The High Court in London, where the case is being heard

Judges ought to reject a case by a Muslim who says his human rights have been ruptured in light of the fact that he can't erect a 4in raised marble edge around his dad's grave, chamber managers have said.
Atta Ul-Haq, a rehearsing Barelvi Muslim, needs to erect the edging to stop individuals strolling crosswise over Hafiz Qadri's grave in Streetly Cemetery in Walsall.
He says Islamic law prohibits individuals from venturing on graves and cases that the gathering's arrangement breaks his human appropriate to practice religion - a privilege revered in Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 
In any case, Walsall Council pioneers say they can't suit Mr Ul-Haq's desire without hurting the privileges of different Muslims. 
They say directions allow the 'mounding of graves' and mounding is the manner in which Muslims ordinarily repress individuals from strolling on graves. 
Supervisors say their methodology has been 'watchful, delicate and pleasing'. 
Two judges are breaking down the question at the High Court in London. 
Master Justice Singh and Mrs Justice Carr started thinking about lawful contention on Tuesday, and the conference is because of end on Wednesday. 
Mr Ul-Haq's legal advisors say the case could have suggestions for the Islamic people group. 
"He looks for a legal audit of the (council's) 'tenets and controls in regard of burial grounds and crematorium', by which it has and keeps on declining to allow him to erect a raised marble edging around his dad's grave," counselor Michael Fordham QC, who drives Mr Ul-Haq's lawful group, told made a decision in a composed case diagram. 
"The ask for is a result of a major religious conviction that the grave is hallowed and venturing on the grave is a profoundly hostile religiously disallowed act." 
Attorney Jonathan Auburn, who drives the committee's lawful group, said Mr Ul-Haq's case ought to be rejected. 
He said Mr Ul-Haq needed a standard change which would be inadmissible to other Muslim gatherings.
"(The council's) approach has been watchful, delicate, and pleasing," he stated, in a composed case layout.
"The one convenience which (it) has declined to make is the one which it is beyond the realm of imagination to expect to execute without hurting the privileges of different Muslims."