INTRODUCTION 1. The Institute on Statelessness and Inclusion and the International Commission of Jurists (the ‘interveners’) make these submissions pursuant to the leave to intervene granted by the President of the Section on 20 March 2026 under Rule 44 § 3 of the Rules of Court. 2. These submissions draw on the legal expertise of both interveners and rely on the Principles on Deprivation of Nationality as a National Security Measure.1 3. Part 1 below outlines the interveners’ observations on the Contracting Parties’ jurisdiction within the meaning of Article 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (‘the Convention’). 4. Part 2 below sets out the interveners’ submissions on matters relevant to the Court’s determination of questions 2, 3 and 4, which the Court put to the parties when it communicated the application to the Respondent State’s authorities. PART 1: OBSERVATIONS ON JURISDICTION WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 1 OF THE CONVENTION 5. For the purposes of well-founded complaints of Article 4 violations – just as it would be the case for well-founded complaints of violations of other non-derogable Convention rights, such as Articles 2 and 3 – the concerned individual’s presence at all material times within the Contracting Party’s territory is not the sole feature capable of establishing jurisdiction within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention,2 that is, the obligation to respect the human rights guaranteed under the Convention. 6. With respect to Article 4 complaints arising from the trafficking of an individual across borders, an essential feature establishing whether the person came within a State’s Article 1 jurisdiction at all material times is whether, but for that State’s actions or omissions in violation of its Convention obligations and other international law obligations,3 the individual concerned would or would not have an arguable case of Article 4 violations. 7. Such a case would be arguable, for example, when – notwithstanding the Contracting Party’s actual or constructive knowledge of the individual concerned being exposed to a real risk of trafficking from their own country – that Contracting Party took no reasonable steps pursuant to its Convention obligations to protect the individual concerned from being trafficked from their country across borders. Such a failure, in breach of its protective duty under, inter alia, Article 4 of the Convention, would be determinative in the real risk of trafficking eventuating for the individual concerned and, in turn, would thus suffice to establish that Contracting Party’s jurisdiction within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention. 8. Hence, with respect to an individual exposed to a known, real risk of cross-border trafficking, the linchpin to establishing the Article 1 jurisdiction of the Contracting Party for the purposes of that person’s Article 4 complaints is the Contracting Party’s failure to take all reasonable measures to protect that person 1 Institute on Statelessness and Inclusion, Principles on Deprivation of Nationality as a National Security Measure (March 2020). The Principles consolidate international law and legal standards under the UN Charter, treaty law, customary international law, general principles of law, judicial decisions and legal scholarship, and regional and national law and practice. They restate and reflect the international law obligations of States when taking or considering taking steps to deprive nationality as a national security measure. The Principles were developed with input from more than 60 leading international law experts. Over 110 experts and organisations, including leading academics, UN Special Rapporteurs and Treaty Body members, litigators, judges, parliamentarians and diplomats have endorsed them. ISI facilitated the drafting process, to which ICJ contributed. 2 Loizidou v. Turkey, (Preliminary Objections), application no. 15318/89), Judgment 23 March 1995, “60. The question before the Court is whether its competence to examine the applicant’s complaints is excluded on the grounds that they concern matters which cannot fall within the "jurisdiction" of the respondent Government. 61. [….] The Court’s enquiry is limited to determining whether the matters complained of by the applicant are capable of falling within the "jurisdiction" of Turkey even though they occur outside her national territory. 62. In this respect the Court recalls that, although Article 1 (art. 1) sets limits on the reach of the Convention, the concept of "jurisdiction" under this provision is not restricted to the national territory of the High Contracting Parties. According to its established case-law, for example, the Court has held that the extradition or expulsion of a person by a Contracting State may give rise to an issue under Article 3 (art. 3), and hence engage the responsibility of that State under the Convention (see the Soering v. the United Kingdom judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161, pp. 35-36, para. 91; the Cruz Varas and Others v. Sweden judgment of 20 March 1991, Series A no. 201, p. 28, paras. 69 and 70, and the Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 30 October 1991, Series A no. 215, p. 34, para. 103). In addition, the responsibility of Contracting Parties can be involved because of acts of their authorities, whether performed within or outside national boundaries, which produce effects outside their own territory (see the Drozd and Janousek v. France and Spain judgment of 26 June 1992, Series A no. 240, p. 29, para. 91).” 3 Such as, for example, those arising under the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings. 1