International Court of Justice — Provisional measures — Alleged violations of Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 1948 — Prima facie jurisdiction — Whether a dispute between the Parties — Exchanges in multilateral fora — Whether Israel’s acts falling within scope of Genocide Convention — Whether Israel’s acts being governed by international humanitarian law — Standing — Obligations erga omnes partes — Plausibility — Whether South Africa’s claimed rights existing under international law — Whether Israel’s acts carried out with requisite intent — Link — Real and imminent risk of irreparable prejudice — Vulnerability of civilians — Reports of United Nations agencies on Gaza — Whether steps taken by Israel removing risk of irreparable prejudice — Measures to be adopted — Power to indicate measures different in whole or in part from those requested — Binding character of measures indicated

International Court of Justice — Modification of provisional measures — Whether there being change in the situation — Whether change in the situation justifying modification of provisional measures — Prima facie jurisdiction affirmed — Plausibility affirmed — Real and imminent risk of irreparable prejudice — Starvation of civilians — Provision of humanitarian assistance — Whether Israel doing enough to prevent irreparable prejudice — Measures to be adopted — Power to indicate measures different in whole or in part from those requested — Binding character of measures indicated

International Court of Justice — Modification of provisional measures — Whether there being change in the situation — Whether change in the situation justifying modification of provisional measures — Whether military incursion into Rafah being a change in the situation — Prima facie jurisdiction affirmed — Plausibility affirmed — Real and imminent risk of irreparable prejudice — Power to indicate measures different in whole or in part from those requested — Whether provisional measures already indicated covering the situation in Rafah — Binding character of measures indicated

Human rights –– Self-determination –– Whether the right to self-determination raising extraterritorial obligations for States –– Western Sahara –– Admission of Morocco to the African Union –– Whether voting for Morocco’s admission into the African Union violating the obligations of Member States regarding self-determination in Western Sahara

Jurisdiction — Settlement — Whether the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights could interpret the Constitutive Act, 2000 — Whether the Constitutive Act was a human rights instrument — Whether the Court could decide a matter relating to African Union Member States’ admission — Temporal jurisdiction exception for continuous rights violations — Domestic remedies exception for serious and massive rights violations — Whether direct link not required for applicants –– Whether African Union Member States distinct from the Assembly of Heads of States and Governments

Territory — Occupation –– Non-intervention — Whether the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights having jurisdiction to determine territorial disputes –– Western Sahara

Human rights — Treaties — Scope of applications — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Article 1 — Jurisdiction — Russian Federation exercising extraterritorial jurisdiction over Crimea on account of “effective control” — Whether administrative practices complained of in Application No 38334/18 taking place within jurisdiction of Russian Federation — Whether Court having jurisdiction ratione temporis in view of fact respondent State no longer member of Council of Europe and, as from 16 September 2022, no longer a Contracting Party to Convention — Whether Court having jurisdiction ratione materiae — Whether Court having jurisdiction under Article 19 of Convention — Admissibility — Compliance with six-month time-limit in accordance with Article 35(1) of Convention — Evidential threshold — Whether Russian Federation adopting administrative practice of human rights violations in Crimea — Whether Russian Federation violating Articles 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14 and 18 of Convention, and Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No 1 and Article 2 of Protocol No 4 to Convention

Treaties — Interpretation — Application — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Purpose of High Contracting Parties in concluding Convention — Relevance of international humanitarian law rules in interpreting Convention — Article 31(3)(c) of Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969 — Convention requirements of “lawfulness” — Article 1 of Convention — Jurisdiction — Russian Federation’s armed attack on Ukraine of 24 February 2022 — Russian Federation ceasing to be Party to Convention on 16 September 2022 — Effect — Whether alleged violation falling within Court’s jurisdiction under Article 19 of Convention — Whether administrative practice contrary to Convention existing in circumstances of case

International tribunals — European Court of Human Rights — Jurisdiction — Scope of case — With respect to Application No 20958/14 — With respect to Application No 3834/18 — Jurisdiction ratione temporis of the Court — Russian Federation’s armed attack on Ukraine of 24 February 2022 — Russian Federation ceasing to be member of Council of Europe — Russian Federation ceasing to be Party to Convention on 16 September 2022 and to have judge on the Court — Consequences — Whether Court retaining jurisdiction — Whether alleged violation falling within Court’s jurisdiction under Article 19 of Convention — Whether administrative practice contrary to Convention existing in circumstances of case

Evidence before international courts and tribunals — European Court of Human Rights — Assessment of evidence — Burden of proof — Drawing of inferences — Consequences of respondent Government’s failure to participate in proceedings — Whether cessation of Contracting Party’s membership of Council of Europe releasing that party from duty to co-operate with bodies of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Standard of proof — In relation to question of jurisdiction — As to examination of the merits of allegations of administrative practice — Difficulties in establishing facts in inter-State case such as this — Whether respondent Government failing to comply with its obligations under Article 38 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950

War and armed conflict — Humanitarian law — Occupied territory — Relationship to human rights law — Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, 1949 — Additional Protocol I, 1977 — Customary international humanitarian law

Human rights — Right to life — Nature of right — Whether right absolute — Whether right to life irreducible under any circumstances — Death penalty in Indonesia — Capital punishment provisions in Narcotics Law 1997 (No 22) — Constitutionality of provisions — Petitioners seeking review of Narcotics Law — Legal standing of petitioners to file petition for review — Legal standing of foreign citizens — Whether Articles 80, 81 and 82 of Narcotics Law contrary to Articles 28A and 28I(1) of Constitution of Indonesia 1945

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — Human rights treaties — Provisions concerning capital punishment in international human rights instruments — Determining whether right to life having limitations — International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966, Article 6 — Additional Protocols I and II to 1949 Geneva Conventions — Rome Statute of International Criminal Court 1998, Article 80 — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950, Article 2(2) and its Protocol No 6 concerning the Abolition of the Death Penalty, 1983, Article 2 — American Convention on Human Rights, 1969, Article 4 — Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948, Article 29(2) — Indonesian philosophy of punishment — Human rights in Indonesia’s constitutional history — Constitution of Indonesia 1945 — Cairo Declaration of Islamic Rights 1990, Article 8(a) — Sharia law — Right to life — Whether right to life absolute — Narcotics Law 1997 (No 22) containing capital punishment provisions — Constitutionality of capital punishment provisions — Whether Indonesia violating international obligations in treaties by maintaining capital punishment provisions in its national law — Whether Articles 80, 81 and 82 of Narcotics Law contrary to Articles 28A and 28I(1) of Constitution of Indonesia 1945

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — Human rights treaties — Interpretation — Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969 — International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966, Article 6(2) — Application of capital punishment to most serious crimes in accordance with law in force at time of commission of crime — United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, 1988 international law in force at time — Narcotics Law 1997 (No 22) implementing that Convention — Whether criminal acts subject to capital punishment in Narcotics Law belonging to category of most serious crimes in accordance with the law in force at time of commission of the crimes — Whether national law provisions having fundamental importance — Whether Indonesia violating international law obligations by maintaining capital punishment provisions in its national law — Whether Articles 80, 81 and 82 of Narcotics Law contrary to Articles 28A and 28I(1) of Constitution of Indonesia 1945 — The law of Indonesia

Nationality — Acquisition and loss of nationality — Requirements for acquiring or losing Thai nationality — Whether registration in a civil registration database necessary — Whether Thai nationals having right not to be deported from or prohibited from entering Thailand — Nature of rights — Whether absolute — Whether fundamental — Protection of Thai nationals under Constitution and laws of Thailand — Whether permissible to deport or refuse entry to Thai national

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — Application — Human rights treaties — Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 — International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 — Freedom of movement and residence — Right to leave and return to one’s own country — Prohibition of deportation — Constitution and laws of Thailand — Whether permissible to deport or refuse entry to Thai national — The law of Thailand