International Court of Justice — Dispute concerning alleged violations by Colombia of Nicaragua’s sovereign rights in maritime zones appertaining to it under 2012 judgment — Court found to have jurisdiction in 2016 judgment — Merits — Applicable law — Colombia not being Party to United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 — Customary international law — Standard of proof — Evidence from contemporaneous and direct sources being more probative — Evidence prepared for purposes of litigation being less probative

International Court of Justice — Jurisdiction — Objection raised after 2016 judgment — Scope of the Court’s jurisdiction ratione temporis — Whether jurisdiction extending to claims relating to incidents occurring after 27 November 2013 — Articles XXXI and LVI of Pact of Bogotá, 1948 — Interpretation — Distinction between validity of title of jurisdiction and temporal scope of jurisdiction — Distinction between facts used to establish the existence of a dispute and facts over which Court’s jurisdiction could extend — Claims relating to incidents occurring after 27 November 2013 arising directly out of question which was subject matter of Nicaragua’s application — Connection between incidents occurring after 27 November 2013 and incidents over which Court having jurisdiction — Whether claims relating to incidents occurring after 27 November 2013 changing nature of dispute

Sea — Alleged interference by Colombia with Nicaraguan-flagged and authorized vessels conducting fishing and marine scientific research activities in Nicaragua’s exclusive economic zone — Colombia’s alleged authorization of fishing, marine scientific research and hydrocarbon exploration activities in Nicaragua’s exclusive economic zone — Nicaragua failing to discharge its burden of proof in relation to some of the incidents — Colombian vessels intending to assert Colombia’s maritime rights within Nicaragua’s exclusive economic zone — Colombia breaching Nicaragua’s exclusive economic zone rights under customary international law — Nicaragua failing to discharge its burden of proof in relation to claim that Colombia had granted hydrocarbon exploration permits — Consistency with customary international law of Colombia’s creation of an “integral contiguous zone” around the San Andrés Archipelago by Presidential Decree 1946 — Breadth of contiguous zone under customary international law — Powers under Presidential Decree 1946 — Powers as to security, marine environmental protection and protection of cultural heritage

Damages — Remedies — Responsibility of Colombia for violating Nicaragua’s exclusive economic zone rights in customary international law — Colombia having to cease its wrongful conduct immediately — Inconsistency of Colombia’s integral contiguous zone with customary international law — Whether Colombia having to bring provisions of Presidential Decree 1946 into conformity with customary international law — Rejection of Nicaragua’s request for compensation — Rejection of Nicaragua’s request for Court to remain seised of the case

Claims — Counterclaims — Colombia’s third and fourth counterclaims being declared admissible by order of 15 November 2017 — Third counterclaim — Whether Nicaragua having violated traditional fishing rights of the Raizales and other inhabitants of San Andrés Archipelago — Existence of a supposed customary right to artisanal fishing in areas now in Nicaragua’s exclusive economic zone — Evidence of such a right — Affidavits by fishermen — Uncertainty as to period over which this supposed customary right would have been exercised — Relevance of statements by Nicaraguan high-ranking officials recognizing this supposed customary right — Colombia failing to establish that the Raizales and other inhabitants of San Andrés Archipelago had a customary right to artisanal fishing in the areas now in Nicaragua’s exclusive economic zone — Fourth counterclaim — Consistency of Nicaragua’s straight baselines with customary international law — Preconditions for drawing straight baselines — Whether Nicaragua’s coast fulfilling such preconditions

Human rights — African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 1981 — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, 2000 — Principle that judicial proceedings be concluded within a reasonable time — Council of the European Union — Restrictive measures — Whether restrictive measures failing to take account of principle that judicial proceedings be concluded within a reasonable time — Presumption of innocence — Whether press release regarding restrictive measures violating presumption of innocence

Human rights — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, 2000 — Article 17 — Right to property — Council of the European Union — Restrictive measures — Whether restrictive measures infringing on right to property

International tribunals — Jurisdiction — African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 1981 — Whether African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights applicable in decision to impose restrictive measures within the European Union

Economics, trade and finance — Council of the European Union — Restrictive measures — Evidential requirements for imposing restrictive measures — Principle of good administration — Whether assessment for imposing restrictive measures deficient — Requirements for restrictive measures based on judicial proceedings in non-Member State — The law of the European Union

States — Concept of statehood — Whether “State” synonymous with “country” — Kosovo — Whether European Union Commission entitled to treat Kosovo as a “third country” — Whether doing so implied recognition of statehood

Recognition — Statehood — Implicit recognition — Whether EU Commission decision regarding cooperation with Kosovo providing for implicit recognition — Competence to recognize States within EU

Treaties — Interpretation — EU treaties — “Third country” — “Third State” — Meaning of country — Whether the term country limited to recognized States — International law — Whether recognizing concept of countries creating separate category of entity within international law

Treaties — Interpretation — Treaty on the European Union, 1992 — Article 17 — EU Regulation 2018/1971 — Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (“BEREC”) — Article 35 — Whether Article 17 TEU giving EU Commission power to create working arrangements within BEREC — Independence of BEREC — Whether EU Commission decision impinging BEREC independence — Whether EU Commission decision violating EU Regulation 2018/1971 — The law of the European Union

Aliens — Expulsion of aliens — States having right to expel aliens under international law — Applicants in transit zone seeking asylum in Hungary — Transit zone in Hungary on border with Serbia — Removal of applicants to Serbia — Removal of asylum seekers to third country without examination of asylum request on the merits — Duty of expelling State — Whether third country safe — Whether asylum procedures in third country adequate — Whether protecting against refoulement — Whether removal exposing asylum seekers to real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Duty of expelling State — Whether domestic remedies concerning expulsion ineffective — Whether conditions in transit zone amounting to inhuman or degrading treatment — Preliminary objections of respondent Government — Whether complaint concerning alleged lack of remedies outside six-month time limit — Objection to applicants’ victim status in relation to their removal to Serbia — Argument that respondent State acting in accordance with European Union law — Whether respondent State violating Article 3, Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3, and Article 5(1) and (4) of European Convention on Human Rights

Human rights — Prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment — Asylum seekers in transit zone — Transit zone in Hungary on border with Serbia — Applicants seeking asylum in Hungary — Applicants staying in transit zone in Hungary while awaiting outcome of asylum requests — Removal of applicants to Serbia — Removal of asylum seekers to third country without examination of asylum request on the merits — Duty of expelling State — Whether third country safe — Whether asylum procedures in third country adequate — Whether protecting against refoulement — Whether removal imputable to respondent State — Whether exposing applicants to real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Whether conditions in transit zone amounting to inhuman or degrading treatment — Whether respondent State violating Article 3 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950

Human rights — Right to liberty — Applicants in transit zone seeking asylum in Hungary — Transit zone in Hungary on border with Serbia — Applicants staying in transit zone in Hungary while awaiting outcome of asylum requests — Whether applicants’ confinement in transit zone constituting a de facto deprivation of liberty — Whether confinement in violation of Article 5(1) and (4) of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Whether Article 5 applicable — Whether applicants deprived of their liberty within meaning of Article 5 — Applicants’ individual situation and choices — Purpose of domestic legal regime applicable to transit zone — Nature and degree of actual restriction imposed on or experienced by applicants — Admissibility of applicants’ complaints under Article 5(1) and (4) of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950

Damages — Non-pecuniary damage — Finding of procedural violation of Article 3 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Article 41 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950

State succession — Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (“Soviet Union”) — Foreign property — Dissolution of a State — Whether the Russian Federation becoming sole owner of property abroad previously held by the Soviet Union — Co-ownership of foreign property of the former Soviet Union — Agreements regarding State succession with respect to foreign property — Soviet State-owned company — Property used by a shipping company from Ukraine

Sources of international law — Customary international law — Persistent objector — State practice — Treaties — Treaty on the Legal Succession in respect of the External Public Debt and Assets of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, 1991 — The law of Austria

Extradition — Hungary requesting extradition of appellant from United Kingdom — Extradition Act 2003 — Risk of ill-treatment — Prison conditions in Hungary — Diplomatic assurances — Sufficiency of assurance given by Hungarian Ministry of Justice to United Kingdom — Whether sufficient to dispel any real risk that appellant on extradition would be held in conditions violating his rights under Article 3 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Evaluation of assurances — Role of courts — Weight to be given to assurance of compliance by Hungary — Presumption that assurance could be relied upon — Whether evidence in relation to alleged breaches of assurances sufficiently cogent to rebut presumption — Fresh evidence — Whether decisive if admissible

Human rights — Prohibition of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950, Article 3 — Hungary requesting extradition of appellant from United Kingdom — Whether real risk that appellant would be subjected to ill-treatment contrary to Article 3 if extradited to Hungary — Prison conditions in Hungary — Diplomatic assurances — Sufficiency of assurance given by Hungarian Ministry of Justice to United Kingdom — Evaluation of assurances — Role of courts — Weight to be given to assurance of compliance by Hungary — Evidence — Presumption that assurance could be relied upon — Whether evidence in relation to alleged breaches of assurances sufficiently cogent to rebut presumption — Fresh evidence — Whether decisive if admissible — The law of the United Kingdom

Diplomatic relations — Diplomatic immunity — Diplomatic mission — Legal personality of diplomatic mission — Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964 — Recognition of diplomatic mission — One voice doctrine — Evidence of recognition of diplomatic mission — Section 4 certificate — Express recognition — Implied recognition — Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961 — Article 24 — Article 27 — Disclosure — Disclosure of documents of diplomatic mission

State immunity — Jurisdictional immunity — Relationship with diplomatic immunity — Documents — Orders for disclosure

Human rights — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Article 6 — Right to fair trial — Disclosure — Diplomatic immunity — Whether preventing disclosure on basis of diplomatic immunity violating Article 6

Recognition — Recognition of diplomatic missions — Evidence of recognition by government — Express recognition — Implied recognition — Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964 — The law of England

State immunity — Jurisdictional immunity — State Immunity Act 1978 — Section 5 — Claim for personal injury and damage to property — Whether Section 5 limited to acts undertaken jure gestionis — Whether Section 5 including acts undertaken jure imperii — Whether Section 5 limited to cases where all acts or omissions completed within United Kingdom — Whether Section 5 applying to composite acts — Whether electronic device manipulated within United Kingdom by electronic device abroad an act undertaken within the United Kingdom — Evidential requirements of Section 5 — The law of England

Diplomatic relations — Diplomats — Diplomats’ children — Serious concerns about welfare of children — Immunity — Immunity from civil proceedings — Whether diplomatic immunity preventing local authority from seeking interim care orders — Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964 — Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961 — Whether diplomatic immunity subject to prohibition on torture and inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment

Human rights — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Article 3 — Inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment — Human Rights Act 1998 — Diplomatic immunity — Relationship between prohibition on torture and inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment and diplomatic immunity — Whether diplomatic immunity preventing local authority from seeking interim care order — Whether failure to protect children a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Whether taking action to protect children a breach of Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961 — Declaration of incompatibility

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961 — Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964 — Diplomatic immunity — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989 — Serious concerns about welfare of diplomat’s children — Relationship between diplomatic immunity and human rights — Whether Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964 and Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961 incompatible with Human Rights Act 1998 and European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — The law of England

State immunity — Jurisdictional immunity — State Immunity Act 1978 — Section 5 — Claim for personal injury and damage to property — Whether Section 5 limited to cases where all acts or omissions completed within United Kingdom — Whether Section 5 applying to composite acts — Whether electronic device manipulated within United Kingdom by electronic device abroad an act undertaken within the United Kingdom — Evidential requirements of Section 5 — Psychiatric injury as personal injury — The law of England

Aliens — Claims for asylum in United Kingdom — Inadmissibility and removal decisions made by Secretary of State — Asylum seekers challenging decisions — Policy to send asylum seekers to Rwanda — Rwandan authorities to decide asylum claims — Successful claimants to be granted asylum in Rwanda — Secretary of State certifying Rwanda as safe third country — Secretary of State relying on assurances from Rwandan Government — Reliability of assurances — Whether Rwanda safe third country — Principle of non-refoulement — Protection against refoulement under international law and domestic law — Whether asylum seekers removed to Rwanda would have access to adequate asylum procedure — Whether asylum seekers protected against refoulement — Evidence — Assessment of evidence — Role of courts — Role of executive — Established legal principles — Test to be applied by English court on issue of refoulement — Whether Rwanda policy lawful

Aliens — Expulsion of aliens — States having right to expel aliens under international law — Right to expel limited by international obligations — Principle of non-refoulement — Treaties ratified by United Kingdom prohibiting refoulement –– Customary international law — Whether asylum seekers protected against refoulement under international law — Whether asylum seekers protected against refoulement under domestic law — Secretary of State relying on assurances from Rwandan Government — Reliability of assurances — Whether Rwanda safe third country — Test to be applied by English court on issue of refoulement — Whether policy to send asylum seekers to Rwanda for Rwandan authorities to decide claims lawful — Approach to evidence — Discerning correct approach from decisions of European Court of Human Rights — Role of domestic courts in assessing evidence — Evidence bearing on risk of refoulement — Evidence of United Nations Refugee Agency — United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — Treaties ratified by United Kingdom prohibiting refoulement — United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, 1951 and its 1967 Protocol — Article 33(1) — Interpretation of Article 33(1) by English courts — United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 1984 — United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Judgments of European Court of Human Rights — Relevance — Principle of non-refoulement — Whether forming part of customary international law — Whether principle of non-refoulement given effect in domestic law — Acts of Parliament protecting refugees against refoulement — Acts of Parliament giving effect to treaties — Secretary of State relying on assurances from Rwandan Government — Reliability of assurances — Whether Rwanda safe third country — Role of English courts in assessing evidence — Test to be applied by English court on issue of refoulement — Whether policy to send asylum seekers to Rwanda for Rwandan authorities to decide claims lawful — Whether Rwanda policy in violation of retained European Union law

Treaties — Interpretation — United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, 1951 and its 1967 Protocol — Article 33(1) — Interpretation of Article 33(1) by English courts — United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 1984 — United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Treaties ratified by United Kingdom prohibiting refoulement — Principle of non-refoulement — Obligations of State Parties — Effect of treaties in domestic law — Secretary of State relying on assurances from Rwandan Government — Reliability of assurances — Whether Rwanda safe third country — Test to be applied by English court on issue of refoulement — Whether policy to send asylum seekers to Rwanda for Rwandan authorities to decide claims lawful — The law of the United Kingdom