Claims — Admissibility — Diplomatic protection — Local remedies — Claim by Guinea on behalf of Guinean national — Whether Guinea lacking standing — Whether remedies under Congolese law exhausted — Claim concerning arrest, detention and expulsion measures taken by Democratic Republic of Congo against Guinean citizen in 1995-6 — Additional claim concerning arrest and detention measures taken by Democratic Republic of Congo against Guinean citizen in 1988-9 — Whether additional claim implicit in or arising directly out of question which was subject matter of Application — Guinea claiming violation of Guinean citizen’s rights by Democratic Republic of Congo — Claim as individual — Claim on behalf of company — Whether DRC violating its obligations under international treaties — Whether compensation due

Human rights — Right to liberty and security of person — Rights in relation to arrest and detention — Rights in relation to expulsion — Nature of rights — Rights as individual — Rights as shareholder in companies — Rights on behalf of individual by substitution for companies — Whether violation of rights — Whether circumstances of Mr Diallo’s arrest, detention and expulsion constituting breach by DRC of its international law obligations — International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966, Articles 9(1), 9(2) and 13 — African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 1981, Articles 6 and 12(4) — Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 1963, Article 36(1)(b) — International jurisprudence — Whether compensation due

Diplomatic relations — Guinea seeking to exercise diplomatic protection of its national for violation of his rights — Whether requirements met for exercise of diplomatic protection — Whether Mr Diallo national of Guinea — Whether Mr Diallo having exhausted local remedies available in Democratic Republic of Congo — Individual personal rights — Direct rights as associé in companies — Whether exception to general legal regime of diplomatic protection for natural or legal persons — Rights of companies by substitution — Guinean national arrested, detained and expelled by DRC authorities — Whether measures taken by DRC violating International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 and African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 1981 — Whether DRC violating Article 36(1)(b) of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 1963 — Whether compensation due

Treaties — Interpretation — Human rights treaties — International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966, Articles 9(1), 9(2) and 13 — African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 1981, Articles 6 and 12(4) — International Court of Justice applying regional instruments for protection of human rights — Whether circumstances of Mr Diallo’s arrest, detention and expulsion in 1995-6 constituting breach by DRC of its international law obligations under human rights treaties — Whether detention in 1995-6 constituting breach by DRC of Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 1963, Article 36(1)(b)

Consular relations — Treaties — Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 1963, Article 36(1)(b) — Right to request consular assistance — Right to be informed without delay upon arrest of right to request consular assistance — Whether DRC violating Article 36(1)(b) of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 1963 — Whether compensation due

Aliens — Alien lawfully in territory of Democratic Republic of Congo — Expulsion of alien — Whether DRC violating rights of alien in contravention of international agreements — International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966, Article 13 — African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 1981, Article 14(4) — Whether decision to expel in accordance with Congolese law — Compatibility of Congolese law with Covenant and African Charter — Whether DRC violating international law obligations

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 — African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 1981 — Arrest, detention and expulsion of alien lawfully in Democratic Republic of Congo — Whether DRC violating international treaties — Whether in accordance with Congolese law — Compatibility of Congolese law with Covenant and African Charter — International jurisprudence

International Court of Justice — Merits phase — Disagreement between Parties on facts — Burden of proof — Subject matter — Nature of dispute — Evidence produced by Parties — Court to decide upon facts — Compensation — Amount of compensation — Practice in other international tribunals

Damages — Compensation — Reparation — Non-material or moral injury — Material injury — Loss of personal property — Loss of professional remuneration — Deprivation of potential earnings — Whether Guinea suffering injury — Whether injury consequence of DRC’s wrongful conduct — Amount of compensation due — Judgments of other international tribunals

Human rights — Prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Article 3 — Whether life sentence irreducible — Whether prospect of release — Whether possibility of review — Whether possibility to reform and rehabilitate — Whether prospect of release if rehabilitation achieved — Whether dedicated mechanism guaranteeing review — Whether periodic reviews thereafter — Vinter v. United Kingdom — Whether finding of violation giving applicant prospect of imminent release — Whether Turkey violating Article 3 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950

Human rights — Prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Article 3 — Whether applicant’s conditions of detention amounting to inhuman treatment — Solitary confinement — Detention conditions in İmralı prison prior to 17 November 2009 — Detention conditions in İmralı prison after 17 November 2009 — Whether detention conditions attaining severity threshold to constitute inhuman treatment — Whether Turkey violating Article 3 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950

Human rights — Right to respect for private and family life — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Article 8 — Restrictions on visits by and communication with family members — Whether in accordance with law — Whether pursuing legitimate aims — Whether necessary in a democratic society — Whether Turkey violating Article 8 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950

Human rights — No punishment without law — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Article 7 — Whether applicant convicted and sentenced under law applicable at material time — Whether death penalty imposed on applicant equivalent from outset to maximum thirty-six-year prison sentence — Whether any law providing applicant with possibility of release on parole after minimum period of incarceration — Social isolation — Whether Turkey violating Article 7 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950

Treaties — Interpretation — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Articles 3, 7 and 8 of European Convention — Article 3 of European Convention prohibiting inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment — Whether imposition of life sentence without possibility of release on parole violating Article 3 of European Convention — Whether life sentence irreducible — Whether prospect of release — Whether possibility of review — International jurisprudence — When any incompatibility with Article 3 arising — Whether finding of violation giving applicant prospect of imminent release

Terrorism — Threat from terrorism — Relevance — Applicant convicted of terrorism charges in Turkey — Article 3 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment in absolute terms — Applicability of Article 3 in fight against terrorism – Applicant’s conduct — Relevance — Conditions of detention — Irreducibility of life sentence

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 — Effect of islands in delimitation of territorial sea — EEZ — Continental shelf — Continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles — UNCLOS Articles 74 and 83 — Three-stage approach — Equidistance/relevant circumstances — Proportionality — Relevant coasts — Geographical context — Bay of Bengal — Coastal configuration — Concavity of coast — Cut-off effect — Angle-bisector method — Whether geographical configuration of Bay of Bengal warranting use of angle-bisector method — Effect of islands on delimitation of EEZ and continental shelf — UNCLOS Article 76 — Whether ITLOS having to await delineation of outer limits of continental shelf by Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf before delimiting continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles — “Grey area” issue — Whether UNCLOS allowing “grey areas”

International tribunals — International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea — United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 (“UNCLOS”) — Jurisdiction — Special agreement — Unilateral application — Maritime boundary delimitation — Whether ITLOS having jurisdiction to delimit continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles

Treaties — Binding international agreements — Whether 1974 Agreed Minutes binding international agreement on delimitation of territorial sea — Full powers — Registration of treaties — Whether legal nature and content of instrument determining whether binding treaty — Whether de facto or tacit agreement existing on territorial sea boundary — Whether Myanmar estopped from claiming 1974 Agreed Minutes constituting a binding agreement