Strategic litigation, searchable.

CASE OF ALHOWAIS v. HUNGARY (no. 59435/17)

Whether Hungary failed to comply with its obligations under the right to life and the prohibition of torture by not conducting an effective investigation and by not protecting the applicant’s right to life.

CASE OF KHASANOV AND RAKHMANOV v. RUSSIA (no. 28492/15)

Whether the applicants' extradition to Kyrgyzstan would expose them to a real risk of treatment contrary to the prohibition of torture under Article 3.

CASE OF O.M. AND D.S. v. UKRAINE (no. 18603/12)

Whether the applicants' removal to Kyrgyzstan would breach the prohibition of torture and whether the authorities unlawfully hindered their right to bring an individual application.

CASE OF A.I. AND OTHERS v. POLAND (no. 39028/17)

Whether Poland fulfilled its obligation to comply with final judgments by taking measures to avoid further violations and by paying the amounts awarded in the judgment.

CASE OF A.A. AND OTHERS v. NORTH MACEDONIA (no. 55798/16)

Whether the applicants' removal from North Macedonia constituted a collective expulsion prohibited by the Convention and whether they had an effective remedy to challenge that measure.

CASE OF H.F. AND OTHERS v. FRANCE (no. 24384/19)

Whether the French authorities’ refusal to allow the applicants, who are French nationals, to return to France violated their right not to be expelled from their own country under Article 3 of Protocol No. 4.

CASE OF W.A. AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY (no. 64050/16)

Whether the applicants' expulsion to Serbia would expose them to a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3.

CASE OF S.H. v. MALTA (no. 37241/21)

Whether the applicant's proposed expulsion to Bangladesh would expose him to a real risk of torture and deprive him of an effective remedy, contrary to the prohibition of torture and the right to an effective remedy.

Victorian Youth Justice Strategy 2022-2030

CASE OF A.B. AND OTHERS v. POLAND (no. 42907/17)

Whether the applicants' removal to Belarus would expose them to treatment contrary to the prohibition of torture, and whether the removal constituted a collective expulsion of aliens in breach of the Protocol.

CASE OF T.Z. AND OTHERS v. POLAND (no. 41764/17)

Whether Poland has taken effective measures to prevent further violations of the applicants' rights following the Court's earlier finding of a violation.

Baker v The Queen (2022) NTCCA

Cultural considerations in youth sentencing

Olabud Doogethu Justice Reinvestment (Halls Creek, WA)

Justice reinvestment in remote WA Aboriginal community

CASE OF SAVRAN v. DENMARK (no. 57467/15)

Whether expelling the applicant to Turkey would breach the prohibition of torture or the right to private and family life.

CASE OF SHAHZAD v. HUNGARY (no. 12625/17)

Whether the applicant’s removal by Hungary violated the prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens and denied him an effective remedy.

CASE OF M.D. AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (no. 71321/17)

Whether the applicants' rights to life and prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment would be violated if they were expelled to Syria.

CASE OF M.L. AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (no. 25079/19)

Whether the applicants' pre‑expulsion detention was lawful and whether they had an adequate mechanism to challenge its lawfulness under the right to liberty and security.

CASE OF M.H. AND OTHERS v. CROATIA (no. 15670/18)

Whether the applicants' rights to life, protection from torture, liberty, freedom from collective expulsion, and access to the Court were violated.

East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Merrick Garland

Challenge to the Asylum Eligibility and Procedural Modifications rule

Quintanilla v. Garland

Case addressing the principle that no State shall expel, return (refouler) or extradite a person to another State where they face persecution.