensation due — Quantum of compensation

Damages — Compensation — Compensable and non-compensable claims — Restitution — Return of confiscated equipment and items — Material damage for vessel repairs and replacement of objects belonging to vessel — Material damage for loss of use of vessel — Material damage for bail and security — Material damage for injury to personal belongings — Material damage for unpaid deposits to arbitration tribunal — Non-material damage for wrongful arrest, prosecution and detention of persons

Damages — Compensation — Quantum of compensation — Compensation in form of a lump sum — Compensation on an equitable basis — Interest rate — Start date for calculation of interest

Evidence before international courts and tribunals — Review of evidence by experts — Methodology for reviewing evidence — Assessment of evidence by tribunal

Arbitration — Agreement to arbitration — Arbitration under International Chamber of Commerce rules — Enforcement of judgment — Justiciable within English court — Relevance of national law in interpretation of agreement

Evidence before international courts and tribunals — Meaning of agreement with government signature — Reference to previous draft agreements — Joint enterprise including government and legally separate entity — Submission to arbitrate

State immunity — Jurisdictional immunity — State Immunity Act 1978 — Submission to jurisdiction under Section 2(1) of Act — Whether transaction commercial under Section 3(1) of Act — Submission to arbitration under Section 9(1) of Act — Immunity from enforcement — The law of England

Human rights — Jurisdiction — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — General duty of Contracting States under Article 1 of Convention — Extraordinary rendition — United States Central Intelligence Agency rendition programme — High-Value Detainees Programme — Secret detention of terrorist suspects — Ill-treatment of terrorist suspects — Applicant complaining respondent State violating his rights under Articles 3, 5, 6(1), 8, 10 and 13 of Convention, and Articles 2 and 3 of Convention taken together with Article 1 of Protocol No 6 to Convention — Respondent State raising preliminary objection — Whether non-exhaustion of domestic remedies — Whether to be joined to merits — Obligation to furnish all necessary facilities under Article 38 of Convention — Confidentiality and national security issues — Relevance — Whether responsibility of respondent State engaged in respect of applicant at material time — Whether respondent State responsible for applicant’s treatment and detention by foreign officials on its territory — Whether respondent State responsible for applicant’s removal from its territory — Whether respondent State violating Convention

Human rights — Prohibition on torture and inhuman and degrading treatment — Article 3 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Allegations of ill-treatment by applicant — Admissibility of applicant’s complaints — Procedural aspect of Article 3 — Whether respondent State failing to carry out effective investigation of applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment when in United States custody on territory of respondent State — Substantive aspects of Article 3 — Whether derogation from Article 3 permitted in difficult circumstances of terrorism — Whether respondent State complicit in United States Central Intelligence Agency High-Value Detainees Programme — Whether respondent State enabling United States authorities to subject applicant to torture and ill-treatment on its territory — Whether treatment amounting to torture — Whether respondent State enabling United States authorities to transfer applicant from its territory despite existence of a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 — Whether respondent State violating Article 3 of Convention

Human rights — Right to liberty and security of person — Article 5 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Allegations of arbitrary detention by applicant — Applicant’s detention on territory of respondent State — Whether real risk of further undisclosed detention following transfer by United States authorities enabled by respondent State — Admissibility of applicant’s complaints — Extraordinary rendition — United States Central Intelligence Agency rendition programme — Secret detention of terrorist suspects — Removal of legal protection and safeguards from individuals — Programme operating outside United States’ jurisdiction — Programme requiring cooperation of host countries and overseas detention facilities — Whether respondent State responsible for applicant’s detention on its territory — Respondent State enabling transfer of applicant from its territory to Central Intelligence Agency secret detention facilities — Whether respondent State responsible for exposing applicant to foreseeable serious risk of detention conditions not complying with Convention — Whether respondent State violating Article 5 of Convention

Human rights — Right to respect for private and family life — Article 8 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Applicant separated from family while detained and transferred — Admissibility of applicant’s complaint — Notion of private life — Whether covering person’s moral and physical integrity — Acts and omissions of respondent State in respect of applicant’s detention and transfer — Whether amounting to interference with applicant’s right in accordance with law — Whether respondent State’s responsibility engaged — Whether respondent State violating Article 8 of Convention

Human rights — Right to an effective remedy — Article 13 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Applicant complaining of lack of effective remedy in respect of grievances under Article 3 of Convention — Admissibility of applicant’s complaints — Complaint linked to complaint under procedural aspect of Article 3 — Whether complaints arguable — Whether criminal investigation effective — Requirements of Article 13 — Whether respondent State violating Article 13 of Convention

Human rights — Right to a fair trial — Article 6(1) of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Applicant complaining transfer from respondent State’s territory exposing him to real risk of flagrant denial of justice — Admissibility of applicant’s complaint — Whether real risk that trial before United States military commission would be flagrant denial of justice — Whether United States military commission guaranteeing impartiality and independence — Whether United States military commission “established by law” — Probability of admission of evidence obtained by torture — Whether responsibility of respondent State engaged — Whether respondent State violating Article 6(1) of Convention

Terrorism — Terrorist suspects — Extraordinary rendition — United States Central Intelligence Agency rendition programme — High-Value Detainees Programme — Programme operating outside United States’ jurisdiction — Cooperation of host countries and overseas detention facilities — High-Value Detainees Programme — Secret detention of terrorist suspects — Ill-treatment of terrorist suspects — Applicant detained in CIA-run secret detention facility in respondent State — Applicant ill-treated by CIA — Applicant transferred by CIA from respondent State — Complicity of respondent State — Whether responsibility of respondent State engaged with respect to detention on its territory — Whether responsibility of respondent State engaged with respect to transfer from its territory — Whether respondent State violating European Convention on Human Rights, 1950

Evidence before international courts and tribunals — European Court of Human Rights — Procedure and rules of Court — Treaties — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Article 38 — Obligation to furnish all necessary facilities — Whether respondent State complying — Confidentiality and national security issues — Relevance — Whether respondent State’s refusal to submit evidence based on alleged lack of procedural safeguards justified — Whether domestic law justifying refusal to submit evidence — Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969 — Articles 25(d) and 26 — Whether Court entitled to draw inferences from respondent State’s conduct

Evidence before international courts and tribunals — European Court of Human Rights — Assessment of evidence and establishment of facts — Standard of proof — Whether approach of national legal systems relevant — Role and approach of Court — Article 19 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Burden of proof — Case law under Articles 2 and 3 of Convention — Extreme secrecy surrounding United States’ rendition operations — Respondent Government’s failure to cooperate — Circumstantial evidence — Whether respondent State’s responsibility under Article 1 of Convention engaged — Whether respondent State responsible for securing Convention rights for applicant at material time

State responsibility — Principles under European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Responsibility of respondent State under Article 1 of Convention — Principles deriving from case law of European Court of Human Rights — United States Central Intelligence Agency rendition programme — High-Value Detainees Programme — Programme operating outside United States’ jurisdiction — Responsibility of State under Convention for acts performed by foreign officials on its territory with acquiescence or connivance of its authorities — Responsibility of State where individual removed from its territory exposed to foreseeable violation of Convention rights in country of destination — Whether real risk of flagrant breach of Convention rights in destination country — Role of respondent State — Whether responsibility of respondent State engaged with respect to detention on its territory — Whether responsibility of respondent State engaged with respect to transfer from its territory — Whether complaints and extent to which events complained of imputable to respondent State could be examined

Evidence before international courts and tribunals — European Court of Human Rights — Evidence obtained by torture — Whether admissible in criminal trial — Legal systems based on rule of law — Trial process cornerstone of rule of law — Whether admission of evidence obtained by torture irreparably damaging trial process — Whether evidence obtained by torture reliable — Whether flagrant denial of justice if evidence obtained by torture admitted in criminal trial — Probability of United States military commission admitting evidence obtained by torture — Whether real risk that trial before United States military commission would be flagrant denial of justice — Whether responsibility of respondent State engaged — Whether respondent State violating Article 6(1) of Convention

Human rights — Right to life — Article 2 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Article 3 of Convention — Article 1 of Protocol No 6 to Convention — Abolition of death penalty — Applicant complaining transfer from respondent State’s territory exposing him to real risk of imposition of death penalty — Admissibility of applicant’s complaint — Extradition — Extraordinary rendition of suspected terrorist facing capital charges — Whether substantial and foreseeable risk applicant would be subjected to death penalty following trial before United States military commission — Whether acts and omissions of respondent State engaging its responsibility under Convention — Whether respondent State required to seek appropriate diplomatic assurances from United States under Article 46 of Convention — Whether respondent State violating Articles 2 and 3 of Convention taken together with Article 1 of Protocol No 6 to Convention

Damages — Non-pecuniary damage — Serious violations of several provisions of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Whether applicant suffering non-pecuniary damage — Whether finding of violations sufficient — Article 41 of Convention

International tribunals — European Court of Human Rights — Jurisdiction — Finality of judgments — Principle of legal certainty — Article 44 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Revision — Exceptional procedure — Rule 80(1) of Rules of Court — Whether revision request submitted within six-month time limit — Scope of revision request — Whether revision request permissible — Whether documents submitted by applicant Government disclosing new facts — Whether any new facts of decisive influence on findings in original judgment — Whether new facts unknown to Court when original judgment delivered — Whether new facts could not reasonably have been known to applicant Government requesting revision — Whether original judgment requiring revision to include finding of practice of torture as well as inhuman and degrading treatment

Human rights — Prohibition on torture and inhuman and degrading treatment — Interrogation techniques — Whether constituting practice of inhuman and degrading treatment — Whether constituting practice of torture — Commission establishing facts of case — Commission unanimous opinion that practice constituting inhuman and degrading treatment and torture — Original judgment finding practice of inhuman and degrading treatment only — Documentation later coming to knowledge of applicant Government — Medical evidence — Non-disclosure evidence — Whether documentation might have decisively influenced original judgment — Whether original judgment requiring revision to include finding of practice of torture also — Article 3 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950

Evidence before international courts and tribunals — European Court of Human Rights — Rule 80(1) of Rules of Court — Applicant Government requesting revision of original judgment — Documents from archives — Medical evidence — Non-disclosure evidence — Applicant Government claiming documents demonstrating new facts — Whether new facts of decisive influence — Whether new facts unknown to Court at time of original judgment — Whether new facts could reasonably have been known to applicant Government — Revision — Exceptional procedure — Principle of legal certainty — Whether documents submitted in support of revision request providing sufficient prima facie evidence in support of applicant Government’s version of events

Human rights — Jurisdiction — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — General duty of Contracting States under Article 1 of Convention — Abduction — Extraordinary rendition — Disappearance — Applicant complaining respondent State violating his rights under Articles 3, 5, 8, 10 and 13 of Convention — Preliminary objection raised by respondent State — Whether compliance with six-month time limit under Article 35(1) of Convention — Admissibility of complaints — Obligation of respondent State to ensure individuals within its jurisdiction not subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of Convention — Whether respondent State responsible for alleged ill-treatment of applicant by United States’ agents while applicant in respondent State — Respondent State transferring applicant into custody of United States’ authorities — Whether respondent State failing in obligation to assess whether real risk of ill-treatment contrary to Article 3 of Convention — Whether respondent State responsible for alleged ill-treatment of applicant while detained in Afghanistan — Whether respondent State responsible for applicant’s captivity in Afghanistan under Article 5 of Convention — Whether respondent State violating Articles 3, 5, 8, 13 and 10 of Convention

Evidence before international courts and tribunals — European Court of Human Rights — Assessment of evidence and establishment of facts — Standard of proof — Whether approach of national legal systems relevant — Role and approach of Court — Article 19 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Burden of proof — Case law under Articles 2 and 3 of Convention — Whether considerations applying to examination of disappearances under Article 5 of Convention — Allegations under Article 3 of Convention — Relevance of domestic proceedings and investigations — Whether burden of proof shifting to respondent Government — Whether respondent Government discharging burden — Whether applicant subjected to extraordinary rendition by agents of United States Central Intelligence Agency — Whether agents of respondent State assisting — Whether applicant’s allegations sufficiently convincing and established beyond reasonable doubt — Whether respondent State violating Articles 3, 5, 8, 13 and 10 of Convention

Human rights — Prohibition on torture and inhuman and degrading treatment — Article 3 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Allegations of ill-treatment by applicant — Admissibility of applicant’s complaints — Procedural aspect of Article 3 — Whether respondent State failing to carry out effective investigation of applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment — Substantive aspects of Article 3 — Whether derogation from Article 3 permitted in difficult circumstances of terrorism — Whether respondent State violating Article 3 on account of inhuman and degrading treatment of applicant in hotel — Whether respondent State responsible for ill-treatment of applicant at Skopje Airport — Whether treatment constituting torture — Responsibility of respondent State with regard to applicant’s transfer into custody of United States’ authorities despite real risk of further ill-treatment contrary to Article 3 — Whether respondent State violating Article 3 of Convention

Human rights — Right to liberty and security of person — Article 5 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Allegations of arbitrary detention by applicant — Whether respondent State violating Article 5 by its own agents and/or foreign agents operating in its territory and under its jurisdiction — Admissibility of applicant’s complaints — Substantive aspect of Article 5 — Whether applicant’s detention in respondent State in conformity with Article 5 requirements — Whether complying with domestic law — Whether applicant having access to representative of German embassy in respondent State — Article 36(1)(b) of Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 1963 — Whether applicant’s subsequent detention in Afghanistan imputable to respondent State — Extraordinary rendition — Whether detention of terrorist suspects by United States’ authorities arbitrary — Whether real risk of flagrant violation of Article 5 rights if applicant handed over by Macedonian authorities to United States Central Intelligence Agency — Whether applicant’s abduction and detention amounting to enforced disappearance under international law — Procedural aspect of Article 5 — Whether effective investigation into applicant’s allegations of unlawful and arbitrary detention — Whether respondent State violating Article 5 of Convention

Human rights — Right to respect for private and family life — Article 8 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Applicant separated from family while abducted and detained — Admissibility of applicant’s complaint — Notion of private life — Whether covering person’s moral and physical integrity — Whether extending to situations of deprivation of liberty — Whether interference with applicant’s right in accordance with law — Whether respondent State violating Article 8 of Convention

Human rights — Right to an effective remedy — Article 13 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Applicant complaining of lack of effective remedy in respect of grievances under Articles 3, 5 and 8 of Convention — Admissibility of applicant’s complaints — Whether complaints arguable — Whether criminal investigation effective — Whether any other remedy effective — Requirements of Article 13 — Whether respondent State assessing risk of ill-treatment before transferring applicant to United States Central Intelligence Agency agents — Whether respondent State violating Article 13 of Convention

Consular relations — Right to consular access — Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 1963, Article 36(1)(b) — Applicant’s detention in respondent State — Whether complying with Article 5 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Whether complying with domestic law — Whether complying with international law — Whether applicant having access to representative of German embassy in respondent State — Whether respondent State violating Article 5 of Convention

Terrorism — Investigation of terrorist offences — Extraordinary rendition — Arbitrary detention — Whether detention of terrorist suspects by United States’ authorities arbitrary — Macedonian authorities handing over applicant to agents of United States Central Intelligence Agency — Whether real risk of flagrant violation of applicant’s rights under Article 5 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Whether applicant’s subsequent detention in Afghanistan imputable to respondent State — Whether respondent State violating Article 5 of Convention

Damages — Non-pecuniary damage — Serious violations of several provisions of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Whether applicant suffering non-pecuniary damage — Whether finding of violations sufficient — Article 41 of Convention

Treaties — Application — Principle of non-retroactivity — Article 28 of Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969 — Russian Federation ratifying European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 on 5 May 1998 — Polish prisoners of war killed on instructions of Soviet authorities in 1940 — Relatives of those killed complaining that Convention rights breached by Russian Federation — Whether Court having temporal jurisdiction to deal with complaint concerning procedural aspect of Article 2 of Convention — Procedural obligation to carry out an effective investigation under Article 2 — Separate and autonomous duty — Clarification of principles in Šilih — Procedural acts and omissions in period after Convention entered into force for Russian Federation — Whether genuine connection between killings as triggering event and entry into force of Convention in respect of Russian Federation — Whether two criteria satisfied — Whether lapse of time reasonably short — Whether major part of investigation taking place or ought to have taken place in period after Convention entered into force for Russian Federation — Whether connection which was not genuine sufficient in extraordinary situations — Convention values test — Whether need to ensure real and effective protection of guarantees and underlying values of Convention — Whether Court upholding respondent Government’s objection ratione temporis

Human rights — Right to life — Procedural obligation to carry out an effective investigation under Article 2 — Separate and autonomous duty — Whether Court having temporal jurisdiction to deal with complaint concerning procedural aspect of Article 2 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950

International criminal law — Treaties — Application — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Serious crimes under international law — War crimes — Katyn massacre — Whether killings negating foundations of Convention — Whether creating necessary connection between killings as triggering event and entry into force of Convention in respect of Russian Federation — Whether procedural obligation under Article 2 of Convention coming into effect — Whether Court having temporal jurisdiction to deal with complaint concerning procedural aspect of Article 2 of Convention

Treaties — Application — Human rights treaties — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Convention coming into existence on 4 November 1950 — Serious crimes under international law in 1940 — Whether Convention values clause applying to events occurring prior to adoption of Convention — Whether condition met for procedural obligation under Article 2 of Convention to take effect — Whether Russian Federation obliged to carry out effective investigation

Human rights — Prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment — Prolonged denial of historical fact — Withholding of information from victims’ relatives — Whether suffering of victims’ relatives having dimension and character distinct from inevitable distress stemming from violation itself — Whether applicants uncertain about fate of their relatives — Whether Russian Federation violating Article 3 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950

Human rights — Obligation to furnish all necessary facilities for Court’s investigation — Failure to provide Court with requested document — Relevance of domestic top secret classification — Whether Court considering document necessary to establish facts in case — Effective operation of system of individual petition — Whether obligation could be enforced irrespective of outcome of proceedings — Whether Russian Federation violating Article 38 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950

Evidence before international courts and tribunals — European Court of Human Rights — Assessment by Court of admissibility, relevance and probative value of evidence — Contracting States having obligation to furnish all necessary facilities to Court — Effective operation of system of individual petition — Proper and effective examination of applications — Respondent Government failing to provide document — Relevance of top secret classification at domestic level — Whether Russian Federation failing to comply with its obligations under Article 38 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950

Treaties — Interpretation — Application — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Internal law and observance of treaties — Article 27 of Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969 — Top secret classification of document in domestic law — Respondent Government using domestic legal impediment as justification for not furnishing requested evidence — Whether permissible — International responsibility of Russian Federation — Whether Governments answerable under European Convention for acts of any State agency — Relevance of national security concerns — Whether Russian Federation failing to comply with its obligations under Article 38 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950

War and armed conflict — Prisoners of war — Murder by forces of detaining State — Katyn massacre of Polish prisoners of war by Soviet forces — Whether engaging obligations of Russian Federation under the European Convention on Human Rights

International criminal law — International Criminal Court — Rome Statute, 1998, Articles 8(2)(e)(iv), 23, 25(3)(a), 65 and 76-8 — War crime of intentionally attacking protected objects — Destruction of cultural heritage — Liability of co-perpetrator — Situation in the Republic of Mali — Referral to the ICC by the Government of Mali — Sentencing — Appropriate sentence given gravity of the crime and plea of guilty

Evidence before international courts and tribunals — International Criminal Court — Destruction of cultural property — Evidence of co-perpetrator’s conduct

War and armed conflict — Non-international armed conflict — Definition — Distinction between armed conflict and internal disturbances and tensions — Control of territory by armed groups — Whether conflict internationalized — Conflict in Mali in 2012