Human rights — Scope of application — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950, Article 1 — Applicants’ relatives murdered in part of Cyprus controlled by Cypriot Government — Murder suspects fleeing to northern part of Cyprus — Northern part of Cyprus occupied by Turkey — “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” — “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” not recognized as a State under international law — Cypriot Government seeking surrender and extradition of murder suspects — Applicants alleging failure of authorities to conduct effective investigation into killing of their relatives — Procedural obligation under Article 2 of Convention — Duty to cooperate under procedural limb of Article 2 — Whether applicants’ complaint in respect of Turkey compatible ratione loci with Convention — Whether “jurisdictional link” existing for purposes of Article 1 of Convention in cases where death occurring outside territory of Contracting State in respect of which procedural obligation under Article 2 of the Convention said to arise — Whether institution of investigation or proceedings by that Contracting State sufficient to establish “jurisdictional link” — Principles — “Special features” — Human rights protection in legal space of Convention — Whether Turkey having jurisdiction under Article 1 of Convention in respect of applicants’ complaint under procedural limb of Article 2 of Convention

Human rights — Right to life — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950, Article 2 — Procedural element — Applicants’ relatives murdered in part of Cyprus controlled by Cypriot Government — Murder suspects fleeing to northern part of Cyprus — Northern part of Cyprus occupied by Turkey — “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” — “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” not recognized as a State under international law — Cypriot Government seeking surrender and extradition of murder suspects — Effectiveness of investigation into murder of applicants’ relatives — Adequacy of investigation — Duty to cooperate as a component of the procedural obligation under Article 2 of Convention — Transnational cases — Transnational cases involving a Contracting State and a de facto entity under effective control of another Contracting State — Absence of diplomatic relations between Cyprus and Turkey — Council of Europe conventions — Relevance — Whether failure to cooperate — Whether Cyprus violating Article 2 of Convention under its procedural limb — Whether Turkey violating Article 2 of Convention under its procedural limb

Recognition — States — Jurisdiction — Exercise of jurisdiction in unrecognized entities — Unlawful occupation of northern part of Cyprus by Turkey — De facto entity in Cyprus’s internationally recognized territory — “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” — “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” not recognized as a State under international law — Turkey having effective control for purposes of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Obligation to cooperate component of procedural obligation under Article 2 of Convention — Alleged lack of cooperation involving de facto entity — Responsibility of Turkey engaged under Convention

Territory — Occupation — Unlawful occupation of northern part of Cyprus by Turkey — De facto entity in Cyprus’s internationally recognized territory — “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” — “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” not recognized as a State under international law — Turkey having effective control for purposes of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Absence of formal diplomatic relations between Cyprus and Turkey — International treaties to which both States parties — Relevance — Indirect channels of cooperation — Duty to cooperate under procedural limb of Article 2 of Convention — Whether failure to cooperate — Whether Cyprus violating Article 2 of Convention under its procedural limb — Whether Turkey violating Article 2 of Convention under its procedural limb

Treaties — Applicability — Council of Europe conventions — European Convention on Extradition, 1957 — European Convention on Mutual Assistance on Criminal Matters, 1959 — Relevance — Obligation to cooperate under procedural limb of Article 2 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Interpretation of obligation to cooperate — Whether Cyprus and Turkey using all available possibilities to cooperate — Whether treaties sole reference framework — Absence of formal diplomatic relations — Indirect channels of cooperation — Cooperation in criminal matters — Norms and principles of international law — Whether failure to cooperate by Cyprus and Turkey in violation of Article 2 of Convention in its procedural limb

Damages — Pecuniary damage — Non-pecuniary damage — Whether claim for pecuniary damage substantiated — Whether applicants to be afforded just satisfaction — Suffering caused by gravity of crime and failure of respondent Governments to cooperate to bring perpetrators to justice — Whether non-pecuniary damage could be compensated solely by finding of a violation — Costs and expenses — Application of Article 41 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950

Human rights — Scope of application — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950, Article 1 — Deaths occurring as result of air strike outside jurisdiction of Contracting State — Deaths occurring in context of extraterritorial military operation — Mandate for military operation given by resolution of United Nations Security Council acting under Chapter VII of United Nations Charter — Whether institution of domestic criminal investigation in itself sufficient to establish jurisdictional link between that State and victims’ relatives — Whether excessively broadening scope of application of Convention — Whether “special features” existing which establish jurisdictional link — Respondent State having exclusive jurisdiction over its troops in respect of serious crimes — Obligation of respondent State to investigate under international law and under domestic law — Whether facts complained of occurring within jurisdiction of respondent State — Admissibility of application

Human rights — Right to life — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950, Article 2 — Procedural element — Deaths occurring in extraterritorial armed conflict — Multinational operations under auspices of United Nations — Requirements of an effective investigation into those deaths — Whether any conflict with respect to requirements of effective investigation under applicable rules of international humanitarian law and under Convention — Adequacy — Promptness, reasonable expedition and independence — Participation of next of kin and public scrutiny — Whether investigation into deaths effective — Whether respondent State violating procedural limb of Article 2 of Convention

War and armed conflict — Extraterritorial armed conflict — Afghanistan — Troop-contributing States in United Nations authorized military operation — Obligations of States engaging in multinational military operations — Air strike during active hostilities causing deaths — Air strike constituting potential war crime — Obligation of respondent State to investigate under international law and domestic law — Whether investigation into deaths effective — Whether respondent State violating procedural limb of Article 2 of Convention

International criminal law — Individual criminal responsibility — War crimes — Afghanistan — Troop-contributing States in United Nations authorized military operation — Obligations of States engaging in multinational military operations — Air strike during active hostilities causing deaths — Air strike constituting potential war crime — Respondent State having exclusive jurisdiction over its troops in respect of serious crimes — Obligation of respondent State to investigate under international law and under domestic law — Whether investigation into deaths effective — Whether respondent State violating procedural limb of Article 2 of Convention

International tribunals — International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (“ITLOS”) — Preliminary objections — Jurisdiction — Existence of a dispute — Whether dispute concerning interpretation or application of United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 (“UNCLOS”) — Whether Italy appropriate respondent in proceedings — Whether Spain an indispensable Party — “Monetary Gold” principle — European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters, 1959 — Exchange of views under Article 283 of UNCLOS — Admissibility — Whether Panama’s claim an exercise of diplomatic protection — Nationality of M/V “Norstar” — Whether local remedies exhausted prior to filing a case with ITLOS — Whether Panama acquiescing in Italy’s conduct — Whether Panama estopped from bringing a claim against Italy — Extinctive prescription

Sea — Invocation by Panama of Articles 92 and 97 of United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 (“UNCLOS”) following judgment on preliminary objections — Claim relating to alleged human rights violations — Article 87 of UNCLOS — Freedom of navigation — Whether Italy’s Decree of Seizure concerning activities carried out on Italian territory — Location of the vessel’s activities — Whether Italian law considering bunkering to be an offence under criminal law — Article 300 of UNCLOS — Link between Article 300 and Article 87 — Good faith — Whether any factor indicating Italy’s lack of good faith in dealing with the vessel and Panama — Reparation — Restitution — Compensation — Causation of damage — Proof of causation — Whether chain of causation broken — Duty to mitigate damages — Quantification of damages — Interest — Costs

War and armed conflict — Armed conflict — Definition — Prerequisites for the existence of an armed conflict — International armed conflict — Non-international armed conflict — Intensity of hostilities — Organization of non-State armed groups — Duration of hostilities

War and armed conflict — Non-international armed conflict — Participation of international forces in non-international armed conflict — Conflict intervention — Intervention on invitation — United Nations Security Council — International Security Assistance Force — Afghanistan

War and armed conflict — International humanitarian law — Notion of attack by military means — Customary international law — Geneva Conventions, 1949, and Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions, 1977

War and armed conflict — International humanitarian law — Individual status under international humanitarian law — Combatants — Civilians — Direct participation in hostilities — Continuous combat function — Military objectives — Civilian objects

War and armed conflict — International humanitarian law — Military attack — Precautionary measures — Proportionality — Collateral damage — Expectation — Relevant perspective

War and armed conflict — Military action in Afghanistan in 2009 — International Security Assistance Force — Airstrike — United Nations Security Council Resolution 1386 (2001) — Kunduz incident

International criminal law — War crimes — Non-international armed conflict — Nexus — Prerequisites of nexus — Indiscriminate attack — Excessive collateral damage — Intent — Feasible precautions — Relevant perspective — Whether military action or law enforcement — Domestic jurisdiction — Universal jurisdiction

International criminal law — Relationship between international criminal law and domestic criminal law — General principles of law — Jurisdiction — Justification — Notion of war crime — International humanitarian law as justification in domestic criminal law — The law of Germany

Damages — Compensation — Individual claims based on international law — International humanitarian law — Customary international law — Whether individual or inter-State compensation — Official liability law and armed conflict — Applicability of national official liability law in armed conflict

General principles of international law — Whether individuals subjects of international law — Human rights law — International humanitarian law — Inter-State character of international law — Foreign policy relations and constitutional law of Germany

War and armed conflict — Non-international armed conflict — Geneva Conventions, 1949, and Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions, 1977 — Military action in Afghanistan in 2009 — International Security Assistance Forces — Airstrike — Kunduz incident — Feasible precautions

War and armed conflict — International humanitarian law — Military attack — Precautionary measures — Proportionality — Collateral damage — Expectation — Relevant perspective

War and armed conflict — International humanitarian law — Combatants — Civilians — Military objectives — Civilian objects — The law of Germany

Economics, trade and finance — Trade sanctions — Embargoes — Protectionism — Whether sanctions amounting to economic duress under English law — Relationship between international law and municipal law

Recognition — States — Legal personality of a State under English law — Legal capacity of a State under English law — Whether recognized as a State by United Kingdom Government — Whether Ukraine having capacity to issue bonds — Bond issuance illegal under Ukrainian law

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Customary international law — Personality of States — Capacity to act in municipal law of another State — Dealings between sovereign States — Governments — Whether defence of duress justiciable — Whether duress of person or of goods constituted by threats to safety of a State’s citizens

Reprisals and countermeasures — Countermeasures — Ukraine — Russia — Violation of territorial sovereignty — Whether non-repayment of bonds justified as a proportionate countermeasure — Whether doctrine of countermeasures recognized under domestic law — Relationship of international law and municipal law — The law of England