Lord Hoffmann conferred, "the United Kingdom is bound by the Convention, as a matter of international law, to accept the decisions of the ECHR on its interpretation. To reject such a decision would almost certainly put this country in breach of the international obligation which it accepted when it acceded to the Convention." The domestic court had to follow the precedent set by the Strasbourg court in the case of A v UK. This is a demonstration that the courts saw the judgments of the Strasbourg courts as superior and binding despite Parliament would have conferred through the use of control orders on detainees.
Furthermore, another area of tension was in the rise of counter-terrorism laws which breached the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR). In the notable case of Abu Qatada, the judges' vigorous movement to preserving human rights even in light of Parliament's attempt to remove the terrorist suspect out of the UK was brought to the forefront. The question to the Lords was not only whether deportation of the applicants would breach Article 3, but whether Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC)'s decision that they would not be at risk of article 3 treatments in the receiving countries was unreasonable. The judges maintained their stance on this significant breach unless it could be proved that a breach of these rights would not occur in the receiving country. Through the balance of power, the judges gave SIAC the opportunity to get into contact with the officials of Jordan in order for this act of deportation to be compatible with Convention rights. In the spirit of the margin of appreciation, the Lords' discretion was exercised to the extent where they found that the appellant could be deported since the SIAC conclusions on two key points were not irrational. This is an attestation of the high standards Parliament has to meet in order for their decision to be compatible with human rights.