State immunity — Jurisdictional immunity — Officials — Whether claim of sovereign immunity applicable to special envoy of a president on a special secret mission to another country when within the territory of a third State

Diplomatic relations — Diplomatic immunity — Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961 — United Nations Convention on Special Missions, 1969 — Whether applicable — Whether diplomatic immunity applicable to a special envoy on a special secret mission to another country when within the territory of a third State — Envoy subsequently appointed ambassador to international organization — Whether diplomatic immunity retroactively applicable based on an ambassadorial appointment subsequent to arrest — Acceptance of a diplomat by a receiving State

Extradition — Extradition proceedings — Whether a special envoy to a president could be arrested and subjected to extradition proceedings by a third State — Whether applicant’s legal argument conflating extradition with expulsion of non-national

Human rights — Arbitrary arrest and detention — Freedom of movement — Non-discrimination, equality and fair treatment — Human dignity — Fair hearing — Presumption of innocence — Arbitrary arrest and detention — Prohibition of torture and inhuman treatment — Whether respondent State violating Articles 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 of African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 1981 — Whether respondent State violating Article 3 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 — Article 9 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966

International tribunals — Jurisdiction — Community Court of Justice of Economic Community of West African States’ jurisdiction to monitor Member States’ compliance with Community obligations — Locus standi to bring infringement proceedings before Community Court of Justice

Jurisdiction — Court of Justice of the European Union — Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, 2007 — Article 263 — Article 269 — Treaty on the European Union, 1992 — Article 7 — Whether Court of Justice of the European Union having jurisdiction to annul European Parliament resolution adopted under Article 7 of the Treaty on the European Union — Rule of law — Whether certain resolutions of European Parliament subject to judicial review

Treaties — Interpretation — Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, 2007 — Article 263 — Article 269 — Treaty on the European Union, 1992 — Article 7 — Requirement of two-thirds majority of votes cast — Meaning of “votes cast” — Whether abstentions must count in determining whether a resolution has received two-thirds of the votes cast — The law of the European Union

Human rights — Right to fair trial — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, 2000 — Article 47 — European arrest warrant — Council Framework Decision 2002/584 — Refusal to execute European arrest warrant — Whether judicial authority can refuse to execute European arrest warrant — Power of executing judicial authority to review right to fair trial in issuing Member State — Power of judicial authority to review competence of issuing judicial authority to issue European arrest warrant

Treaties — Interpretation — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, 2000 — Article 47 — Right to fair trial — Council Framework Decision 2002/584 — Article 6(1) — Meaning of “judicial authority” — Refusal to execute European arrest warrant — Whether judicial authority can refuse to execute European arrest warrant — Power of executing judicial authority to review competence of issuing judicial authority to issue European arrest warrant — Principle of mutual recognition — Principle of mutual trust — Principle of procedural autonomy — The law of the European Union

Human rights — Right to respect for private life — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950, Article 8 — Retention of content and communications data — Disclosure to law-enforcement authorities or security services — Whether retention and disclosure requirements under Russian domestic law proportionate — Encryption — Whether Russian law could mandate information communication organizers to provide encryption keys to authorities — Decryption — Essence of Article 8 — Margin of appreciation — Right to an effective remedy — Whether respondent State violating Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention

Human rights — Torture — Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 1984 — Article 1 — Torture — Article 3 — Non-refoulement — Article 22 — Communications to United Nations Committee against Torture — Australia — Asylum — Persecution — Claim for asylum in Australia — Claim refused — Whether removal from Australia to Sri Lanka violating United Nations Committee against Torture — Individual communications — Admissibility of communication — Substantiation of claims — Inadmissibility on basis of insufficient evidence

Human rights — International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 — Admissibility of communication — Whether the case being pending before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights — Exhaustion of local remedies — Whether effective remedies being available in Venezuela — Fear of arbitrary detention — Whether claims being substantiated — Impact of not substantiating claims — Inadmissibility of unsubstantiated claims — Right to fair trial — Judicial independence — Prerequisites of judicial independence — Whether security of tenure applying to both judges and prosecutors — Whether Venezuelan judges and prosecutors enjoying guarantees of independence — Presumption of innocence — Statements on guilt by public authorities — Statements by Venezuela’s President — Book published by Venezuela’s Attorney General — Right to adequate facilities to prepare one’s defence — Whether right extending to obtaining copies of documents — Whether Venezuela imposing disproportionate burden on defendant to prepare his defence — Right to effective remedy — Whether fear of arbitrary detention preventing effective remedy — Remedies for violation — Venezuela’s obligation to make full reparation — Ways to make reparation — United Nations Human Rights Committee

Human rights — Treaties — International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 — Admissibility of communication — Whether local remedies exhausted — Timing to assess exhaustion of local remedies — Availability of remedies within reasonable time frame — Right to a fair trial — Whether judge biased — Objective and subjective bias — Impact of Supreme Federal Court’s findings on bias — Tapping of telephones — Disclosure of intercepted telephone conversations — Whether tapping and disclosure in accordance with process established by law — Presumption of innocence — Declarations by judges to media — Whether media campaign creating presumption of guilt — Right to vote and stand for elections — Limits on right to vote and stand for elections — Whether limits being proportionate to offence and sentence — United Nations Human Rights Committee

Human rights — Freedom of speech — Hate speech — Criminal responsibility for propagating ideas founded on racial hatred — Display of images calling for death penalty against undocumented migrants committing murder — Principle of equality of arms — Whether reasoning of Court of Appeal being sufficient to justify decision made — Whether Court of Appeal below failing to state reasons — Court of Appeal wrongly assuming that images discriminatory in and of themselves — Court of Appeal failing to evoke facts underlying display of images — Context essential to understand whether images discriminatory — Court of Appeal failing to state that “racial or ethnic hatred” requiring state of mind capable of resulting in concrete danger of discriminatory behaviour — Insufficiency of generic antipathy or rejection linked to reasons of race, nationality or religion — Questions concerning suspension of sentence manifestly unfounded — Court of Appeal’s decision quashed — Case remitted to courts below for re-trial — The law of Italy

Sea — Duty of rescue — Warships — Definition — Entry into a foreign port without authorization — Alleged collision with a patrol boat of the Inland Revenue Police — Arrest of the captain by the Inland Revenue Police — Pre-trial judge not confirming the arrest by the Inland Revenue Police — Whether pre-trial judge exceeding jurisdiction in not confirming the arrest — Standard of review — Reasonableness of the Inland Revenue Police’s action — Whether pre-trial judge scrutinizing evidence too closely for this stage of the proceedings — “Likely” existence of a justification sufficient to justify not confirming arrest — Whether Inland Revenue Police’s patrol boat qualifying as a “warship” — Inland Revenue Police’s patrol boat not satisfying prerequisites to be a “warship” — Offence under Article 1100 of the Code of Navigation not substantiated — Whether justification under Article 51 of the Penal Code existing in the circumstances — Limited scope of the Court’s review — Court not allowed to review pre-trial Judge’s reasoning — The law of Italy

Human rights — Alleged violation of the obligation under Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Whether appellant convicted of co-perpetration of a conspiracy to commit mafia-related offences knowing their conduct at the time when it took place — Scope of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Contrada v. Italy — Whether appellant benefitting from Article 46 of the European Convention concerning a State’s obligation to comply with judgments of the European Court of Human Rights — Whether judgment in Contrada v. Italy being a pilot judgment — Whether judgment in Contrada v. Italy finding structural defect in Italian legal system capable of violating obligations under Article 7 of the European Convention in regard to plurality of individuals — Whether co-perpetration of a conspiracy to commit mafia-related offences being a judicially created offence — Relationship between primary legislation and judicial decisions — Precedent — Difference between binding and persuasive precedent — Whether jurisprudential debate as to scope of co-perpetration of a conspiracy to commit mafia-related offences being settled at the time of appellant’s conduct — Whether appellant being able to foresee that conduct could generate criminal responsibility and punishment — Whether principle of legality being breached — The law of Italy

Human rights — Asylum — Whether granting international protection possible on grounds of poverty resulting from natural disasters — Whether withholding international protection in such cases inconsistent with the Constitution — No inconsistency with Constitution — Whether Court of First Instance failing to state reasons — Legal basis of appeal re-qualified — Court of First Instance failing to assess level of appellant’s integration in Italy — Court of First Instance failing to compare level of effective integration of appellant and objective and subjective condition of appellant in country of origin — Court of First Instance’s judgment quashed — Case remitted to Court of First Instance including costs — The law of Italy