International tribunals — African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights — Jurisdiction — Temporal jurisdiction — Date of entry into force of Protocol to African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on Establishment of African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 1998 — Continuing nature of alleged violations — Personal jurisdiction — Territorial jurisdiction — Admissibility of application — Exhaustion of local remedies — Provisional measures of protection

Human rights — Indigenous peoples — Right to freedom from discrimination — Right to life — Freedom of religion — Right to property — Right to culture — Right to disposal of natural resources — Right to development — Kenyan Forest Ministry issuing eviction notice requiring removal of Ogiek community from the Mau Forest Area — Whether Kenya violating Articles 1, 2, 4, 8, 14, 17(2) and (3), 21 and 22 of African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 1981

Treaties — African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 1981 — Protocol on Establishment of African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 1998 — Jurisdiction of Court — Whether extending to acts occurring before entry into force of Protocol

Treaties — African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 1981 — Protocol on Establishment of African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 1998 — Order for Provisional Measures — Whether court having prima facie jurisdiction

International organizations — European Union — Membership — Withdrawal — Treaty on European Union, Article 50 — Notification by United Kingdom of its intention to withdraw from European Union — Whether notification to withdraw made pursuant to Article 50 may be unilaterally revoked by United Kingdom — Whether this question hypothetical or academic in nature given absence of any intention on behalf of United Kingdom Government to withdraw notification — Whether such question falling within jurisdiction of national courts in context of judicial review — Whether court able to entertain petition for judicial review without encroaching on parliamentary sovereignty — Whether such question admissible if referred to Court of Justice of the European Union

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — Withdrawal — European Union Treaties — Treaty on European Union, Article 50 — European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, Section 13 — Requirement of parliamentary approval of outcome of negotiations with European Council regarding withdrawal — Whether notification to withdraw made pursuant to Article 50 could be unilaterally withdrawn — Whether question regarding correct interpretation of Article 50 falling within supervisory jurisdiction of courts in context of judicial review proceedings

Treaties — Withdrawal — European Union Treaties — Treaty on European Union, Article 50 — Right of withdrawal from European Union — Notification of Member State of its intention to withdraw — Whether notification to withdraw made pursuant to Article 50 could be unilaterally revoked by Member State concerned — Whether this question ought to be referred to Court of Justice of European Union — The law of Scotland

International organizations — European Union — Membership — Withdrawal — Treaty on European Union, Article 50 — Notification by United Kingdom of its intention to withdraw from European Union — Whether notification to withdraw made pursuant to Article 50 may be unilaterally revoked by United Kingdom — Whether unilateral revocation of withdrawal notification subject to other conditions — Deadline for revocation — Effects of revocation of Member State’s intention to withdraw from European Union

Treaties — Withdrawal — European Union Treaties — Treaty on European Union, Article 50 — Right of withdrawal from European Union — Notification of Member State of its intention to withdraw — Whether notification to withdraw made pursuant to Article 50 may be unilaterally revoked by Member State concerned — Whether unilateral revocation of withdrawal notification subject to other conditions — Deadline for revocation — Effects of revocation of Member State’s intention to withdraw from European Union

Treaties — Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969, Articles 54, 65, 67 and 68 — Withdrawal of a State from a treaty — Whether notification by State of its intention to withdraw from treaty may be unilaterally revoked by that State — European Union — Treaty on European Union, Article 50 — Whether Article 50 of Treaty on European Union constituting lex specialis in relation to Articles 65, 67 and 68 of Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties

Treaties — Interpretation — European Union Treaties — Treaty on European Union, Article 50 — Right of withdrawal from European Union — Notification of Member State of its intention to withdraw — Whether notification to withdraw made pursuant to Article 50 may be unilaterally revoked by Member State concerned — Whether question of interpretation of Article 50 by referring court admissible — Wording of Article 50 and objectives pursued — Context and European Union law provisions as a whole — Origins of Article 50 — Articles 65, 67 and 68 of Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969 — The law of the European Union

International tribunals — Inter-American Court of Human Rights — Preliminary objections by Colombia — Whether Court lacking jurisdiction ratione materiae — Non-international armed conflict — Application of international humanitarian law — Interpretation of scope of provisions of American Convention on Human Rights, 1969 using international humanitarian law — Whether failure to exhaust domestic remedies — Whether remedy of contentious-administrative jurisdiction always necessary — Article 46 of American Convention on Human Rights — Whether preliminary objections to be rejected

International tribunals — Inter-American Court of Human Rights — American Convention on Human Rights, 1969, Article 67 — Interpretation of judgment — Request for interpretation of judgment by representatives of victims — Impossibility of requesting modification or expansion of judgment through request for interpretation — Whether Court having jurisdiction to determine applicable domestic provisions or indicate persons entitled to recourse — Whether request admissible

Human rights — Right to a fair trial — Judicial protection — Articles 8 and 25 of American Convention on Human Rights, 1969 — Whether acknowledgement of responsibility substantiated — Assessment of activities carried out by ordinary, military, disciplinary and contentious-administrative jurisdictions — Whether scope of military criminal jurisdiction restrictive and exceptional — Whether Colombia violating Articles 8 and 25, in relation to Article 1(1) of American Convention on Human Rights

Human rights — Right to life — Humane treatment — Children — Obligation to adopt domestic legal provisions — American Convention on Human Rights, 1969, Articles 4, 5, 19 and 2 — Right to humane treatment of next of kin of victims — Application of juris tantum presumption regarding direct family members — Protection measures for children — Special obligation to protect children in non-international armed conflict — Whether Colombia violating Articles 4, 5, 19 and 2, in relation to Article 1(1) of American Convention on Human Rights

Human rights — Right to freedom of movement and residence — Right to individual property — Articles 22 and 21 of American Convention on Human Rights, 1969 — Evolutive interpretation of Article 22 of American Convention protecting right not to be forcibly displaced within State Party — Additional Protocol II to Geneva Conventions and customary international humanitarian law used to interpret scope of Article 21 of American Convention — Whether States to take into account greater vulnerability and increased harm to property rights of people living in poverty — Whether Colombia violating Articles 22 and 21, in relation to Article 1(1) of American Convention on Human Rights

Human rights — Right to honour — Article 11 of American Convention on Human Rights, 1969 — Whether State submitting individuals or groups to hatred, stigmatization, public scorn, persecution or discrimination by means of public declarations by public officials — Whether lack of evidence — Whether Colombia violating Article 11, in relation to Article 1(1) of American Convention on Human Rights

Damages — Reparations — Monetary and other reparations — Damages for pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss — Beneficiaries — Injured victims and next of kin of victims not receiving reparation under domestic contentious-administrative jurisdiction — Establishment of domestic reparation mechanism for benefit of beneficiaries — Requirement of public act of acknowledgement of international responsibility — Other non-pecuniary remedies, Article 63(1) of American Convention on Human Rights, 1969

War and armed conflict — Non-international armed conflict — Applicable law — Relationship between humanitarian law and human rights — 1977 Additional Protocol II to the Geneva Conventions — Precautions in attack — Cluster bomb launched on village and machine-gun attack on civilians — Principle of distinction between civilians and combatants — Principle of proportionality

Treaties — Application — Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, 1980 — Family Law (Child Abduction Convention) Regulations 1986 (Cth) — Regulation 16(1A)(b) — Test for determining habitual residence of child immediately prior to retention — Possibility of two habitual residences — Whether trial judge applying correct test in determining question of habitual residence — Whether Convention properly invoked upon child’s retention in Australia

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — Interpretation — Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, 1980 — Family Law Act giving effect to Convention in Australia — Family Law (Child Abduction Convention) Regulations 1986 (Cth) — Regulation 16(1A)(b) — Determination of habitual residence — Jurisprudence from other jurisdictions — Whether binding — Whether uniformity desirable — Whether consistent with Australian jurisprudence — Whether Convention properly invoked upon child’s retention in Australia — The law of Australia

Treaties — Interpretation — Application — Agreement between Government of Australia and Government of Republic of India for Avoidance of Double Taxation and Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income, 1991 — Operation of “business profits rule” — Article 7 — Operation of “royalties provision” — Article 12 — Principles of interpretation — Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969, Article 31 — Whether source State having right to tax royalties under Article 7 or 12 — The law of Australia

International organizations — Privileges and immunities — Staff members — Exemption from taxation — Contractor — Whether taxpayer holding an office in international organization — International Organisations (Privileges and Immunities) Act 1963 (Cth), Section 6(1)(d)(i) — Proper construction of Act

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, 1946 — International Organisations (Privileges and Immunities) Act 1963 (Cth), Section 6(1)(d)(i) — Whether construction of Act according with Australia’s obligations under Convention — Whether taxpayer holding an office in international organization — Whether exempt from taxation — The law of Australia

State succession — Treaties — Joint Declaration of Government of the People’s Republic of China and Government of the Portuguese Republic on question of Macau, 1987 — People’s Republic of China (“PRC”) assuming sovereignty over Macau from 20 December 1999 — Application of PRC’s treaties to Macau after assumption of sovereignty — Rights of third parties

Treaties — Interpretation — Application — Agreement between Government of the People’s Republic of China and Government of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic concerning the encouragement and reciprocal protection of investments, 1993 (“the PRC–Laos BIT”) — Whether PRC–Laos BIT applying to Macau — “Moving treaty frontier” rule — Vienna Convention on the Succession of States in respect of Treaties, 1978, Article 15 — Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969, Article 29 — Exceptions — Whether a different intention appearing from treaty — Whether otherwise established that treaty was not meant to apply to Macau — Applicable standard of proof to be met under international law — Applicability of critical date doctrine to court’s assessment of evidence

Arbitration — Jurisdiction — Whether arbitral tribunal possessing jurisdiction to hear claims — Whether protection of PRC–Laos BIT extending to Macanese investors — Whether subject matter of claim falling within scope of dispute resolution clause in Article 8(3) of PRC–Laos BIT — Jurisdiction — Whether interpretation and application of PRC–Laos BIT justiciable before Singaporean courts — Jurisdiction — Standard of review — Whether Singaporean courts obliged to accord special deference to tribunal’s findings

Economics, trade and finance — Bilateral investment treaties — PRC–Laos BIT — People’s Republic of China assuming sovereignty over Macau from 20 December 1999 — Whether PRC–Laos BIT applying to Macau — Whether protection of PRC–Laos BIT extending to Macanese investors — Whether interpretation and application of PRC–Laos BIT justiciable before Singaporean courts — The law of Singapore

Treaties — Human rights treaties — Application — Scope — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Article 1 — Duty of parties to secure rights and freedoms under European Convention to persons within their jurisdiction — Concept of jurisdiction primarily territorial — Extraterritorial jurisdiction in exceptional cases only — Strasbourg jurisprudence — Al-Skeini — Exceptional category of acts of diplomatic and consular agents amounting to exercise of jurisdiction when these agents exerting authority and control over others — Whether exception applicable — Whether appellant within jurisdiction of the United Kingdom for purpose of Article 1 of European Convention — Whether Article 6 of European Convention imposing any obligation on United Kingdom in respect of appellant

Consular relations — Diplomatic relations — Consular agents — Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 1963 — Whether obliging United Kingdom to use its diplomatic or consular agents to fund defence in Indonesia of a United Kingdom citizen — Whether any relevant acts of diplomatic and consular agents — Whether any relevant exercise of authority or control by such agents over appellant — Whether extraterritorial exception applicable — Whether appellant within jurisdiction of United Kingdom for purposes of Article 1 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Whether Article 6 of European Convention imposing any obligation on United Kingdom in respect of appellant

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Jurisdiction — Whether appellant within jurisdiction of United Kingdom for purpose of Article 1 of European Convention — Appellant seeking funding for legal representation in capital proceedings — United Kingdom Government policy not to fund legal assistance — Whether United Kingdom obliged to provide funds under European Convention — Strasbourg jurisprudence — Al-Skeini — Whether United Kingdom Government’s blanket policy to refuse to consider providing funding legal under domestic law — Whether determinative — Whether Article 6 of European Convention imposing any obligation on United Kingdom in respect of appellant

Human rights — Right to a fair trial — Article 6 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Whether appellant within jurisdiction of United Kingdom for purpose of Article 1 of European Convention — Whether extraterritorial exception applicable — Whether any relevant acts of diplomatic and consular agents — Whether any relevant exercise of authority or control by such agents over appellant — Whether Article 6 of European Convention imposing any obligation on United Kingdom in respect of appellant — The law of the United Kingdom

Treaties — Human rights treaties — Application — Scope — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Article 1 — Duty of parties to secure rights and freedoms under European Convention to persons within their jurisdiction — Extent of jurisdiction — Claimants alleging ill-treatment and unlawful detention during British military involvement in Iraq between 2003 and 2009 — Whether Article 1 of European Convention applicable in test cases — Strasbourg jurisprudence — Banković — Concept of jurisdiction primarily territorial — Extraterritorial jurisdiction in exceptional cases only — State agent authority and control — Effective control over an area — Convention legal space (espace juridique) — Al-Skeini — Widening of exceptional categories — Division and tailoring of Convention rights — Exceptional category of State agent authority and control applicable in present case — Exercise of public powers — Whether United Kingdom exercising authority and control by virtue of exercising public powers normally exercised by Iraqi Government — Whether conditions for occupation met — Case-by-case factual analysis — Exercise of physical power and control of individuals — Scope — Whether requiring greater degree of power and control than that represented by use of lethal or potentially lethal force alone — Whether those claimants transferred into custody of United States within jurisdiction of United Kingdom for purpose of Article 1 of European Convention — Whether and to what extent European Convention applying to British armed forces in Iraq — Whether United Kingdom having duty to investigate alleged human rights violations — Whether United Kingdom having jurisdiction for purpose of Article 1 of European Convention

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Article 1 — Scope of application — United Kingdom courts to construe reach of Article 1 in accordance with Strasbourg jurisprudence — Identification of underlying principles of Strasbourg jurisprudence — Whether United Kingdom having duty to investigate alleged human rights violations — Whether United Kingdom having jurisdiction for purpose of Article 1

Human rights — Treaties — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Article 3 — Prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment — Investigative obligations — Whether and in what circumstances investigative obligation arising in Soering-type cases — Whether adjectival duty on Contracting State to investigate allegations of breach of Soering duty after the event — Complaint that claimants suffering serious ill-treatment after having been handed over into United States custody — Whether requiring investigation under Article 3 — Whether factual basis for arguable claim that British forces complicit in ill-treatment — Extent to which investigative obligation arising under Article 3 in respect of handover cases

Human rights — Treaties — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Article 5 — Right to liberty — Investigative obligations — Arbitrary detention — Whether investigative obligation arising in all cases of detention arguably in violation of Article 5 — Article 5 requiring Contracting States’ authorities to investigate an arguable claim of enforced disappearance — Whether duty extending to detention without judicial scrutiny or control, even if detention not secret or unacknowledged — Effect of international humanitarian law on Article 5 — Whether Article 5 modified or displaced by international humanitarian law during international armed conflict — Extent to which investigative obligation arising in respect of cases within Article 5

Treaties — Interpretation — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950, Article 5 — Extent of obligations under Article 5 — Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969, Article 31(3)(c) — Applicable rules of international law — 1992 UN Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance — Council of Europe Resolution 1463 of 3 October 2005 — International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, 2006 — Strasbourg jurisprudence — Requirement under Article 5 that Contracting States’ authorities investigate arguable claim of enforced disappearance — Whether duty to extend to detention without judicial scrutiny or control, even if detention not secret or unacknowledged

Treaties — Application — United Nations Convention against Torture, 1984 (“UNCAT”) — Obligations of United Kingdom — Whether UNCAT provisions giving rise to domestically enforceable legal rights — As a treaty — On basis of customary international law — European Convention on Human Rights to be interpreted in harmony with rules of international law of which it forms part — Whether broader investigative duty imposed by Article 12 of UNCAT — Consideration of United Kingdom’s compliance with obligations under Articles 10 and 11 of UNCAT — Whether appropriate in context of investigating circumstances where duty to investigate allegation of torture or serious mistreatment — Whether UNCAT having any impact on investigative duties under Articles 2 and 3 of European Convention

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — Application — United Nations Convention against Torture, 1984 — Whether UNCAT provisions giving rise to domestically enforceable legal rights — Whether implemented into United Kingdom law — United Kingdom only implementing Article 4 of UNCAT in Section 134 of Criminal Justice Act — Whether principle of legality applicable — Whether rights in question part of domestic law — Human rights protections — Implementation of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Human Rights Act 1998

War and armed conflict — British military involvement in Iraq between 2003 and 2009 — Invasion — Occupation — Post-occupation — Alleged human rights violations against Iraqi civilians by British soldiers in Iraq — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Application — International humanitarian law — Whether displacing or modifying European Convention — Whether both applying to detention issues — The law of England