Human rights — Jurisdiction — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — General duty of Contracting States under Article 1 of Convention — Abduction — Extraordinary rendition — Disappearance — Applicant complaining respondent State violating his rights under Articles 3, 5, 8, 10 and 13 of Convention — Preliminary objection raised by respondent State — Whether compliance with six-month time limit under Article 35(1) of Convention — Admissibility of complaints — Obligation of respondent State to ensure individuals within its jurisdiction not subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of Convention — Whether respondent State responsible for alleged ill-treatment of applicant by United States’ agents while applicant in respondent State — Respondent State transferring applicant into custody of United States’ authorities — Whether respondent State failing in obligation to assess whether real risk of ill-treatment contrary to Article 3 of Convention — Whether respondent State responsible for alleged ill-treatment of applicant while detained in Afghanistan — Whether respondent State responsible for applicant’s captivity in Afghanistan under Article 5 of Convention — Whether respondent State violating Articles 3, 5, 8, 13 and 10 of Convention
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 — Whether considerations applying to examination of disappearances under Article 5 of Convention — Allegations under Article 3 of Convention — Relevance of domestic proceedings and investigations — Whether burden of proof shifting to respondent Government — Whether respondent Government discharging burden — Whether applicant subjected to extraordinary rendition by agents of United States Central Intelligence Agency — Whether agents of respondent State assisting — Whether applicant’s allegations sufficiently convincing and established beyond reasonable doubt — Whether respondent State violating Articles 3, 5, 8, 13 and 10 of 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 — Substantive aspects of Article 3 — Whether derogation from Article 3 permitted in difficult circumstances of terrorism — Whether respondent State violating Article 3 on account of inhuman and degrading treatment of applicant in hotel — Whether respondent State responsible for ill-treatment of applicant at Skopje Airport — Whether treatment constituting torture — Responsibility of respondent State with regard to applicant’s transfer into custody of United States’ authorities despite real risk of further ill-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 — Whether respondent State violating Article 5 by its own agents and/or foreign agents operating in its territory and under its jurisdiction — Admissibility of applicant’s complaints — Substantive aspect of Article 5 — Whether applicant’s detention in respondent State in conformity with Article 5 requirements — Whether complying with domestic law — Whether applicant having access to representative of German embassy in respondent State — Article 36(1)(b) of Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 1963 — Whether applicant’s subsequent detention in Afghanistan imputable to respondent State — Extraordinary rendition — Whether detention of terrorist suspects by United States’ authorities arbitrary — Whether real risk of flagrant violation of Article 5 rights if applicant handed over by Macedonian authorities to United States Central Intelligence Agency — Whether applicant’s abduction and detention amounting to enforced disappearance under international law — Procedural aspect of Article 5 — Whether effective investigation into applicant’s allegations of unlawful and arbitrary detention — 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 abducted and detained — Admissibility of applicant’s complaint — Notion of private life — Whether covering person’s moral and physical integrity — Whether extending to situations of deprivation of liberty — Whether interference with applicant’s right in accordance with law — 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 Articles 3, 5 and 8 of Convention — Admissibility of applicant’s complaints — Whether complaints arguable — Whether criminal investigation effective — Whether any other remedy effective — Requirements of Article 13 — Whether respondent State assessing risk of ill-treatment before transferring applicant to United States Central Intelligence Agency agents — Whether respondent State violating Article 13 of Convention
Consular relations — Right to consular access — Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 1963, Article 36(1)(b) — Applicant’s detention in respondent State — Whether complying with Article 5 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Whether complying with domestic law — Whether complying with international law — Whether applicant having access to representative of German embassy in respondent State — Whether respondent State violating Article 5 of Convention
Terrorism — Investigation of terrorist offences — Extraordinary rendition — Arbitrary detention — Whether detention of terrorist suspects by United States’ authorities arbitrary — Macedonian authorities handing over applicant to agents of United States Central Intelligence Agency — Whether real risk of flagrant violation of applicant’s rights under Article 5 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Whether applicant’s subsequent detention in Afghanistan imputable to respondent State — Whether respondent State violating Article 5 of 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
