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