War and armed conflict — Non-international armed conflict — Whether a person having played defensive role in non-international armed conflict entitled to international protection — Credibility of account of participation in such conflict — Relevance of principle of benefit of doubt — Whether commission of crimes under international law precluding granting of international protection — Definition of “war crimes” — Relevance of international law instruments to that definition — Connection between war crimes and belligerency — Categories of war crimes — Court of First Instance erring in deciding that appellant’s conduct constituted war crimes — Court of First Instance’s decision quashed — Case remitted to Court of First Instance — Court of First Instance to decide whether appellant’s conduct constituting war crimes based on Court of Cassation’s judgment — The law of Italy

State immunity — Enforcement — Compensation for war crimes and crimes against humanity — Attachment of German State-owned property located in Rome — Whether Germany immune from measures of attachment against relevant property — Creation of a fund under Italian law to satisfy debts incurred by Germany under Italian court decisions — Whether legislation creating fund constitutional — Whether right of access to justice extending to enforcement proceedings — Whether rules of customary international law on State immunity depriving courts of jurisdiction — Whether immunity depending on function of attached property — Constitutional principle requiring respect for international treaty obligations — Whether creating fund striking reasonable balance between access to justice and respect for international obligations — Whether enforcement against fund adequately protecting rights limited by extinguishing enforcement proceedings — Full satisfaction of creditors’ rights by means of fund mechanism — Amended legislation precluding enforcement of foreign court decisions against German property — No violation of constitutional principle of equality — Questions raised by remitting judge unfounded

War and armed conflict — War crimes — Crimes against humanity — Occupation — Proceedings in formerly occupied State against former occupying State — Whether barred by State immunity — Enforcement of judgments — The law of Italy

Human rights — Prohibition of torture — Equal protection — Sentence of caning — Whether caning constituting torture — Whether Article 9(1) of Constitution of Singapore engaged — Whether caning constituting a deprivation of life or personal liberty within meaning of Article 9(1) — Whether law of Singapore prohibiting torture — Constitutionality of differentiating measures — Caning applying to men aged fifty years and below — Whether impermissibly discriminatory — Whether sentence of caning violating Articles 9(1) and 12(1) of Constitution of Singapore

Human rights — Prohibition of torture — Sentence of caning — Whether caning constituting torture — Whether Article 9(1) of Constitution of Singapore engaged — Whether caning constituting a deprivation of life or personal liberty within meaning of Article 9(1) — Whether sentence of caning “in accordance with the law” — Peremptory nature of international law prohibition against torture — Whether law of Singapore prohibiting torture — Whether caning in Singapore constituting torture — Whether caning constituting torture — Whether sentence of caning violating Article 9(1) of Constitution of Singapore

Human rights — Equal protection of the law — Constitutionality of differentiating measures — Caning applying to men aged fifty years and below — Whether impermissibly discriminatory — Whether applying equally across all races — Whether sentence of caning violating Article 12(1) of Constitution of Singapore

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Customary international law — Peremptory norms in international law — Treaties — Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2006, Article 15(1) — Prohibition of torture — Effect on domestic law — Constitution of Singapore — Whether prohibition of torture should be read into Constitution — Whether peremptory norms in international law automatically incorporated into Singaporean law — Whether customary international law or treaty law prevailing over inconsistent domestic law — Whether Singaporean domestic law clear and unambiguous — Whether sentence of caning violating Article 9(1) of Constitution of Singapore — The law of Singapore

Human rights — Prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment — Equality of treatment — Mandatory death penalty — Rights of persons with disabilities — Prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment — Whether international law prohibiting execution of intellectually disabled persons — Mental condition of appellant — Whether having deteriorated — Constitution of Singapore, Articles 9(1) and 12(1) — Whether mandatory death sentence should be imposed on appellant

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Customary international law — Treaties — Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2006, Article 15(1) — United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Mentally Retarded Persons, 1971, Declaration 6 — Whether appellant’s intended execution violating international law — Whether international law prohibiting execution of intellectually disabled persons — Effect on domestic law — Constitution of Singapore — Articles 9(1) and 12(1) — Whether prohibitions should be read into Constitution — Whether customary international law or treaty law prevailing over inconsistent domestic law — Whether Singaporean domestic law clear and unambiguous — Mental condition of appellant — Whether having deteriorated — Whether mandatory death penalty sentence should be imposed on appellant — The law of Singapore

Treaties — Application — Colonies and dependent territories — Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, 1951 — United Kingdom signing and ratifying Refugee Convention — United Kingdom extending Refugee Convention to Colony of Cyprus — Cyprus gaining independence in 1960 — United Kingdom retaining sovereignty over Sovereign Base Areas in Cyprus following independence — Whether Refugee Convention, as extended by 1967 Protocol, continuing to apply to Sovereign Base Areas in Cyprus in same way as it applied to whole Colony of Cyprus before 1960 — Whether political separation of territory from rest of island bringing end to application of Refugee Convention to Sovereign Base Areas — Whether Refugee Convention applying to Sovereign Base Areas

Treaties — Application — Interpretation — Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, 1951 — Territorial application of treaty — Intention of Contracting States — Framing of Refugee Convention — Territorial application clause — Article 40 — Metropolitan territory — Dependent territories — Whether to be treated as separate units for purposes of Refugee Convention — Whether Articles 32 or 34 providing a right to resettle in the United Kingdom — Whether respondents entitled to be resettled from Sovereign Base Areas to United Kingdom mainland

States — Cyprus — Creation of Republic of Cyprus in 1960 — British Sovereign Base Areas in Cyprus — United Kingdom retaining sovereignty over Sovereign Base Areas — Whether Refugee Convention, as extended by 1967 Protocol, continuing to apply to Sovereign Base Areas in Cyprus as to whole Colony of Cyprus before 1960 — Whether political separation of territory from rest of island bringing end to application of Refugee Convention to Sovereign Base Areas — Whether Refugee Convention applying to Sovereign Base Areas

Aliens — Refugees — Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, 1951 — Rights of respondents under Refugee Convention — British Sovereign Base Areas in Cyprus — United Kingdom retaining sovereignty over Sovereign Base Areas in Cyprus following independence — Whether United Kingdom mainland and territory of Sovereign Base Areas to be treated as separate units for purposes of Refugee Convention — Whether Articles 32 or 34 of Refugee Convention providing a right to resettle in the United Kingdom — Whether respondents entitled to be resettled from Sovereign Base Areas in Cyprus to United Kingdom mainland — The law of England

Human rights — Right to life — Death penalty — Mutual legal assistance — Provision of mutual legal assistance when information may be used in criminal matters which might lead to the imposition of the death penalty — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Protocol 13 — Human Rights Act 1998 — Common law — Whether there existed a rule prohibiting mutual legal assistance in criminal matters which might lead to the imposition of the death penalty

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Common law — International law — Influence of international law on the development of the common law — Prohibition on the death penalty — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — European Court of Human Rights — European Union law — Whether external factors regarding the prohibition of the death penalty influencing the development of the common law

Treaties — Treaty on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters between the UK and the US, 1994 — Mutual legal assistance — Abolition of the death penalty — Provision of mutual legal assistance when information may be used in criminal matters which might lead to the imposition of the death penalty — Whether there being a rule that prohibits mutual legal assistance in criminal matters which might lead to the imposition of the death penalty — The law of England

Economics, trade and finance — Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road, 1956 — Article 23.4 — Excise duty — Consignment stolen during transit — Whether carrier liable to compensate for excise duty levied on cargo stolen during transit

Treaties — Interpretation — Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969 — Article 32 — Travaux préparatoires — Confirming interpretation of treaty — Identifying preparatory documents when treaty had no published travaux préparatoires

Treaties — Interpretation — Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road, 1956 — Article 23.4 — Meaning of “other charges” — Whether “other charges” including excise duty — The law of England

Human rights — Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 1953 — Article 6 — State immunity — Claim in rem over salvaged cargo — Whether State immunity violating Article 6 — Legitimate aim — State Immunity Act 1978 — Whether State Immunity Act pursuing a legitimate aim — Proportionality — Whether grant of State immunity proportionate

State immunity — Jurisdiction — Claim in rem over salvaged cargo — Whether State being entitled to claim immunity against a claim in rem — State Immunity Act 1978 — Section 1(1) — Section 10(4)(a) — Meaning of “in use” for a commercial purpose — Whether cargo “in use” for a commercial purpose while in hold of a vessel — Whether regard can be had to intended use of cargo to determine whether it was “in use” for a commercial purpose

Treaties — Unification of Certain Rules concerning the Immunity of State-owned Ships, 1926 — Claim in rem over salvaged cargo — Whether State entitled to claim immunity against a claim in rem — Article 3(3) — Whether cargo carried for non-commercial purpose — Whether State-owned cargoes carried on vessels for a non-commercial purpose were not subject to proceedings in rem — The law of England

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Customary international law — Treaties — Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 1948 — Articles I and III(e) — Implementing United States legislation making genocide a federal crime — Israel launching military campaign in Gaza following attacks on Israel by Hamas militants on 7 October 2023 — Plaintiffs claiming Israel committing a genocide in Gaza against the Palestinian people — Senior Executive Branch officials providing diplomatic, military and financial support for Israel — Whether violating international law — Whether violating Articles I and III(e) of Genocide Convention — Whether United States’ support of Israel unlawful — Jurisdiction of the United States’ courts — Political question doctrine — Whether plaintiffs’ claims presenting political question — Separation of powers — Foreign affairs — United States’ foreign policy toward Israel — Limit on powers of judiciary — Subject matter jurisdiction — Whether courts lacking subject matter jurisdiction — Whether plaintiffs’ claims justiciable

War and armed conflict — Israeli-Palestinian conflict — Hamas militants attacking Israel on 7 October 2023 — Israel mounting military campaign in Gaza — Senior Executive Branch officials providing diplomatic, military and financial support for Israel — Whether violating international law — Whether violating Articles I and III(e) of Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 1948 — Whether United States’ support of Israel unlawful — Whether plaintiffs’ claims justiciable under political question doctrine — The law of the United States