Human rights — Right to a fair hearing — Right of access to court — Freezing and confiscation of applicants’ assets — Applicants complaining of lack of procedure complying with Article 6 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Scope of case before Grand Chamber — Admissibility of application — Whether compatible ratione personae and ratione materiae with Convention provisions — Whether applicants’ right of access to court restricted — Whether restriction justified — Whether restriction pursuing legitimate aim — Whether proportionate — International normative context — Whether conflict of international obligations — Extent of obligations of respondent State — Whether respondent State violating Article 6 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — United Nations Charter — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Respondent State’s obligations under United Nations Charter and European Convention — Whether conflict of obligations — Article 103 of UN Charter asserting primacy of obligations deriving from Charter in event of conflict — Whether primacy rule engaged — Implementation of United Nations Security Council resolution at national level — Whether respondent State having any discretion in implementation — UN Security Council resolution — Interpretation of resolution — Whether restrictive interpretation legitimate — Whether courts of respondent State prevented from reviewing in terms of human rights protection measures taken at national level to implement resolution — Whether respondent State can rely on binding nature of Security Council resolutions — Whether respondent State having duty to ensure measures not arbitrary — Whether practical measures taken by Swiss authorities to improve situation of applicants adequate — Whether respondent State faced with real conflict of obligations — Whether respondent State violating Article 6 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950

Treaties — Interpretation — Application — Human rights treaties — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Rights and freedoms enshrined in European Convention — Whether guarantees of fair hearing jus cogens norm — Applicability of relevant public international law norms — Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969 — United Nations Charter — Article 103 of UN Charter asserting primacy of obligations deriving from Charter in event of conflict with obligations arising from another international agreement — UN Security Council resolutions — Whether conflict between obligations arising under UN Charter and European Convention — Interpretation of Security Council resolutions — Presumption of intention not to impose on Member States obligation breaching fundamental human rights principles — Harmonization of treaty obligations — Whether respondent State violating Article 6 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950

International organizations — United Nations — Security Council — Maintenance of international peace and security — Threat of terrorism — Economic sanctions — Security Council resolutions — Interpretation — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Role of United Nations in promoting human rights — Presumption of intention not to impose on Member States obligation breaching fundamental human rights principles — United Nations sanctions system — UN Sanctions Committee — Criticisms — Whether procedures adequate — Whether conflict of obligations under UN Charter and European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Whether primacy rule of Article 103 of UN Charter engaged

International tribunals — European Court of Human Rights — Role of Court with respect to acts of UN Security Council — State relying on need to apply Security Council resolution to justify limitation on Convention right — Whether resolution consonant with Convention — Examination of resolution’s wording and scope — Purposes of United Nations — Maintenance of international peace and security — Promotion of respect for human rights — Article 24(2) of UN Charter

Economics, trade and finance — Economic sanctions — Security Council resolutions — Implementation at national level — Freezing and confiscation of applicants’ assets — UN sanctions regime — UN Sanctions Committee — Procedures — Listing and delisting of applicants — Respondent State implementing resolution — Whether text of resolution allowing for delay necessary to grant access to a court to examine whether names appearing arbitrarily on the UN sanctions list — Whether implementing State having discretion — Whether respondent State violating Article 6 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950

Terrorism — Threat of terrorism — Maintenance of international peace and security — Security Council — Chapter VII of United Nations Charter — Security Council resolutions — Implementation at national level — Economic sanctions — Freezing and confiscation of applicants’ assets — Guarantees under Article 6 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Whether respondent State violating Article 6 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950

State responsibility — Principles — Imputability — State responsibility for acts or omissions of State authorities — State responsibility for human rights violations committed by third parties — State obligations to guarantee respect for rights between individuals — State obligations to adopt prevention and protection measures — State obligations as conditioned by awareness of a situation of real and imminent danger for a specific individual or group and reasonable possibilities of preventing or avoiding that danger — State responsibility for contributing to creation of danger and failure to take protection measures — American Convention on Human Rights, 1969

Human rights — Right to life — Right to humane treatment — Right to personal liberty — American Convention on Human Rights, 1969, Articles 4, 5 and 7 — Right to life including positive obligation to protect and preserve life — State obligation falling on all State institutions, including authorities responsible for safeguarding security — State obligations to adopt legislative, administrative and judicial measures — State obligations to prevent and protect individuals from criminal acts of others and investigate effectively — State obligation to investigate cases of extrajudicial executions, forced disappearances and other grave human rights violations — Next of kin’s right to humane treatment violated in cases of forced disappearance as direct consequence — Whether Colombia violating Articles 4, 5 and 7, in relation to Article 1(1) of American Convention on Human Rights, 1969

Human rights — Right to a fair trial and right to judicial protection — Articles 8 and 25 of American Convention on Human Rights, 1969 — Restrictive and exceptional scope of military criminal jurisdiction — Assessment of domestic investigations carried out by ordinary, military, disciplinary and administrative justice systems — Right to truth not autonomous, but forming part of right to access justice and reparation — Whether Colombia violating Articles 8 and 25, in relation to Article 1(1) of American Convention on Human Rights, 1969

International tribunals — Inter-American Court of Human Rights — Preliminary objections by Colombia — Exhaustion of domestic remedies — Reasonable time limit for application to Inter-American Commission on Human Rights — Article 46 of American Convention on Human Rights, 1969 — Colombia accepting jurisdiction of the Court — Preliminary objection understood to be withdrawn — Request to join preliminary objection to merits of case inadmissible

Damages — Reparations — Monetary and other reparations — Damages for pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss — Beneficiaries — Next of kin of victims — Requirement of public apology and memorial to victims of massacre — Other non-pecuniary remedies — Article 63(1) of American Convention on Human Rights, 1969

International tribunals — Inter-American Court of Human Rights — American Convention on Human Rights, 1969, Article 67 — Interpretation of judgment — Requests for interpretation of judgment by State and representatives of victims — Request by representatives denied — Purpose of interpretation to clarify meaning, not to submit factual and legal matters already decided — Impossibility of requesting modification or annulment of judgment through request for interpretation — Request of State granted and relevant paragraphs of judgment interpreted

Human rights — Right to a fair trial — Deprivation of liberty — Fugitive wanted for extradition seeking asylum in embassy — Whether detained in embassy — Whether detention arbitrary — United Nations Human Rights Council Working Group on Arbitrary Detention regarding deprivation of liberty as arbitrary in five categories — Whether any category applicable — Whether deprivation of liberty consistent with relevant international norms — Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, Articles 9 and 10 — International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966, Articles 7, 9(1), (3) and (4), 10 and 14 — Responsibility of United Kingdom and Swedish Governments — Remedy

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, 1994 (“TRIPS Agreement”) — India’s obligations under TRIPS Agreement — Compatibility with Indian patent law — Changes in Indian patent law — Patent Act — Legislative history — Patent Act 1970 amended in 2005 — Interpretation — Section 3(d) of Patent Act — Whether drug of pharmaceutical company having enhanced efficacy — Whether pharmaceutical company could patent drug — Whether drug satisfying test of patentability or invention under Patent Act — Whether Section 3(d) of Patent Act applicable

Treaties — Application — TRIPS Agreement — Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health 2001 — India’s treaty obligations — International developments impacting on Indian patent regime — Changes to Indian patent law — Patent Act 1970 amended in 2005 — Section 3(d) of Patent Act — Whether applicable — Whether pharmaceutical company could patent drug — Whether drug satisfying test of patentability or invention under Patent Act — Whether drug having enhanced efficacy — Whether Section 3(d) of Patent Act applicable

Economics, trade and finance — Intellectual property rights — World Trade Organization rules on intellectual property — TRIPS Agreement — Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health 2001 — Harmonization of Indian patent law — Indian Patent Act 1970 as amended in 2005 — Patent protection for pharmaceutical products — Whether pharmaceutical company could patent drug — Whether drug satisfying test of patentability or invention under Patent Act — Whether Section 3(d) of Patent Act applicable

Human rights — Right to health care — Public health concerns — TRIPS Agreement — Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health 2001 — Indian Patent Act — Whether meeting public health concerns — Whether pharmaceutical company could patent drug — Whether drug satisfying test of patentability or invention under Patent Act — Whether Section 3(d) of Patent Act applicable — The law of India

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — Customary international law — Constitution of Kenya — Role of international law — International Criminal Court — International request for cooperation for arrest and surrender — President of the Republic of Sudan — Whether Kenyan court should issue arrest warrant

International criminal law — International Criminal Court — Warrant for arrest — Obligation of States Parties to cooperate — The law of Kenya

Human rights — International law — Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, 1951, Article 33(2) — Non-refoulement principle — Relationship with wider human rights obligations — Effect in national law — Constitution of Kenya

Aliens — Refugees — Non-refoulement — Exceptions for national security and crime — Whether exceptions to be construed restrictively — Relationship between Article 33(2) of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, 1951 and human rights instruments — Requirement of individual assessment — The law of Kenya

Treaties — Interpretation — Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, 1951 — Article 31(1) — Appellant entering Norway illegally — Whether appellant protected by Article 31 — Whether appellant presenting himself without delay to authorities and showing good cause for illegal entry or presence — Meaning of “without delay” — Accuracy of translation of term into Norwegian — Object and purpose of provision and Refugee Convention — Relevance of refugee’s circumstances and perception of circumstances — Whether Court of Appeal’s interpretation of term correct — Whether appellant should be acquitted

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — Interpretation — Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, 1951 — Article 31(1) — Appellant entering Norway illegally — Appellant contravening Section 182 of General Civil Penal Code — Section 1(2) of Code — Norwegian law subject to limitations derived from agreements with foreign States or international law — Article 31(1) of Refugee Convention prohibiting penalties on refugees in country of refuge unlawfully if they present without delay to authorities and show good cause for illegal entry — Interpretation of “without delay” — Whether appellant meeting conditions for protection under Article 31(1) — Whether appellant presenting himself without delay to authorities — Interpretation of “without delay” — Case-by-case interpretation — 1999 UNHCR guidelines — Article 93(1) of Immigration Act — Whether Court of Appeal’s interpretation of term correct — Whether appellant should be acquitted

Aliens — Refugees — Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, 1951 — Article 31(1) — Interpretation — Appellant entering Norway illegally — Whether appellant protected by Article 31 — Whether appellant presenting himself without delay to authorities and showing good cause for illegal entry or presence — Meaning of “without delay” — Whether Court of Appeal’s interpretation of term correct — Whether appellant should be acquitted — The law of Norway

Treaties — Interpretation — Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, 1951 — Purpose of Refugee Convention — Article 31(1) — Scope of protection — Applicants in possession of false documents when entering United Kingdom — Applicants seeking asylum — Whether applicants immune from prosecution for possession of false documents — Whether coming directly from country of persecution — Whether presenting to authorities without delay — Whether showing good cause for illegal entry or presence — Whether applicants entitled to protection of Article 31(1)

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, 1951 — United Kingdom signing and ratifying Refugee Convention — Purpose of Refugee Convention — Article 31(1) — Whether Refugee Convention incorporated into English law — United Kingdom’s obligations under Article 31 of Refugee Convention — Whether applicants entitled to benefit from Article 31 — Doctrine of legitimate expectations — British law and practice in connection with Refugee Convention — How protection of Article 31 best achieved

Aliens — Refugees — Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, 1951 — Article 31(1) — Interpretation — Applicants in possession of false documents when entering United Kingdom — Applicants seeking asylum — Whether applicants protected by Article 31 — Whether entitled to relief — The law of England

State immunity — State-owned property — Shipwrecked warship and cargo — Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act 1976 — Subject-matter jurisdiction — Determination of immunity from arrest and proceedings in rem — Commercial activity exception to immunity — Whether applicable to in rem proceedings — Treatment of cargo aboard shipwreck — Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) — Comity — 1902 Treaty of Friendship and General Relations between the United States of America and Spain — Relationship between domestic and international law — 1958 Geneva Convention on the High Seas

Sea — Seabed — Shipwrecks — Ownership — Shipwrecked warship — Whether in rem proceedings barred by State immunity — The law of the United States

Jurisdiction — Extraterritoriality — Alien Tort Statute 1789 — Whether applying extraterritorially — Presumption against extraterritoriality — Whether applicable to allegations of torture — Personal cause of action — Separation of powers

Human rights — Enforcement — Actions in domestic courts — Prohibition of torture — Alien Tort Statute 1789 — Whether applicable to acts of torture allegedly committed outside the United States

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Jurisdiction — Claims in courts of one State for alleged violations of international law in territory of another State — Alien Tort Statute 1789 — The law of the United States