Q What is the Government going to ask the court at today's hearing? A To clarify the part of its judgment which says courts can, in some cases, rule acts of the National People's Congress invalid if they breach the Basic Law. Q Does the court have the power to clarify the judgment now the right of abode case has finished? A This will be the first matter for the judges to decide today. Q Is there any legal precedent for an application of this kind? A There does not appear to be. Q On what basis, then, could the Government make the application? A There have been suggestions it may use, as support, a recent decision by Britain's House of Lords to reconsider a case involving former Chilean dictator General Pinochet. Q What happened in that case? A The court decided to hear the case again because of a risk one of the judges had been biased when the original ruling was given. Q How could that be applied to the right of abode case? A The two cases involve different situations. But the House of Lords said in the Pinochet appeal that, in certain circumstances, it has an unrestricted power to re-open a case. Q Is the Government asking the court to overturn or change its judgment? A It says it is not. Q Even so, could the court change its mind and say it got the ruling wrong? A This would appear to be very unlikely in the circumstances of the case. Q So, what might the court decide to do? A It might provide further explanation of what it meant in the eight pages of the judgment in question. Q Could this affect the rights given to the court by mainland migrants? A The Government seems to have made it clear that the interests of the migrants who took part in the case will not be affected by today's hearing. Q What about other migrants? A Again, it is unlikely that their rights will be affected because the application only concerns the power of the court to declare National People's Congress decisions invalid. Q Will the migrants involved in the case have lawyers to represent them at the hearing today? A Yes. Q What are they likely to say? A They may resist the application, arguing there is no legal authority for it. They may say the judgment does not need clarifying.