Human rights — Jurisdiction — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — General duty of Contracting States under Article 1 of Convention — Extraordinary rendition — United States Central Intelligence Agency rendition programme — High-Value Detainees Programme — Secret detention of terrorist suspects — Ill-treatment of terrorist suspects — Applicant complaining respondent State violating his rights under Articles 3, 5, 6(1), 8, 10 and 13 of Convention, and Articles 2 and 3 of Convention taken together with Article 1 of Protocol No 6 to Convention — Respondent State raising preliminary objection — Whether non-exhaustion of domestic remedies — Whether to be joined to merits — Obligation to furnish all necessary facilities under Article 38 of Convention — Confidentiality and national security issues — Relevance — Whether responsibility of respondent State engaged in respect of applicant at material time — Whether respondent State responsible for applicant’s treatment and detention by foreign officials on its territory — Whether respondent State responsible for applicant’s removal from its territory — Whether respondent State violating Convention
Human rights — Prohibition on torture and inhuman and degrading treatment — Article 3 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Allegations of ill-treatment by applicant — Admissibility of applicant’s complaints — Procedural aspect of Article 3 — Whether respondent State failing to carry out effective investigation of applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment when in United States custody on territory of respondent State — Substantive aspects of Article 3 — Whether derogation from Article 3 permitted in difficult circumstances of terrorism — Whether respondent State complicit in United States Central Intelligence Agency High-Value Detainees Programme — Whether respondent State enabling United States authorities to subject applicant to torture and ill-treatment on its territory — Whether treatment amounting to torture — Whether respondent State enabling United States authorities to transfer applicant from its territory despite existence of a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 — Whether respondent State violating Article 3 of Convention
Human rights — Right to liberty and security of person — Article 5 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Allegations of arbitrary detention by applicant — Applicant’s detention on territory of respondent State — Whether real risk of further undisclosed detention following transfer by United States authorities enabled by respondent State — Admissibility of applicant’s complaints — Extraordinary rendition — United States Central Intelligence Agency rendition programme — Secret detention of terrorist suspects — Removal of legal protection and safeguards from individuals — Programme operating outside United States’ jurisdiction — Programme requiring cooperation of host countries and overseas detention facilities — Whether respondent State responsible for applicant’s detention on its territory — Respondent State enabling transfer of applicant from its territory to Central Intelligence Agency secret detention facilities — Whether respondent State responsible for exposing applicant to foreseeable serious risk of detention conditions not complying with Convention — Whether respondent State violating Article 5 of Convention
Human rights — Right to respect for private and family life — Article 8 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Applicant separated from family while detained and transferred — Admissibility of applicant’s complaint — Notion of private life — Whether covering person’s moral and physical integrity — Acts and omissions of respondent State in respect of applicant’s detention and transfer — Whether amounting to interference with applicant’s right in accordance with law — Whether respondent State’s responsibility engaged — Whether respondent State violating Article 8 of Convention
Human rights — Right to an effective remedy — Article 13 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Applicant complaining of lack of effective remedy in respect of grievances under Article 3 of Convention — Admissibility of applicant’s complaints — Complaint linked to complaint under procedural aspect of Article 3 — Whether complaints arguable — Whether criminal investigation effective — Requirements of Article 13 — Whether respondent State violating Article 13 of Convention
Human rights — Right to a fair trial — Article 6(1) of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Applicant complaining transfer from respondent State’s territory exposing him to real risk of flagrant denial of justice — Admissibility of applicant’s complaint — Whether real risk that trial before United States military commission would be flagrant denial of justice — Whether United States military commission guaranteeing impartiality and independence — Whether United States military commission “established by law” — Probability of admission of evidence obtained by torture — Whether responsibility of respondent State engaged — Whether respondent State violating Article 6(1) of Convention
Terrorism — Terrorist suspects — Extraordinary rendition — United States Central Intelligence Agency rendition programme — High-Value Detainees Programme — Programme operating outside United States’ jurisdiction — Cooperation of host countries and overseas detention facilities — High-Value Detainees Programme — Secret detention of terrorist suspects — Ill-treatment of terrorist suspects — Applicant detained in CIA-run secret detention facility in respondent State — Applicant ill-treated by CIA — Applicant transferred by CIA from respondent State — Complicity of respondent State — Whether responsibility of respondent State engaged with respect to detention on its territory — Whether responsibility of respondent State engaged with respect to transfer from its territory — Whether respondent State violating European Convention on Human Rights, 1950
Evidence before international courts and tribunals — European Court of Human Rights — Procedure and rules of Court — Treaties — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Article 38 — Obligation to furnish all necessary facilities — Whether respondent State complying — Confidentiality and national security issues — Relevance — Whether respondent State’s refusal to submit evidence based on alleged lack of procedural safeguards justified — Whether domestic law justifying refusal to submit evidence — Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969 — Articles 25(d) and 26 — Whether Court entitled to draw inferences from respondent State’s conduct
Evidence before international courts and tribunals — European Court of Human Rights — Assessment of evidence and establishment of facts — Standard of proof — Whether approach of national legal systems relevant — Role and approach of Court — Article 19 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Burden of proof — Case law under Articles 2 and 3 of Convention — Extreme secrecy surrounding United States’ rendition operations — Respondent Government’s failure to cooperate — Circumstantial evidence — Whether respondent State’s responsibility under Article 1 of Convention engaged — Whether respondent State responsible for securing Convention rights for applicant at material time
State responsibility — Principles under European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Responsibility of respondent State under Article 1 of Convention — Principles deriving from case law of European Court of Human Rights — United States Central Intelligence Agency rendition programme — High-Value Detainees Programme — Programme operating outside United States’ jurisdiction — Responsibility of State under Convention for acts performed by foreign officials on its territory with acquiescence or connivance of its authorities — Responsibility of State where individual removed from its territory exposed to foreseeable violation of Convention rights in country of destination — Whether real risk of flagrant breach of Convention rights in destination country — Role of respondent State — Whether responsibility of respondent State engaged with respect to detention on its territory — Whether responsibility of respondent State engaged with respect to transfer from its territory — Whether complaints and extent to which events complained of imputable to respondent State could be examined
Evidence before international courts and tribunals — European Court of Human Rights — Evidence obtained by torture — Whether admissible in criminal trial — Legal systems based on rule of law — Trial process cornerstone of rule of law — Whether admission of evidence obtained by torture irreparably damaging trial process — Whether evidence obtained by torture reliable — Whether flagrant denial of justice if evidence obtained by torture admitted in criminal trial — Probability of United States military commission admitting evidence obtained by torture — Whether real risk that trial before United States military commission would be flagrant denial of justice — Whether responsibility of respondent State engaged — Whether respondent State violating Article 6(1) of Convention
Human rights — Right to life — Article 2 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Article 3 of Convention — Article 1 of Protocol No 6 to Convention — Abolition of death penalty — Applicant complaining transfer from respondent State’s territory exposing him to real risk of imposition of death penalty — Admissibility of applicant’s complaint — Extradition — Extraordinary rendition of suspected terrorist facing capital charges — Whether substantial and foreseeable risk applicant would be subjected to death penalty following trial before United States military commission — Whether acts and omissions of respondent State engaging its responsibility under Convention — Whether respondent State required to seek appropriate diplomatic assurances from United States under Article 46 of Convention — Whether respondent State violating Articles 2 and 3 of Convention taken together with Article 1 of Protocol No 6 to Convention
Damages — Non-pecuniary damage — Serious violations of several provisions of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Whether applicant suffering non-pecuniary damage — Whether finding of violations sufficient — Article 41 of Convention
