Environment — Marine environment — Whaling — International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, 1946 — International Whaling Commission — Schedule to the Convention — Moratorium on commercial whaling — Article VIII of the Convention — Exemption for whaling carried out for purposes of scientific research — Dispute between Australia and Japan concerning Japan’s continued pursuit of large-scale whaling programme — Japanese Whale Research Program under Special Permit in the Antarctic (“JARPA II”) — Effect on whale stocks — Whether Japan breaching its obligations under the Convention — Whether Japan breaching its other international obligations for preservation of marine mammals and marine environment

Treaties — Interpretation — International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, 1946, Article VIII(1) — Scope of Article VIII(1) — Whether special permits granted by Japan in connection with Japanese Whale Research Program under Special Permit in the Antarctic (“JARPA II”) “for purposes of scientific research” — Object and purpose — Whether restrictive or expansive interpretation justified — Discretion of State Party — Standard of review — Whether, in using lethal methods, programme’s design and implementation reasonable to achieve stated objectives — Task of Court — Meaning of phrase “for purposes of scientific research” — Schedule to Convention — Duty of cooperation with International Whaling Commission and Scientific Committee — Whether Japan breaching its obligations under International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, 1946 — Whether Japan breaching its other international obligations for preservation of marine mammals and marine environment — Remedies

International Court of Justice — Intervention — Article 63(2) of Statute conferring right to intervene as a non-party in proceedings — Declaration of Intervention filed by New Zealand in case between Australia and Japan regarding whaling — Whether Declaration fulfilling requirements of Article 63 of Statute and Article 82 of Rules — Whether Declaration admissible

International Court of Justice — Jurisdiction — Optional clause — Reservations — Reciprocity — Whaling dispute between Australia and Japan — Whether falling within Australia’s reservation

Human rights — Prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment — Applicant serving life sentence — Applicant suffering from mental illness — Applicant receiving pardon following terminal cancer diagnosis — Applicant complaining of violation of Article 3 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Respondent Government’s preliminary objections — Whether lack of standing — Scope of case — Examination of applicant’s complaints — Whether applicant’s life sentence irreducible — Vinter judgment — Whether both a prospect of release and a possibility of review — Whether pardon on health grounds constituting prospect of release — Conditions of detention — Whether applicant’s regime suited to his mental condition — Psychiatric provision — Rehabilitation — Whether alleged lack of treatment in effect depriving applicant of any prospect of release — Whether life sentence de facto irreducible — Whether violation of Article 3 of European Convention

Treaties — Interpretation — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950, Article 3 — Prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment — Applicant serving life sentence suffering from mental illness — Whether applicant’s life sentence irreducible in violation of Article 3 — Vinter judgment — Whether both a prospect of release and a possibility of review — Whether pardon on health grounds constituting prospect of release — Whether conditions of detention violating Article 3 — Rehabilitation — Whether alleged lack of psychiatric treatment in effect depriving applicant of any prospect of release — Whether life sentence de facto irreducible — Whether violation of Article 3 of European Convention

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — Interpretation — Scope — Article 3 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 prohibiting torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment — Applicant serving life sentence suffering from mental illness — Whether applicant’s life sentence irreducible in violation of Article 3 — Vinter judgment — Whether both a prospect of release and a possibility of review — Whether pardon on health grounds constituting prospect of release — Whether conditions of detention violating Article 3 — Rehabilitation — Whether alleged lack of psychiatric treatment in effect depriving applicant of any prospect of release — Whether life sentence de facto irreducible — Whether violation of Article 3 of European Convention

Human rights — Prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment — Applicant receiving life sentence — Applicant given whole life order by Secretary of State — Whether whole life order violating Article 3 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Chamber judgment of European Court of Human Rights finding no violation of Article 3 — Referral to Grand Chamber by applicant — Vinter and subsequent Strasbourg jurisprudence — Whether applicable English domestic law had been clarified — Whether resolving deficiencies identified in Vinter — Compatibility of whole life sentence with Article 3 — Whether whole life sentence reducible — Whether applicable English domestic law contrary to Article 3 of European Convention

Treaties — Interpretation — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950, Article 3 — Prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment — Whether applicant’s whole life order compatible with Article 3 of European Convention — Whether whole life sentence reducible — Whether applicable English domestic law contrary to Article 3 of European Convention

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — Interpretation — Scope — Article 3 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 prohibiting torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment — Whether whole life order violating Article 3 of European Convention — Vinter judgment identifying deficiencies — Whether applicable English domestic law had been clarified — Whether whole life sentence reducible de jure and de facto — Whether prospect of release and possibility of review — Nature of review — Scope of review — Criteria and conditions for review — Time frame for review — Whether applicable English domestic law contrary to Article 3 of European Convention

Human rights — Aliens — Refusal of entry — Due process — Whether refusal to grant re-entry based solely on intelligence of another State without providing explanations in violation of obligations of State Party under International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 — Right to family life — Arbitrary interference — Articles 17 and 23 of Covenant — Effective remedy

International tribunals — United Nations Human Rights Committee — Jurisdiction — Admissibility — Other procedures of international investigation — Ratione temporis — Local remedies rule — Whether failure to exhaust domestic remedies

Human rights — Deportation — Due process — Whether refusal to grant permanent visa based on “compelling reasons of national security” without providing explanations in violation of obligations of State Party under International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 — Right to family life — Arbitrary interference — Articles 17 and 23 of Covenant — Effective remedy

International tribunals — United Nations Human Rights Committee — Jurisdiction — Admissibility — Other procedures of international investigation — Local remedies rule — Whether failure to exhaust domestic remedies

State immunity — Jurisdictional immunity — National bank — Monetary policy — Distinction between acta jure imperii and acta jure gestionis — Monetary policy as acta jure imperii — Whether measures in close internal and external relationship to sovereign activity also covered by State immunity — Information policy relating to monetary policy — The law of Austria

Extradition — Treaties — Limits on extradition — Extradition Treaty between Czech Republic and Republic of Moldova — European Convention on Extradition, 1957 — Czech Republic seeking to extradite Moldovan complainant to Moldova — Whether substantial grounds for believing complainant at risk of torture if extradited — Whether extradition would violate Article 3 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950

Human rights — Prohibition of torture — Whether complainant at risk of torture if extradited to Moldova — Human rights treaties — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950, Article 3 — Case law of European Court of Human Rights — Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 1984 — Whether obligations under human rights treaties having priority over obligations under extradition treaties

Treaties — Human rights treaties — Extradition treaties — Obligations under treaties — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950, Article 3 — Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 1984 — International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 — Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms of the Czech Republic, 1992, Article 7(2) — European Convention on Extradition, 1957 — Extradition Treaty between Czech Republic and Moldova — Whether obligations under human rights treaties or obligations under extradition treaties having priority in event of conflict

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — Human rights treaties — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950, Article 3 — Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 1984 — International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 — Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms of the Czech Republic, 1992, Article 7(2) — Extradition treaties — European Convention on Extradition, 1957 — Extradition Treaty between Czech Republic and Moldova — Obligations under human rights treaties — Obligations under extradition treaties — Priority of obligations in event of conflict — Article 1(1) of Constitution of Czech Republic — Governance of State by rule of law — Amendment to Constitution — Whether altering status of human rights agreements as special group of norms — The law of the Czech Republic

State immunity — Jurisdiction — Property — Whether State immune from jurisdiction of courts in respect of real property — Property used as diplomatic mission by Russian Federation — Whether Russian Federation immune from proceedings in Czech courts — Whether Russian Federation acting as sovereign public authority — Whether subject to jurisdiction of Czech courts — Act on Private and Procedural Law 1963, Section 47(1) and (3) — Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961, Article 31 — Applicability

Diplomatic relations — Immunity — Property in Czech Republic being used as diplomatic mission by Russian Federation — Whether Russian Federation immune from proceedings in Czech courts — Whether proceedings conflicting with inviolability of mission premises or performance of mission’s functions — Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961, Articles 22(1) and 25 — The law of the Czech Republic

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — Entry into force — United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989, Article 15(1) — Estonia acceding to Convention — Estonian Supreme Council resolution providing for publication of treaty texts — Whether publication a precondition for entry into force of treaty — Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969, Article 24(1) — Whether Convention binding on Estonia — Right to freedom of association — Act denying right to minors — Whether Act in conflict with Constitution — Whether Act in conflict with Convention — Whether Act unconstitutional

Treaties — Entry into force — United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989 — Estonia acceding to Convention — Estonian Supreme Council resolution providing for publication of treaty texts — Whether publication a precondition for entry into force of treaty — Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969, Article 24(1) — Whether Convention binding on Estonia — Whether States Parties to Convention having duty to recognize right of child to freedom of association

Human rights — Freedom of association — Rights of the child — Act excluding child’s right to freedom of association — Whether unconstitutional — Whether Act in conflict with Article 48 of Constitution — Whether Act in conflict with Article 15(1) of United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989 — The law of Estonia

State immunity — Jurisdictional immunity — Officials — Whether State immunity bar to jurisdiction — State Immunity Act 1978 — Claim for damages relating to abuse of power by State official — Whether State indirectly impleaded

Diplomatic relations — Immunity — Diplomatic agent — Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964 — Whether diplomatic agent entitled to immunity — Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961, Articles 31(1) and 42 — Whether entitlement to immunity for private commercial activity — The law of England

Treaties — Application — Colonies and dependent territories — Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, 1951 — United Kingdom signing and ratifying Refugee Convention — United Kingdom extending Refugee Convention to Colony of Cyprus — Cyprus gaining independence in 1960 — United Kingdom retaining sovereignty over Sovereign Base Areas (“SBAs”) in Cyprus following independence — Whether Refugee Convention applying to SBAs in Cyprus as matter of public international law — Whether Refugee Convention continuing to apply following independence — Bancoult (No 2) — Whether SBAs constituting new political entity — Treaty of Establishment of the Republic of Cyprus, 1960 — Cyprus Act 1960 — Whether Refugee Convention applying to SBAs from their inception — United Kingdom obligations under international law — Whether claimants entitled to live in United Kingdom — Validity of Secretary of State’s decision to refuse claimants admittance

Territory — Colonies — Cyprus — British Colony until independence in 1960 — Treaty of Establishment of the Republic of Cyprus, 1960 — Cyprus Act 1960 — United Kingdom retaining sovereignty over Sovereign Base Areas in Cyprus — Exclusion of SBAs from territory of Republic of Cyprus — Whether Refugee Convention extending to SBAs — Whether Refugee Convention continuing to apply following independence — Bancoult (No 2) — Whether SBAs constituting new political entity — Whether Refugee Convention applying to SBAs from their inception — Factual and legal position of SBAs — Continuing public international law obligations — Obligations of United Kingdom — Whether claimants entitled to live in United Kingdom — Validity of Secretary of State’s decision to refuse claimants admittance

States — Cyprus — British Colony — Creation of Republic of Cyprus in 1960 — British Sovereign Base Areas in Cyprus — United Kingdom retaining sovereignty over SBAs after independence — Whether SBAs continuing political entity or new political entity — Bancoult (No 2) — Obligations of States — Whether international obligations of colonial power continuing — Whether Refugee Convention applying to SBAs — Obligations of United Kingdom — Whether claimants entitled to live in United Kingdom — Validity of Secretary of State’s decision to refuse claimants admittance

Aliens — Refugees — Right of abode — Claimants’ rights under Refugee Convention — Claimants resident in British Sovereign Base Areas in Cyprus — Whether Refugee Convention extending to SBAs — Obligations of United Kingdom under international law — Full discharge of obligations — Whether claimants entitled to live in United Kingdom — Validity of Secretary of State’s decision to refuse claimants admittance — The law of England