Sea — Maritime boundary delimitation — Single maritime boundary — Territorial sea — United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 (“UNCLOS”) — Article 15 — Equidistance/special circumstances — Whether suitable base points could be on low-tide elevations — Exclusive Economic Zone — Continental shelf — Continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles — UNCLOS Articles 74 and 83 — Three-stage approach — Equidistance/relevant circumstances — Proportionality — Relevant coasts — Relevant area — Bay of Bengal — Coastal instability — Concavity of coast — Cut-off effect — Dependence on fishing — Angle-bisector method — Whether geographical configuration of Bay of Bengal warranting use of angle-bisector method — UNCLOS Article 76 — “Grey area” issue — Whether UNCLOS allowing “grey areas”

International tribunals — Arbitration tribunal constituted under UNCLOS Annex VII — United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 — Jurisdiction — Unilateral application — Maritime boundary delimitation — Site visit

Territory — Land boundary terminus — 1947 Radcliffe Award — Whether Radcliffe Award determining land boundary terminus between Bangladesh and India — Maps — Whether a map constituting contemporaneous evidence to be used for determination of land boundary terminus — Whether exchange of letters between Parties constituting binding agreement on their land boundary — Level of seniority of officials concerned

Human rights — Protection of property — Right to respect for private and family life — Right to an effective remedy — Prohibition of discrimination — Applicants forced to flee homes and property in Azerbaijan during Armenian–Azerbaijani conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh — Applicants claiming prevented from returning to homes and property in Armenian occupied territory — Applicants not receiving compensation — Admissibility of applicants’ application — Armenian Government raising preliminary objections — Whether matter already submitted to other international procedure — Whether Court having jurisdiction ratione temporis — Whether applicants failing to exhaust domestic remedies — Whether applicants lacking victim status — Whether Armenia having jurisdiction over Nagorno-Karabakh and surrounding territories — Whether matters complained of within Armenia’s jurisdiction — Whether continuing violation of Article 1 of Protocol No 1 to European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Whether continuing violation of Article 8 of Convention — Whether continuing violation of Article 13 of Convention — Whether separate issue arising under Article 14 of Convention

Jurisdiction — Extraterritorial jurisdiction — Whether Armenia having jurisdiction over Nagorno-Karabakh and surrounding territories — Whether Armenia exercising effective control over Nagorno-Karabakh and surrounding territories, including district of Lachin — Question of fact — Primary determining factor — Military presence — Other relevant factors — Military, economic and political support — Whether matters complained of within Armenia’s jurisdiction for purposes of Article 1 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950

Human rights — Property rights — Whether applicants having “possessions” within meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No 1 to European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Right to respect for family and private life under Article 8 of Convention — Armenia ratifying Convention on 26 April 2002 — Relevance of earlier events — Applicants forced to flee homes and property after military attack in May 1992 — Whether interference with peaceful enjoyment of applicants’ possessions — Whether justification for interference — Whether proprietary rights remaining valid — Applicants denied access to homes — Whether justified — Whether Armenia responsible for continuing violations of Article 1 of Protocol No 1 to European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 and Article 8 of Convention

Human rights — Right to effective remedy — Applicants denied access to property and homes — Lack of compensation — Whether adequate and effective remedy available to applicants — Whether realistic displaced Azerbaijanis afforded effective redress — Whether Armenia responsible for continuing violation of Article 13 of Convention

War and armed conflict — Occupation — Armenian–Azerbaijani conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh — Applicants fleeing district of Lachin in Azerbaijan — Armenia occupying territory — Internally displaced persons — Applicants claiming loss of property and home — Whether applicants having victim status — Evidence — Whether Armenia having jurisdiction over Nagorno-Karabakh and surrounding territories, including district of Lachin — Whether Armenia exercising effective control — Military presence — Military, economic and political support — Whether Armenia violating Article 1 of Protocol No 1 to European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 and Articles 8 and 13 of Convention

States — Recognition — Entity proclaimed as State — “Nagorno-Karabakh Republic” — “NKR” not recognized by any State or international organization — Armenian–Azerbaijani conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh — Armenia, Azerbaijan and “NKR” signing ceasefire agreement in 1994 — 2001 undertaking to settle conflict peacefully — Whether “NKR” and Armenia integrated — Level of dependency between Armenia and “NKR” — Whether Armenia exercising effective control over Nagorno-Karabakh and the surrounding territories, including the district of Lachin — Whether matters complained of under European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 within jurisdiction of Armenia

International tribunals — Procedure and evidence — Evidence — Ownership of property — Human rights application — Whether flexible standard of proof — Whether account to be taken of practical difficulty for applicants in obtaining evidence

Human rights — Whether sufficient substantiation of claims — Whether domestic remedies exhausted — Request for refugee status — Whether deportation by State Party violating obligations under International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 — Right to life — Article 6 of Covenant — Right of protection against cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment — Article 7 of Covenant — Right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion — Article 18 of Covenant — Doctrine of internal flight or relocation — Principle of non-refoulement — Whether State Party violating its obligations under Articles 6, 7 and 18 of Covenant — United Nations Human Rights Committee

Human rights — Imposition of life sentences on juveniles without a real possibility of release on parole — Right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman and/or degrading punishment — International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966, Article 7 — Aims of penitentiary system — Article 10(3) of Covenant — Retroactive application of penal laws — Article 15(1) of Covenant — Right to such measures of protection as are required by status as a minor — Article 24(1) of Covenant — Whether State violating its obligations under Articles 7, 10 and 24 of Covenant — Effective remedy

Treaties — Interpretation — Aids to interpretation — Relevance of one treaty in the interpretation of another — Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989 — Near-universal participation — Relevance in the interpretation of obligations of State Party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 — United Nations Human Rights Committee

Human rights — Ill-treatment in prison — Whether violation of rights under Articles 7 and 10 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 — Right to be treated with humanity and respect for inherent dignity — Double jeopardy principle — Whether violation of Article 14(7) of Covenant — Right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion — Right to conscientious objection to military service — Civilian alternative to compulsory military service — Whether inherent right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion — Fundamental character of freedoms enshrined in Article 18(1) of Covenant — Whether State Party violating its obligations under Articles 7, 10, 14(7) and 18(1) of Covenant — Effective remedy

International tribunals — Procedure and evidence — Weight to be given to evidence submitted by one party in the absence of any contrary evidence — Evidence of ill-treatment in prison submitted by former prisoner — Absence of any contradictory evidence from detaining State — United Nations Human Rights Committee

Human rights — Right to equality before the law and equal protection of the law without any discrimination — International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966, Article 26 — Whether State Party applying language requirement for naturalization in arbitrary and discriminatory manner — Requirement to give reasons for decision — Effective remedy — Whether State Party violating Article 26 of Covenant — United Nations Human Rights Committee

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — Crimes against international law — Amnesty — Legality and constitutionality of Amnesty Act — Constitution of Uganda — Uganda’s international law obligations — Whether Uganda violating Uganda’s obligations under international treaties ratified and implemented in domestic law — Geneva Conventions Act — Whether applicable — Whether Amnesty Act impinging on prosecutorial powers of Director of Public Prosecutions — Whether Amnesty Act granting blanket amnesty for all crimes — Whether uniform standards in respect of amnesty — Whether Amnesty Act inconsistent with Constitution of Uganda

Human rights — Discrimination and unequal treatment — Respondent charged with offences arising from alleged activities during rebellion in northern Uganda — Amnesty Act — Respondent renouncing rebellion and seeking amnesty — Respondent denied amnesty under Amnesty Act — Director of Public Prosecutions granting amnesty to others renouncing rebellion — Whether respondent victim of discrimination and unequal treatment under Amnesty Act — Whether respondent entitled to amnesty under Amnesty Act

War and armed conflict — Armed conflict — Distinction between international and non-international armed conflict — Non-international armed conflict — Rebellion in northern Uganda — Respondent charged with offences under Geneva Conventions Act — Amnesty Act — Constitutionality of Amnesty Act — Respondent renouncing rebellion and seeking amnesty — Whether right to amnesty — Whether Director of Public Prosecutions acting within his powers in prosecuting respondent for specific crimes under Geneva Conventions Act — War crimes and grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions — The law of Uganda

Extradition — Extradition offences — Double criminality — Whether price-fixing without aggravating features a common law crime in United Kingdom — Restrictive trade practices — Transposition and substitution — Legal certainty — No one to be punished under a law unless it is sufficiently clear and certain — No one to be punished for an act which was not clearly and ascertainably punishable when committed — Whether “offence test” or “conduct test” of double criminality applying under Extradition Act 2003 — Public interest — Passage of time as potential risk to fair trial — Interference with European Convention on Human Rights Article 8 rights

Human rights — Right to freedom from interference with private and family life — Article 8 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Human Rights Act 1998 — Compatibility of extradition with human rights — Section 87 of Extradition Act 2003

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Human Rights Act 1998 — Extradition Act 2003 — Whether extradition compatible with Convention rights — The law of England

Extradition — Extradition Act 2003 — Whether statutory bars to extradition — Whether extradition compatible with Human Rights Act 1998 — Article 8 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Interference with Article 8 rights — Correct test to apply in determining proportionality of interference — Whether gravity of crime affecting proportionality — Speciality rule — Application and requirements of speciality rule — Public interest — Shared interest of States in preventing and punishing crime — Applicability of Article 8 in extradition cases

Human rights — Right to freedom from interference with private and family life — Article 8 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Whether interference with right proportionate — Applicable test — Balancing rights of individual against public interest — Whether gravity of crime relevant factor — Whether Article 8 rights of extraditee’s family members relevant — Whether possibility of prosecution of extraditee within requested State relevant

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — 1972 Extradition Treaty between United Kingdom and United States — Obligations with respect to extradition requests — Extradition Act 2003 — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Human Rights Act 1998 — Domestic case law — The law of England

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Recognition of foreign States — Recognition of sovereignty over territory — Status of Jerusalem — Petitioner United States citizen born in Jerusalem — Petitioner requesting place of birth in passport to be designated as Israel in accordance with Section 214(d) of Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2003 — United States Executive policy not to take position on political status of Jerusalem — Passport issued listing Jerusalem as birth place — Petitioner filing claim against State Department invoking Act — Separation of powers — Foreign affairs — Constitution delegating foreign affairs powers to Executive and Legislative — Constitutionality of Section 214(d) of Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2003

Territory — Sovereignty — Recognition of sovereignty over disputed territory — Jerusalem — Whether part of Israel — United States legislation requiring that passport of United States citizen born in Jerusalem show place of birth as Israel — United States Executive policy of taking no position regarding sovereignty over Jerusalem

War and armed conflict — Occupation — Jerusalem — Whether Jerusalem part of Israel — The law of the United States