Human rights — Treaties — Scope of application — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Article 1 — Jurisdiction — Events in Crimea — Whether Russian Federation exercising jurisdiction over Crimea — Nature of jurisdiction under Article 1 of Convention — Territoriality principle — Whether facts complained of falling within jurisdiction of Russian Federation within meaning of Article 1 of Convention — Whether Russian Federation exercising effective control over Crimea during relevant period — Evidence — Military presence, strength and conduct — Whether Russian Federation adopting administrative practice of human rights violations in Crimea — Whether Russian Federation violating Articles 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 14 of Convention, and Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No 1 and Article 2 of Protocol No 4 to Convention — Complaints of administrative practice during relevant period in violation of Convention provisions — Whether admissible

Treaties — Ratification — Interpretation — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Article 1 — Concept of jurisdiction — Meaning of jurisdiction in public international law — Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969 — Article 29 — Presumption jurisdiction exercised normally throughout State’s territory — Whether any assertion of change to status of Crimea by States upon ratification of European Convention — Whether Russian Federation having jurisdiction over Crimea — Assumption that nature of jurisdiction not territorial

International tribunals — European Court of Human Rights — Jurisdiction — Scope of case — Temporal scope of complaints — Whether interim measure to be lifted — Subject matter of dispute — Whether issue of legality, as matter of international law, of Crimea’s purported integration into Russian Federation constituting subject matter of dispute — Whether issues raised legal — Whether political aspects depriving questions of their legal character — Preliminary issues — Whether Russian Federation complying with any obligation under Article 1 of Convention — Preliminary objections — Whether application lacking requirements of genuine application — Whether Russian Federation’s preliminary objection of incompatibility ratione loci to be dismissed — Whether Court having competence under Article 19 of Convention — Whether preliminary objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies to be dismissed — Whether facts complained of falling within jurisdiction of Russian Federation within meaning of Article 1 of Convention — Whether Court having competence under Article 19 of Convention — Admissibility of complaints

Evidence before international courts and tribunals — European Court of Human Rights — Assessment of evidence — Approach to evidence — Types of evidence examined — Principles of assessment — Burden of proof — Standard of proof — As to alleged existence of an “administrative practice” — As to jurisdictional issues — Examination of admissibility of complaints in inter-State case

Human rights — Right to fair trial — Right to legal representation — African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 1981, Article 7 — Whether Tanzania violating right to fair trial — Right to equal protection under the law — Article 3 — Whether Tanzania violating Articles 3 and 7 of Charter

International tribunals — Jurisdiction — Admissibility — African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights — Material jurisdiction — Whether Court having jurisdiction to hear the application — Admissibility — Exhaustion of local remedies — Whether application filed within reasonable time

Claims — Inter-State cases — Claims for just satisfaction — Whether Article 41 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 applicable to inter-State cases — Judgment in Cyprus v. Turkey — Whether Article 41 of Convention applicable to present case — Whether present case fulfilling three criteria set out in Cyprus v. Turkey — Whether award of just satisfaction justified — Determination of sufficiently precise and objectively identifiable group of people — Criteria for award of just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage — Requirement for distribution of damages to members of group

Human rights — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Article 41 — Inter-State case — Claims for just satisfaction for breach of human rights — Non-pecuniary damage — Whether victims identifiable — Determination of sufficiently precise and objectively identifiable group of people — Whether claim could be submitted under Article 41 of Convention — Whether award of just satisfaction justified — Criteria to be applied

International tribunals — European Court of Human Rights — Damages — Non-pecuniary damages — Inter-State case — Damages awarded for distribution to group of nationals — Supervision of distribution — Role of Council of Ministers

State responsibility — Obligation on State responsible for internationally wrongful act to make reparations — Just-satisfaction rule deriving from public international law principles relating to State liability — Duty of States to co-operate under European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Obligation on State to abide by final judgment of European Court of Human Rights

Arbitration — Jurisdiction — United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982, Annex VII — Constitution of Annex VII tribunal — Conditions for jurisdiction of tribunal — Exception for disputes concerning military activities — Confrontation between warships — Subsequent arrest and detention of warships and crews — Whether military activities or law enforcement — Point at which military activity becoming law enforcement — Provisional measures order by International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea — Whether Annex VII tribunal possessing jurisdiction over claim that respondent did not comply with provisional measures — Whether tribunal possessing jurisdiction over claim for non-aggravation of dispute — Requirement of exchange of views prior to initiation of arbitration proceedings

International tribunals — Provisional measures — Jurisdiction of International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea to order provisional measures in dispute submitted to arbitration — Whether dependent on existence of jurisdiction over dispute — Non-aggravation order

Sea — United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 — Interpretation and application — Warships — Whether Convention incorporating customary international law on immunity of warships — Arrest of warships of one State for entering waters claimed as territorial sea of another State — Whether arrest occurring in the territorial sea — Settlement of disputes — Annex VII tribunal — Straits — Kerch Strait — Passage through Strait obstructed

State immunity — Warships — Immunity of warships from arrest — United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 — Customary international law

War and armed conflict — Naval confrontation between warships of two States — Arrest of warships and crews — Whether military activity or law enforcement — Prisoners of war — Whether arrested crews prisoners of war

International tribunals — Provisional measures — Jurisdiction — United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 (“UNCLOS”) — International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (“ITLOS”) — Arbitral tribunal constituted under Annex VII of UNCLOS (“Annex VII tribunal”) — Provisional measures requested pending constitution of Annex VII tribunal — Article 290(5) of UNCLOS — Prima facie jurisdiction — Whether dispute concerning interpretation or application of UNCLOS — Immunity of warships and auxiliary vessels — Immunity of crewmembers — Military activities exception — Article 298(1)(b) of UNCLOS — Whether incident of 25 November 2018 involving military activities excluded from jurisdiction of Annex VII tribunal — Distinction between military and law-enforcement activities — Whether Parties using force in the context of incident of 25 November 2018 — Plausibility of rights invoked by Ukraine — Real and imminent risk of irreparable prejudice — Urgency — ITLOS having power to prescribe provisional measures different, in whole or in part, from those requested — Provisional measures for non-aggravation and non-extension of dispute — Binding character of provisional measures — Report on compliance with provisional measures prescribed

Sea — Straits — Kerch Strait — Passage through Kerch Strait obstructed — Confrontation between warships of Ukraine and Russian Federation

Sea — Exclusive economic zone — Rights of coastal State — Rights of flag State –– Articles 58 and 92 of United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 (“UNCLOS”)

International tribunals — Provisional measures — International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea — Arbitral tribunal constituted under Annex VII of United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 (“UNCLOS”) — Provisional measures requested pending constitution of Annex VII tribunal — Article 290(5) of UNCLOS — Prima facie jurisdiction — Admission that Annex VII tribunal had prima facie jurisdiction over some of Switzerland’s claims — Plausibility of applicant’s rights — Rights and duties under International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 and the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 — Article 56(2) of UNCLOS — Irreparable prejudice — Urgency — Whether prejudice to applicant’s rights could be repaired by compensation — Evidence filed by Parties — Humanitarian considerations — Bond — Similarity with prompt release — Report on compliance — Removal of case from List

States — Sovereignty — States’ withdrawal of declaration under Article 34(6) of the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Establishment of an African Court, 1998 — Right of a State with respect to treaties — Right to enter and right to withdraw

International tribunals — African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights — Direct connection of case’s merits to provisional measures request — Whether an application to institute proceedings before the Court void if unsigned

International tribunals — Jurisdiction — Whether the African court having jurisdiction to decide on/revoke State’s decision to withdraw its declaration under Article 34(6) of the Protocol — Whether State declarations accepting the jurisdiction of the African Court optional

Treaties — Interpretation — Withdrawal — Whether State’s withdrawal an act of sovereignty and a unilateral act — Whether State’s withdrawal matter of treaty law — Consent — Rights of States

Human rights — Whether State’s withdrawal of its declaration under Article 34(6) of the Protocol constituting a regression of rights — Whether depriving State’s citizens of a regional judicial redress mechanism through its withdrawal a human rights violation — Whether State declarations under Article 34(6) of the Protocol conferring subjective rights on individuals and non-governmental organizations

International tribunals — Special Chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea — United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 — Constitution of the Special Chamber — Transfer of proceedings from an Annex VII arbitral tribunal to the Special Chamber

International tribunals — Provisional measures — Preservation of rights of Parties — Protection of marine environment — Protection of confidentiality of information relating to exploration and exploitation of natural resources of continental shelf — Prima facie jurisdiction — Agreement that Special Chamber having prima facie jurisdiction — Plausibility of rights — Côte d’Ivoire’s claimed rights being plausibly based on United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 — Whether Ghana’s activities in disputed area could cause irreparable prejudice to rights of Côte d’Ivoire — Problems of prescribing suspension of all oil exploration and exploitation — Possibility for compensation of financially assessable damage — Report on compliance with provisional measures — Power of President of Special Chamber to request further information concerning compliance

International tribunals — Jurisdiction — Special agreement — Admissibility of request for delimitation of continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles — Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf — Forum prorogatum — International responsibility — Whether ITLOS having jurisdiction to decide on international responsibility of a State in accordance with UNCLOS

Treaties — Tacit agreement — Oil practice — Maps — Seismic surveys — Drilling activities — National legislation — Representations to international organizations — Bilateral exchanges and negotiations — Standard of proof — Whether Côte d’Ivoire estopped from objecting to customary equidistance boundary claimed by Ghana

Sea — Maritime boundary delimitation — Single maritime boundary — Territorial sea — Exclusive Economic Zone — Continental shelf — Continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles — United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 — Article 15 — Articles 74 and 83 — Equidistance/relevant circumstances — Angle bisector — Whether location of base points justified using a methodology other than equidistance/relevant circumstances — Whether coastal instability justified using a methodology other than equidistance/relevant circumstances — Whether same methodology applied to delimitation of all maritime zones — Relevant coast — Relevant area — Provisional equidistance line — Appropriate base points — Relevant circumstances — Concavity of coast — Cut-off effect — Location of natural resources — Conduct — Methodology for delimiting the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles — Entitlement to a continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles — Disproportionality test

State responsibility — Alleged responsibility for violation of sovereign rights — Alleged responsibility for violation of Article 83(1) of United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 — Whether Ghana’s oil activities violating its obligations under Article 83(3) — Alleged responsibility for violating order on provisional measures of 25 April 2015

General principles of international law — Estoppel — Whether part of international law — Conditions — Clear and unequivocal statement — Reliance to detriment — Maritime boundaries — Whether capable of being established by estoppel

International Court of Justice — Provisional measures — Prima facie jurisdiction — International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, 1965 (“CERD”) — Article 22 — Whether the Court having prima facie jurisdiction ratione materiae — Distinction between “national origin” and “nationality” under CERD — Whether procedural preconditions to the Court’s jurisdiction met — Prior negotiation — Exhaustion of CERD-based procedures — Plausibility — Whether the acts of which Qatar complained were plausibly acts of racial discrimination — Irreparable prejudice — Urgency — Whether evidence submitted by Qatar proving that the rights claimed were under a real and imminent risk of irreparable prejudice — Reports of international organizations as evidence — Unilateral undertaking — Statement of 5 July 2018 by UAE

International Court of Justice — Provisional measures requested by respondent State — Whether extending to protection of procedural rights — Procedural rights arising under Article 22 of CERD — Right to obtain compliance with provisional measures indicated earlier — Prima facie jurisdiction — Provisional measures for non-aggravation and non-extension of the dispute — Whether capable of being indicated only if provisional measures for protection of rights also indicated

International Court of Justice — Preliminary objections — Whether Court having jurisdiction under Article 22 of International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, 1965 — Whether discrimination based on nationality prohibited by CERD — Whether Qatar’s claim of discriminatory measures by United Arab Emirates falling within scope of CERD Treaties — Interpretation — Scope — International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, 1965 — Article 1(1) — Meaning of “national origin” — Whether including current nationality — Object and purpose of treaty — Travaux préparatoires — Whether CERD intending to prohibit discrimination based on nationality — Whether Qatar’s claim of discriminatory measures by United Arab Emirates falling within scope of CERD

Human rights — International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, 1965 — Article 1(1) — Meaning of “national origin” — Whether including current nationality — Whether discrimination based on nationality prohibited by CERD — Whether Qatar’s claim of discriminatory measures by United Arab Emirates falling within scope of CERD

Nationality — Nature of citizenship — Bond between State and citizen — Whether distinct from “national origin” — International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination, 1965, Article 1

International tribunals — United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination — Weight to be given to practice of Committee — Jurisprudence of regional human rights courts — Relevance — Whether discrimination based on nationality prohibited by CERD

International tribunals — Jurisdiction and admissibility — United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination — International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, 1965 — Discrimination on ground of national or ethnic origin — Inter-State communication — Whether Committee lacking jurisdiction — Scope of Article 11 of Convention — Nationality issue — Whether exception to jurisdiction — Interpretation of concept of racial discrimination prohibited by Convention — Whether raising preliminary issue of competence ratione materiae — Issue to be examined at same time as admissibility — Whether jurisdiction extending only to current and ongoing violations of Convention — Whether communication admissible — Non-exhaustion of domestic remedies — Issue to be examined jointly with merits — Concurrent proceedings — Nationality — Appointment of ad hoc Conciliation Commission — International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, 1965, Articles 11(2) and 12(1)

Human rights — Rights to non-discrimination — International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, 1965 — International law — Whether fight against terrorism justifying discrimination — Discrimination on ground of national or ethnic origin — Applicant State enforcing coercive measures against respondent State in 2017 — Whether respondent State failing to enact measures to prohibit racial discrimination — Whether respondent State promoting racial discrimination — Whether respondent State violating international law — Whether respondent State violating Articles 2, 4, 5 and 6 of International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, 1965 — Whether Committee having jurisdiction — Admissibility of communication

International tribunals — United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination — International Court of Justice — Concurrent proceedings — Article 22 of International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, 1965 — Whether principle of lis pendens or electa via applicable — Admissibility of communication

Treaties — Interpretation — International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, 1965 — Article 1 — Prohibition of racial discrimination — Interpretation of concept of racial discrimination — Discrimination on ground of national or ethnic origin — Meaning of national origin — “Nationality” excluded from definition — Distinction between citizens and non-citizens — United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination — General Recommendation No 30 (2004) on discrimination against non-citizens — Differences of treatment based on nationality — Whether constituting discrimination as prohibited by Convention — Applicant State’s allegations against respondent State in communication concerning violations of Convention — Whether allegations concerning ongoing and current violations of Convention — Issue relating to essential facts and to be examined at merits stage — Whether Committee having competence ratione materiae — Admissibility of communication

Nationality — Distinction between citizens and non-citizens — United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination — International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, 1965 — Article 1 — Prohibition of racial discrimination — Interpretation of concept of racial discrimination — Discrimination on ground of national or ethnic origin — General Recommendation No 30 (2004) on discrimination against non-citizens — Differences of treatment based on nationality — Whether constituting discrimination as prohibited by Convention — Allegations in communication concerning racial discrimination — Whether Committee having competence ratione materiae — Admissibility of communication

Human rights — Right to equality and non-discrimination — African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 1981, Articles 2 and 3 — Whether Tanzania’s exercise of presidential pardons arbitrary and discriminatory — Right to a fair trial — Article 7 — Whether Tanzania’s sentencing of first and seventh applicants exceeding prescribed legal limits

International tribunals — African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights — Jurisdiction — Material jurisdiction — Whether Court having jurisdiction to hear application — Admissibility — Whether application admissible — Exhaustion of local remedies — Whether applicants obliged to exhaust remedies despite claims of judicial bias

Human rights — Right to life — Right to dignity — Right to fair trial — Right to be heard within a reasonable time — Right to be heard by a competent court — African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 1981, Articles 4, 5, 1, 7 — Obligation to give effect to rights in the Charter — Whether Tanzania’s imposition of mandatory death penalty violating applicants’ rights to life and dignity

International tribunals — Jurisdiction — African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights — Material jurisdiction — Whether Court having jurisdiction to hear the application — Admissibility — Whether application admissible — Exhaustion of local remedies — Whether application filed within a reasonable time

Human rights — Freedom of expression — Right of access to information — Freedom of opinion — Legitimate limitations — Proportionality — Requirement of precise definition — Criminal defamation — African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights’ Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information in Africa 2019

International tribunals — Jurisdiction — African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights — Admissibility decisions — Contesting admissibility of Communication based on Article 56(7) of African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 1981 — Res judicata

Treaties — Human rights treaties — African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 1981 — Compliance of Rwanda’s Penal Code 1977 with African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 1981 — Human rights obligations under regional and international human rights treaties

Social memory studies start from the premise that people acquire their memories not only through individual means, but through social processes as well. Social groups often provide materials for memory, and prod individuals into recalling particular events. One of the distinctive differences between the practice of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) concerns memory-related remedies. While the IACtHR quite frequently orders respondent states to commemorate grave violations of human rights (including the construction of monuments), the ECtHR has refrained from granting such commemorative remedies. Some organizations representing victims have called upon additional tribunals to embrace the IACtHR’s remedial approach to address grave breaches of international law. Drawing on social memory scholarship, this study is aimed at empirically assessing the impact of four sites of memory in Colombia established by order of the IACtHR. The study’s findings suggest that international tribunals alone cannot shape collective memories that are inconsistent with sociocultural features characterizing the local society. On the other hand, judicially-ordered sites of memory are meaningful for the victims’ families and small-scale social units. These findings turn our attention to micro-level sociological perspectives, and particularly to the symbolic-interactionist approach to international law, highlighting the vital symbolic role of international tribunals for individuals and small social units. The valuable role of such memorial sites for the victims’ relatives and related communities suggests that international tribunals addressing grave human rights violations should consider granting commemorative remedies.

Economics, trade and finance — Free trade agreements — International investment — Canada–European Union Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement, 2016 — Multilateral investment tribunal — Investor rights — Whether creation of multilateral investment tribunal a transfer of State sovereignty — Competences of the European Union — Shared competence of indirect foreign investment

International tribunals — Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement Tribunal — Proposed multilateral investment tribunal — Jurisdiction of international tribunal — Jurisdiction of domestic courts — Whether creation of international tribunal ceding jurisdictional competence from domestic courts — Nature of jurisdiction exercised by international tribunals

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — Ratification — Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement, 2016 — European Union — Ireland — Irish Constitution — Whether ratification of Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement having effect in domestic legal order — Whether ratification of Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement transferring State sovereignty

Treaties — Application — Ratification — Free trade agreements — International investment — Canada–European Union Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement, 2016 — Whether creating rights and obligations on level of international law only — Irish Constitution — Whether ratification of Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement, 2016 by State in proposed manner unconstitutional — The law of Ireland

International tribunals — Evidence and procedure — Errors of law and fact — Whether conviction exceeding scope of charges against appellant — Whether criminal acts not established beyond reasonable doubt to form part of facts and circumstances described in charges — Whether Appeals Chamber required to defer to Trial Chamber’s factual findings — Whether appellant to be acquitted of crimes against humanity and war crimes

International criminal law — International Criminal Court — Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 1998, Article 28(a) — War crimes and crimes against humanity — Command responsibility — Requirements — Whether entailing strict liability of commander for crimes committed by subordinates — Effective control over military troops — Whether appellant having taken all necessary and reasonable measures to prevent commission of crimes by his troops — Whether appellant to be acquitted of crimes against humanity and war crimes

War and armed conflict — War crimes — Crimes against humanity — Murder, rape and pillage — Whether contextual elements of crimes against humanity established — Command responsibility — Concept of military necessity — Reasonableness — Whether acquittal of appellant appropriate

Damages — Reparations — Article 75 of Rome Statute of International Criminal Court, 1998 — Whether reparations order could be made against appellant following acquittal on appeal — Whether final decision on reparations within power of Trial Chamber — Whether appropriate for Chamber to make concrete findings on extent and scope of victimization — Whether appropriate to issue principles on reparations

Damages — Right to compensation for acquitted defendant — Article 85 of Rome Statute of International Criminal Court, 1998 — Whether grave and manifest miscarriage of justice — Whether award of compensation under Article 85(3) of Rome Statute appropriate — Whether acquitted person having right to be compensated — Whether grounds for exercise of discretion to make award of compensation — Damage to assets and property of acquitted person allegedly resulting from their mismanagement — Whether within scope of Article 85 of Rome Statute

Treaties — Interpretation — Application — Article 85 of Rome Statute of International Criminal Court, 1998 — Whether acquitted person having right to be compensated — Whether grave and manifest miscarriage of justice — Article 85(3) — Travaux préparatoires — Right to compensation — International human rights treaties — International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 — Whether right to compensation for acquitted person having emerged as general principle of international human rights law — Treaties — Customary international law — Jurisprudence of regional and international human rights bodies — Practice of international ad hoc criminal tribunals — Relevant national legal systems

Human rights — Right to a fair trial — Duration of criminal proceedings — Reasonableness — Jurisprudence of European Court of Human Rights — Assessing reasonableness of length of proceedings in light of circumstances and certain criteria — Approach enshrined in Article 85(3) of Rome Statute of International Criminal Court, 1998 — Absence of statutory limits on duration of proceedings and of custodial detention — Whether case for review of Rome Statute — Whether length of proceedings excessive in this case

Human rights — Freedom of expression — Right of access to information — Freedom of opinion — Criminal sedition — Resolution of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights 2010 — United Nations Human Rights Committee, General Comment No 34

Treaties — Interpretation — Application — Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community, 1999 — Treaty obligations of East African Community Partner States — Human rights treaties — Obligations under regional and international human rights treaties — Compliance of Tanzanian media law with its treaty obligations — African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 1981 — International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966

International tribunals — Jurisdiction — East African Court of Justice — Whether Court having jurisdiction — Role of domestic courts in the interpretation of Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community, 1999 — Exhaustion of domestic remedies — Whether applicable — Interpretation of Articles 30(3) and 34 of Supplementary Protocol, 2005 — Res judicata