International Court of Justice — Jurisdiction — Compromis — Delimitation — Request to include agreement between Parties in operative part of Court’s decision — Judicial function of Court — Definition of dispute — Whether lack of formalization of agreement relevant to existence of dispute — Whether recording agreement of Parties would be outside the judicial function of Court — Article 38(1) of Statute of the Court

Territory — Boundaries — Demarcation — Boundaries between units of same colonial empire — Boundaries of former colonies — Uti possidetis — Organization of African Unity resolution on post-colonial boundaries — Whether to be equated with uti possidetis — Interpretation of colonial legislation regarding boundary — Burkina Faso and Niger — Relevance of map — Effectivités — Impact of boundary decision on population of border area

Rivers — River boundary — Whether frontier located on bank of river or along median line — Access of population to water resources

General principles of international law — Principle of intangibility of boundaries inherited from colonization — Whether effectivités can be used to contradict a legal title — Equity — Role of equity in delimitation

Human rights — Democracy — Obligation of State to establish independent and impartial electoral body — Whether Côte d’Ivoire’s electoral law violating its obligation to establish independent and impartial electoral body and right of its citizens to participate in public affairs — Commitments under international human rights treaties ratified by State — African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance, 2007 — ECOWAS Protocol on Democracy and Good Governance, 2001

Human rights — Rights to equality before law and equal protection of law — Obligation of State to protect citizens’ rights — Whether electoral law violating Côte d’Ivoire’s commitments to protect its citizens’ rights to equality before the law and equal protection of law under international human rights treaties ratified by State — African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance, 2007 — ECOWAS Protocol on Democracy and Good Governance, 2001 — African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 1981 — Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 — International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966

International tribunals — African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights — Jurisdiction — Preliminary examination — Obligation of court to carry out preliminary examination of its jurisdiction — Material jurisdiction — Jurisdiction to interpret and apply human rights ratified by State — Whether African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance, 2007 and ECOWAS Protocol on Democracy and Good Governance, 2001 constituting “human rights instruments” within meaning of Article 3(1) of Protocol to African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 1998 — Admissibility of application — Exhaustion of local remedies — Use of insulting or disparaging language in application

Human rights — Right to fair trial — Right to defence — African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 1981, Article 7 — International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966, Article 14 — Due process in criminal trial — Right to cross-examine witnesses — Bar on retroactive legislation — Retroactive application of law legitimate when effect was to reduce sentence — Right to freedom of expression and opinion — African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Article 9(2) — International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 19 — Limits on freedom of expression — Rwanda — Prohibition of negation of genocide — Whether legitimate — Whether penalty proportionate

International tribunals — African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights — Jurisdiction — Material jurisdiction — Whether Court having jurisdiction to hear the application — Admissibility — Whether application admissible

Damages — Reparations — Claim for damages for violation of African Charter of Human and Peoples’ Rights, 1981 and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 — Release from imprisonment — Pecuniary damages — Whether evidence substantiating claims — Moral damages — Whether violation of applicant’s rights negatively impacting family members — Whether close family members eligible to receive moral damages — Medical evidence

Evidence before international courts and tribunals — African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights — Claim for damages for violation of African Charter of Human and Peoples’ Rights, 1981 and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 — Requirement of evidence of material prejudice arising from violation of human right — Whether link shown between material loss and violation — Presumption of moral prejudice on part of applicant due to detention conditions — Whether medical evidence violation of applicant’s rights negatively impacting close family members

International tribunals — European Court of Human Rights — Competence — Whether excluding certain types of rules or measures by a State — Whether examination of provisions of a State’s Constitution by European Court of Human Rights permitted — Whether European Court of Human Rights reviewing provisions of national legislation in abstracto — Whether European Court of Human Rights examining particular effect of provisions on applicant’s rights in concreto

International tribunals — European Court of Human Rights — Admissibility criteria — Article 35 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Exhaustion of domestic remedies — Whether referral to President of Russia and State Duma constituting adequate and effective remedy — Six months’ time limit — Whether starting from cessation of a continuing situation

Human rights — Right to vote and stand for election — Article 3 of Protocol No 1 to European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Whether Article applicable to elections of Head of State — Limitations of right — Margin of appreciation — Whether disenfranchisement of all convicted prisoners falling outside any permissible margin of appreciation — Article 32(3) of Russian Constitution

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Protocol No 1 to Convention — Article 3 — Russian Constitution — Article 15 of Russian Constitution — Russian Constitution having supreme legal force — Execution of judgment of European Court of Human Rights — Whether possible to execute judgment of European Court of Human Rights in accordance with Russian Constitution

Jurisdiction — Execution of judgments — Judgments of European Court of Human Rights — Hierarchy of legal acts — Article 15 of Constitution of Russian Federation — Supreme legal force of Russian Constitution — International law as part of national legal order — Whether international judgments to be executed only if conforming with Russian Constitution — Power of Russian Constitutional Court to review compatibility of judgments with Russian Constitution

Treaties — Interpretation — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — “Evolutive” interpretation — Whether “evolutive” interpretation should be based on consensus between all Contracting States — Whether absence of consensus giving Contracting State right to object to interpretation

Human rights — Execution of judgments — Judgments of European Court of Human Rights — Execution by measure of general character — Execution by amendment of national law — Execution by political process — Achieving conformity through means of application of apparently non-conforming rule

Human rights — Right to vote and stand for election — Article 3 of Protocol No 1 to European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Restrictions of right to vote for convicted prisoners — Article 32(3) of Constitution of Russian Federation — Application of provision

Human rights — Execution of judgments — Judgments of European Court of Human Rights — Execution by measure of individual character — Whether execution by measure of individual character possible when applicant may not be considered a victim of established violation — European Court of Human Rights — Competence — Whether review of provisions of national legislation in abstracto permissible — Whether European Court of Human Rights can review a particular application of provision in concreto — Whether finding on violation when applicant not qualifying as victim amounting to review in abstracto — The law of the Russian Federation

Human rights — Fundamental rights in European Union — Guarantees under Article 6(1) of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — European Union membership not relieving States from obligations under European Convention on Human Rights — Obligations to be assessed in light of presumption of equivalent protection established by European Court of Human Rights — Presumption that a State implementing legal obligations flowing from its EU membership not violating its obligations under European Convention — Inapplicability of presumption where EU Member State exercising State discretion — Presumption rebutted if protection of Convention rights manifestly deficient

Human rights — Right to a fair hearing — Service of judicial documents — Judgment given in default — Failure to appeal — Burden of proof with regard to existence and availability of an appeal

Recognition — Mutual recognition based on European Union Law — Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (“Brussels I Regulation”) — Recognition and enforcement of judgment given in default — Applicability of “Bosphorus presumption” of equivalent protection — Whether Article 34(2) of Brussels I Regulation conferring any discretion to domestic courts — Whether preliminary ruling from European Court of Justice always required to be sought to satisfy Bosphorus test — Whether protection of fundamental rights manifestly deficient — Guarantees under Article 6(1) of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Whether respondent State violating Article 6(1) of European Convention

Human rights — Treaties — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Article 8 — Private life — Article 13 — Positive obligation of State to adopt effective and accessible procedure to secure respect for private life — Asylum requests — Obligation of State to adopt regulations guaranteeing examination of asylum request within reasonable time to minimize situation of insecurity — Requirement of effective and accessible procedure

Aliens — Asylum seeking — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Article 8 — Convention not granting right to any particular type of residence permit — Failure of authorities to take decision on asylum application — Positive obligation of State to examine asylum request promptly — Requirement of effective and accessible procedure

Human rights — Right to freedom of thought and expression — Right to privacy — Balancing of fundamental rights — Whether unreasonable or arbitrary interference with right to private life — Obligation to adopt measures to give domestic legal effect to right to freedom of thought and expression — American Convention on Human Rights, 1969 — Whether Argentina violating petitioners’ right to freedom of expression under Article 13 of Convention — Whether Argentina failing to comply with obligation to give domestic legal effect under Article 2 of Convention to right to freedom of expression — Whether Argentina violating Articles 2 and 13 of American Convention on Human Rights, 1969

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — American Convention on Human Rights, 1969 — Article 13 of Convention guaranteeing right to freedom of expression — Obligation under Article 2 of Convention to give domestic legal effect to right to freedom of expression — Whether Argentina violating Articles 2 and 13 of American Convention on Human Rights, 1969

Damages — Reparations — American Convention on Human Rights, 1969, Article 63(1) — Whether restitutio in integrum possible — Measures to ensure respect for any violated rights — Redressing of consequences — Whether Court judgment constituting form of compensation — Whether Argentina to set aside civil sentence — Publications — Monitoring of compliance with judgment

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — American Convention on Human Rights, 1969, Article 63(1) — Remedial jurisdiction of Inter-American Court of Human Rights — Whether Inter-American Court of Human Rights exceeding its limits — Whether Inter-American Court of Human Rights having power to annul ruling of domestic court — Res judicata — Argentinian Constitution — Fundamental principles of Argentinian law — Whether prevailing over treaty obligations — Extent to which judgments of Inter-American Court of Human Rights binding on State

International tribunals — Jurisdiction — Inter-American Court of Human Rights — Remedial jurisdiction — American Convention on Human Rights, 1969, Article 63(1) — Whether Inter-American Court of Human Rights having power to annul ruling of domestic court — Whether exceeding limits of jurisdiction — Whether Convention authorizing Court to order reversal of domestic judgment — Whether domestic court obliged to comply with ruling of Inter-American Court of Human Rights

Treaties — American Convention on Human Rights, 1969 — Whether Convention authorizing Inter-American Court of Human Rights to order reversal of domestic judgment — Obligations of State under Convention — Whether domestic court obliged to comply with ruling of Inter-American Court of Human Rights

Human rights — Right to privacy — Right to freedom of speech — Inter-American Court of Human Rights finding infringement of freedom of speech — Inter-American Court of Human Rights ordering annulment of ruling of domestic court — American Convention on Human Rights, 1969, Article 63(1) — Remedial jurisdiction of Inter-American Court of Human Rights — Whether limits of jurisdiction exceeded — Whether Inter-American Court of Human Rights having power to annul ruling of domestic court — Whether domestic court obliged to comply with ruling of Inter-American Court of Human Rights — The law of Argentina

Jurisdiction — Territorial — Trans-boundary crimes — Deportation and forcible transfer — Investigation into alleged deportation and forcible transfer of Rohingya minority from Myanmar to Bangladesh — International Criminal Court — Rome Statute, 1998 — Article 19(3) — Whether ICC having jurisdiction — Whether ruling on jurisdiction under Article 19(3) applicable — Article 119(1) — Existence of dispute — Principle of la compétence de la compétence — Effect of jurisdiction on States non-Parties — Myanmar not party to the Statute

International criminal law — Crimes against humanity — Deportation and forcible transfer — Myanmar — Whether commission of at least one legal element of a crime on territory of a State Party justifying International Criminal Court’s jurisdiction

International tribunals — International Criminal Court — Jurisdiction — Crime allegedly committed on territory of a State party and a State not party to the Statute — Procedure — Request from Prosecutor for ruling on jurisdiction — Request made at early stage of investigation

Treaties — Interpretation — United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, 1951 — Article 1F(a) — Refugee protection status — Whether exclusion from definition of refugee under Article 1F(a) on basis of complicity in international crimes

International criminal law — International crimes — Crimes against humanity — Individual criminal liability for complicity — Complicity in international crimes committed by a government — Contribution-based test to complicity — Voluntary, significant and knowing contribution to international crimes committed by a government — Complicity by association or passive acquiescence

Sources of international law — Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 1998 — Article 25(3)(d) on common purpose liability — Ad hoc tribunals’ jurisprudence on joint criminal enterprise — Whether these modes of commission of international crimes also capturing complicity by association, rank or passive acquiescence — Nexus requirement between individual’s conduct and group’s criminal activity

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Approach taken by other State Parties to concept of complicity — Whether Canadian approach needing rearticulation — Interpretation of Article 1F(a) of United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, 1951 excluding complicity by association or passive acquiescence — The law of Canada