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