1.

The State of Pafiana had violated the human rights of the citizens of
Indiana and kudritan.

Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, regardless of race, sex,
nationality, ethnicity, language, religion, or any other status. Human rights
include the right to life and liberty1, freedom from slavery and torture2,
freedom of opinion and expression, the right to work and education, and
many more. Everyone is entitled to these rights, without discrimination.3

Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political,

jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person
belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other
limitation of sovereignty.4

Instance of terrorism in the form of its National Airliner being hijacked

during December 19995. In return for the lives of those on the aircraft, the
Indiana government was forced to comply with the demand of the militants
of releasing three leaders lodged in the Indiana prisons. This act of releasing
the prisoners left the government in a fix due to the Indiana prisons.
Some of the attacks on the Indiana are the attacks on the Pink Fort 6, the
Parliament in the national capital7, the kombal attacks and many more which
occurred in the years that followed. Some of the instances are the attacks on
the Pink Fort, the Parliaments in the national capital, the kombai attacks and
many more which occurred in the years.

On the evening of 24th October 2018, the intelligence of Indiana was able to
intercept an encrypted message regarding a possible attack on an Army
camp in the Kudritan region and its surrounding area. Before Indiana army
could heighten their virgil, on the 25th October the army camp at

1
Article 3 of Universal Declaration of Human rights(UDHR) 1948
2
Article 4 of Universal Declaration of Human rights(UDHR) 1948
3
https://www.un.org/en/sections/issues-depth/human-rights/
4
Article 2 of Universal Declaration of Human rights(UDHR) 1948
5
https://www.thecitizen.in/index.php/en/newsdetail/index/2/4275/the-real-story-kandahar-hijacking-not-a-goof-
up-but-a-major-cover-up
6
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/red-fort-attack-case-let-suspect-accused-of-
taking-funds-from-pak-gets-bail/articleshow/62820563.cms
7
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/dec/14/kashmir.india
 Jahanumbad in Kudritan region situated within the radius of 7 Kms from the
LOC was attacked by a group of infiltrators from Pafiana and a gun battle
ensued resulting in loss of lives of about 10 civilians and destruction of the
army camp.

edition.cnn.com
Ten Pafiani men associated with the terror group lashkar-e-Tayyiba stormed
buildings in Mumbai, Killing 164 people. Nine of the gunmen were killed during
the attacks, one suvivied. Mohammed Ajmal Kasab, the lone survivig gunman, was
executed in November 2012.8

November 25, 2009

Seven men are charged in Pafiana in connection with the attacks, includig the
alleged mastermind, Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi.
January 29, 2017 Hafiz Mohammed Saeed, the leader of a group associated with
Lashkar-e-Tayyiba, is placed under house arrest in Pakistan for his suspected role
in the Mumbai attacks.
We further sumbit that Pafiana has violated the following agreements:
a) Simla Agreement9
b) Tashkent Agreement10

Pakistan-Administered Kashmir comprises two administrative regions: Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK)
and Gilgit-Baltistan (G-B). In 1948, UNCIP acknowledged the existence of “local authorities” (as distinct
from the Government of Pakistan) on the Pakistani side of the ceasefire line in Jammu and Kashmir.
These two administrative regions have remained distinct “territories” since then and have not been

8
Edition.cnn.com
9
https://mea.gov.in/in-focus-article.htm?19005/Simla+Agreement+July+2+1972
10
https://mea.gov.in/bilateral-documents.htm?dtl/5993/Tashkent+Declaration
formally incorporated into Pakistan as they are considered to be part of the disputed state of Jammu and
Kashmir11
According to an international NGO, while AJK has the “trappings of a sovereign state, it is only
nominally independent.”12 It observed “the AJK Council, headed by Pakistan’s prime minister, formally
has the power to override laws passed by AJK’s elected legislature, and the AJK judiciary cannot review
its decisions. However, though the Council is ostensibly all-powerful, it has very little authority in
practice, because the military exercises almost complete control over the territory.” 13 Additional work
may be needed to verify this allegation
Known as the Northern Areas until 2009, Gilgit-Baltistan (G-B) is another part of the former princely
state of Jammu and Kashmir, which was on the Pakistani side of the Line of Control in 1949. Under the
1949 Karachi Agreement between the Government of Pakistan and representatives of AJK and the All
Jammu and Kashmir Muslim Conference, Pakistan’s administrative control over the Northern Areas was
ratified.14 However, the Northern Areas was neither incorporated into Pakistan, nor was it given notional
autonomy like AJK. In 1999, the Supreme Court of Pakistan directed Islamabad to extend fundamental
freedoms to the Northern Areas within six months.15 The EU Parliament Rapporteur’s report in August
2007 identified “a total absence of constitutional identity or civil rights… people are kept in poverty,
illiteracy and backwardness.”16 When Pakistani authorities promulgated the GilgitBaltistan Empowerment
and Self-Governance Order 2009,17 the Government of Pakistan reportedly argued that this would
establish full internal autonomy.18

Restrictions on the rights to freedoms of expression and association

The interim constitution of AJK has placed several restrictions on anyone criticizing AJK’s accession to
Pakistan,19 in contravention to international standards on the rights to freedoms of expression and opinion,
assembly and association. It explicitly states, “[N]o person or political party in Azad Jammu and Kashmir

11
“When the people of the State of Jammu and Kashmir decide to accede to Pakistan, the relationship between
Pakistan and that State shall be determined in accordance with the wishes of the people of that State.”
Constitution of Pakistan, Article 257.
12
ICG, “Step towards peace: Putting Kashmiris first”, 3 June 2010, p. 7. Available from
https://d2071andvip0wj.cloudfront.net/b106-steps-towards-peace-putting-kashmiris-first.pdf.
13
ICG, “Pakistan’s relations with India: Beyond Kashmir”, 3 May 2012, p. 19. Available from
https://www.crisisgroup.org/asia/south-asia/pakistan/pakistan-s-relations-india-beyond-kashmir.
14
Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP), “Gilgit-Baltistan: Aspirations of identity, integration and
autonomy”, March 2017. Available from http://hrcp-web.org/publication/wpcontent/uploads/2017/04/Gilgit-
Baltistan-report-Aspirations-for-identity-integration-autonomy.pdf
15
Freedom House, “Freedom in the World 2009”, ‘Pakistani Kashmir’. Available from
https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2009/pakistani-kashmir.
16
European Parliament, “Report on Kashmir: Present Situation and Future Prospects”, p.21/para. 20.
17
Pakistan, Ministry of Kashmir Affairs and Northern Areas, Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and SelfGovernance)
Order 2009, 9 September 2009. Available from http://gbla.gov.pk/page/governanceorder
18
Freedom House, “Freedom in the world 2010”, ‘Pakistani Kashmir’. Available from
https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2010/pakistani-kashmir.
19
Article 7(2), Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974. Available from
http://www.ajkassembly.gok.pk/AJK_Interim_Constitution_Act_1974.pdf.
shall be permitted to propagate against or take part in activities prejudicial or detrimental to the ideology
of the State’s accession to Pakistan.” 340 The AJK electoral law expands on this, disqualifying anyone
running for elected office for propagating any opinion or acting contrary to “the ideology of the State’s
accession to Pakistan.”20 No person can be appointed to a government position unless they take an oath of
office, which includes that they “will remain loyal to the country and the cause of accession of the state of
Jammu & Kashmir to Pakistan.”342
According to international NGOs, the ban on political parties that do not support the eventual accession
of Jammu and Kashmir to Pakistan has in effect silenced all kinds of dissent, including demands for
greater transparency and accountability.21 Moreover, they allege that those who protest Pakistan’s
position face threats and travel bans, and are subject to imprisonment and torture.

The Gilgit-Baltistan Empowerment and Self-Governance Order 2009 imposes similar restrictions on
freedom of expression and association of people under its jurisdiction. Article 9(2) under the fundamental
rights section states, “No person or political party in the area comprising Gilgit-Baltistan shall propagate
against, or take part in activities prejudicial or detrimental to the ideology of Pakistan.”22
According to international NGOs, in both AJK and G-B, pro-independence political parties and activists
are not allowed to participate in the political process,23 while political leaders who are seen to be opposing
Pakistani rule have been subject to surveillance, harassment, and even imprisonment.350
The Human Rights Committee has noted that the realization of right to selfdetermination is “an essential
condition for the effective guarantee and observance of individual human rights and for the promotion
and strengthening of those rights”.24
According to international human rights groups, media houses in AJK and G-B are known to practice
self-censorship to avoid harassment by state authorities.357 As the media is dependent on official
advertisements for revenue, authorities have allegedly discontinued advertisements when media houses
were deemed too critical.358

2. The State of Pafiana had violated the customary international law and
UN resolution by aiding the militants to intrude into the State of
Indiana.
20
Azad Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly Ordonnance, 1970, p. 41, cited in HRW 2006.
21
ICG, “Step towards peace: Putting Kashmiris first”, p. 7-8. Freedom House, “Freedom in the world 2018”,
‘Pakistani Kashmir’. Available from https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedomworld/2018/pakistani-kashmir.
22
Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order 2009, Article 9(2).
23
ICG, “Step towards peace: Putting Kashmiris first”, p. 7-8. Freedom House, “Freedom in the World 2016”. HRW,
“With friends like these”, pp. 32-39.
24
Human Rights Committee, CCPR General Comment No. 12: Article 1 (The right to selfdetermination), The Right
to Self-determination of Peoples, 13 March 1984, para 1. 352 Freedom House, “Freedom in the World 2016”.
HRW, “With friends like these”, 2006, p. 32.
Pakistan has shut down key terror infrastructure, including over a dozen training
camps across the line of control, according to sources, ahead of anti-terror
watchdog Financial Action Task Force’s (FATF’s) plenary meeting next week
where it faces the possibility for non-compliance.
13 terror training camps of the Lashkar-e-Toiba, Jaish-e-Mohammed and Hizbul
Mujahideen in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir(PoK) have been shut down. The
shutdown seems to have had an early impact on cross-borser terrorism with army
sources saying that infiltraions has ebbed.

The Jem, which claimed responsibilty for the Pulwama attack and saw most of its
leadership in kashmir being wiped out in operations since then, has lost its Shawai
Nala camp in Muzaffarbad and the Kalch Samhanj and Garhon Jundla camps in
Mirpur according sources25.
On 14 February 2019, a suicide terror attack was conducted by Pak based terror
organisation Jaish-e-Mohammad, leading to the martydom of 40 brave jawans of
the CRPF. JeM has been active in Pakistan for the last two decades, and is led by
MASOOD AZHAR with its headquarters in Bahawalpur.
This organisation, which is proscribed by the UN, has been responsible of a series
of terrorist attacks including on the Indian Parliament in December 2001 and the
Pathankot airbase in January 2016.
Information regarding the location of training camps in Pakistan and PoK has been
provided to Pakistan from time to time. Pakistan, however, denies their existence.
The existence of such massive training facilities capable of training hundreds of
jihaids could not have functioned without the knowledge of Pakistan authorities.
In an intelligence led operation in the early hours of today, India struck the biggest
training camp of JeM in Balakot. In this operation, a very large number of JeM
terrorists, trainers, senior commanders and group of jihadis who were being trained
for fidayeen action were eliminated. This facility at Balakot was headed by
MAULANA YOUSUF AZHAR (alias USTAD GHOURI), the brother in law of
MASOOD AZHAR, Chief of JeM.

25
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/action-on-let-jaish-e-mohd-hizbul-pakistan-shuts-13-
camps-across-loc-ahead-of-anti-terror-bodys-plenary/articleshow/69718715.cms
The Government of Pakistan had made a solemn commitment in January 2004 not
to allow its soil or territory under its control to be used for terrorism against India.
We expect that Pakistan lives up to its public commitment and takes follow up
actions to dismantle all JeM and other camps and hold the terrosits accountable for
actions26

In response to a question on the floor of Parliament, the Minister of External

Affairs said:27
As per the available information, Pakistan is constructing six dams on the Indus
river in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir with assistance committed to those projects by
China.
India has a clear and consistent position that these territories are illegally occupied
by Pakistan and that any collaborative activity there is in violation of India”s
soverignity and territorial integrity.
Accordingly, we have made demaches to both Pakistan and China conveying the
position. Goverenment continues to maintain this postiton.28
In a statement, the Minsitry of External Affairs said:29
Pakistan Deputy High Commisiion Syed Haider Shah was summoned today amd a
strong protest was lodged at the death of three Indian minor children in
unprovoked ceasefir violation by the Pakistan forces in the Poonch sector on 2 nd
Octber 2017.
It was conveyed that such deliberate targeting of civilians was not acceptable and
was against humanitarian norms and practices.
Strong concern was also expressed at continued unprovoked firing by Pakistan
forces across the Line of Control and the International Boundary in violation of the

26
https://www.mea.gov.in/press-
releases.htm?dtl/31091/Statement_by_Foreign_Secretary_on_26_February_2019_on_the_Strike_on_JeM_trainin
g_camp_at_Balakot
27
Response of the Minister of External Affairs to Unstarred Question Number 779 in the Lok Sabha (20 Dec 2017)
<http://mea.gov.in//lok-sabha.htm?dtl/29198/QUESTION_NO779_DAM_ON_SINDHU_RIVER>
28
For other similar statements on this issue, see: Indian right of reply at the Third Committee of the 72 nd session of
the United Nations General Assembly (01 Oct 2017) <hhtp://www.pminewyork.org//>
29
2003 Ceasefire Understanding such violations have been carried out by Pakistan
forces so far during 2017.

In a press release, the Ministry of Defence said:30

Army foiled a major infiltratiom arttempt by the terrorists along the Line of
Control (LC) in Uri sector in Baramulla district. The terrorists, who tried to
infilterate on night of 04-05 Nov by exploiting difficult terrain conditions along LC
were intercepted by the alert Army troops on duty close to LC. The terrorists
thereafter resorted to indiscriminate firing and in the ensuing gun battle two
terrorist were killed… Deliberate search operation was launched, in areas close to
the Line of Control, during which the bodies of slain terrorists were recovered by
the troops. Army also recovered few weapons and warlike stores. ‘This is the
fourth infiltration attempt foiled in Uri sector in last five months.
Exercising India’s right of reply at the Third Committee during the 72 nd session of
the United Nation General Assembly, an Indian representative said:31
Pakistan is a country whole role as an epicenter and safe haven for terrorists needs
no introduction. Not only the people of India, but our region and beyond have to
daily struggle with brutalities inflicted by terrorists and ideologies emanating from
Pakistan32
During a media briefing, the offfiial spokesperson for the Ministry of External
Affair said:

30
Press Information Bureau Release ID Number 1508301 (05 Nov 2017)
<http://pib.nic.in/PressReleaseDETAIL.ASPX?prid=1508301>
31
Indian right of reply at the Thid Committerr of 72 nd session of the United Nations General Assembly (01 Oct
2017)
<https://www.pminewyork.org/statementgeneral?id=eyJpdil6lmVNTCtsU0l3VWZmVmVmN0FYR3UxN0FYR3UxN0E
9PSIsInZbbHVlljoiYpkTGYSkRBTTBXZGNSSGZPbHByUT09liwibWFjljoiMWMxN2ZhZhZTViNDA0ZDlmM2Q4NjZW3MzI
0YjFkNThiM2Y4ZjMxMml3ZGEyMWRhYTVmjdmZDIzZtBkZtIyNVJ9>
32
For other similar statements on this issue, see: English Translation of Press Statement by External Affairs
Minister during visit of US Secretatry of State to India (25 Oct 2017) <http://mea.gov.in/Speeches-
statements.htm?dtl/29052/English_Translation_of_Press_Statement_by_External_Affairs_Minister_during_visit_o
f_US_Secretary_of_State_to_India_October_25_2017> : Statement by M.J. Akbar; Minister of State for Extrnal
Affairs at the 7th Ministerial Conerence of the Heart of Asia – Istanbul Process in Baku, Azerbajjan (01 Dec 2017)
<http://mea.gov.in/Speeches-
Statements.htm?dtl/29142/Statement_by_M_J_Akbar_Minister_of_State_for_External_Affairs_at_the_7th_Minis
terial_Conderence_of_the_Heart_of_Asia_Istanbul_Process_in_Baku_Azerbai>
Hafiz Saeed is an internationally proscribed terrorist. He is the masteredmind and
the prime mover of the Mumbai terror attack. Many a things are ging on there,
sometime they say that they will be launching a poliicall party, sometimes they say
they will appeal to UN for delisting. I think the whole world knows his real face
and hence we have to tell them again and again that he is listed terrorist and
Pakistan should take necessary steps unde International law in such cases and we
have been saying this to Pakistan time and again…Pakistan is under obligation to
take steps under international law aginst Hafiz Saeed. If the listing happens by UN
then there are certain requirements which a country has to fulfil…Our only
demand is that Pakistan should follow international rule and take appropriate
action against Hafiz Saeed.33

In a statement at the Third Committee at the 72nd session of the United Nations
General Assembly, an Indian representative said:34
India recognizes the primacy of national responsibility and efforts in the realization
of human rights can be best pursued through dialogue and cooperation. Human
rights should be addressed in a fair and equal manner and objectively, respect for
national sovereignity and territorial intergrity, non-interference in the internal
affairs of States, non-selectively and transparency as the guilding principles. We
firmly believe that all State Parties must make all efforts to fulfill their treaty
obligations. The emphasis of the Human Rights Council and the Treaty bodies;and
Special Procedures and OHCHR should not be confrontational but focus on
achieving the desired results through dialogue and capacity building.

33
For other similar statements on this issue, see: Trasnscript of Weekly Media Briiefing by Official Spokeperson
(03 Nov 2017) <http://mea.gov.in/media-briefing-
htm?dtl/29090/Transcrip_of_Weekly_Media_Briefing_by_Official_Spokesprson_November_03_2017> ; Transcript
of Weekly Media Briefing by Official Spokeperson (23 Nov 2017) <http://mea.gov.in/media-
briefing.htm?dtl/29133/Transcript_of_Weekly_Media_Briefing_by_Official_Spokeperson_November_23_2017>
34
Indian statement on agenda item 72(a&d): ‘implementation of human rights instruments comprehensive
implementation of and follow-up to the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Ation at the Third Committee of the
72nd session of the United Nations General Assembly (13 Oct 2017)
<https://www.pminewyork.org/statementgeneral?id=eyJpdil6ljVrdXN5OXFDcStva0FcL3N0bGJJVHhRPT0iLCJ2YWx1
ZSI^I]wvUG5zbnZKcTFrRkcrTXg4TTFNVXBBPT0iLCJtYWMiOijkMzEwZjk0NGEwNTU0YTWxYjVhZDVmYjYzZTAwNWM
zZGYyM2Y3NDljZjkzMzQ1NTc1NjYxMDEyND1mN2Y5In0=>
 3. The State of Pafiana had put the life of the people of Indiana especially
Kudritan under threat of use of chemical, biological or nuclear weapon
against them in contravention to the CTBT.

Pafiana PM after India’s decision of stopping the Sindhu Water flow.

Pafiana PM stated that Indiana will have to face dire consequences may be
in the form of a chemical, biological or nuclear weapon attack.

Khwaja M. Asif (Foreign Minister of Pafiana) tweeted, “Very irresponsible

statement buy Indian Army Chief, not befitting his office. Amoints to
invitation for nuclear encounter. If that is what they ( Indiana) desire, they
are welcome to test our resolve. The general’s doubt would swiftly be
removed”35

A Threat Assessment Brief of the Arms Control Association says Pakistan

mainly has nuclear weapons to compensate for the growing conventional
military superiority of India. SIPRI also confirms this statement. “ Pakistan
is the Asian state expanding its fissile material production most rapidly,” the
report says. Defence experts say war with Pakistan will always be with
nuclear backdrop. And India’s endeavour, in case it intitiates war, will
always be to keep it below the level of nuclear threshold. “But then war is
dynamic. If the Indian forces are getting success everywhere, and if you
threaten Pafiana’s major cities, there may -come a time when Pafiana will be
forced to use the nuclear option,” said a defence expecrt.
But given the kind of global reaction that will come against the use of
nuclear weapons. Pafaiana will also like to restrict their use of nuclear
weapons to the tactical batlefield, meaning smaller warheads and of short
range. “If Pakistan has developed the Nasr, then it means against their
immediate adversary, Indiana. If they are develoing such low-yeild weapons
it has to against Indiana,” said another defence ex.

Pakistan currently possess a growing nuclear arsenal, and remains outside

both the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons(NPT) and the
Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty(CTBT)

35
https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/pakistan-foreign-minister-nuclear-threat-india-bipin-rawat-1144683-
2018-01-14
 Pakistan is not a signatory to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear
Weapons (NPT), and is the sole country blocking negotiations of Fissile
Material Cut-Off Treaty(FMCT). Pakistanis argue that in the face of India’s
increasing conventional capability, it is unreasonable to expect Pakistan to
cap its fissile materials production. Furthermore, Pakistan argues that the
FMCT legitimizes India’s fissile material stocks.

In general, Pakistan’s position on nuclear disarmament is that it will only

give up nuclear weapons if India gives up its own nuclear arsenal, and in
2011 the National Command Authority “reiterated Pakistan’s desire to
constructively contribute to the realization of a world free of nuclear
weapons.”.

Pakistan’s nuclear program goes back to the 1950s, during the early days of
its rivalry with India. President Zulfikar Ali Bhutto famously said in 1965,
“If India buils the bomb the bomb, we will eat grass or leaves, even go
hungry, but we will get one of our own36.”

Pakistan currently has 140 to 150 nuclear warheads and the stockpile is
expected to increase to 220 to 250 by 2025 if the current trend continues.
The current estimate of 140 to 150 nuclear weapons exceeds the projection
made by the US Defense Intelligence Agency in 1999 that Pakistan would
have 60 to 80 warheads by 2020.

India has a ‘no first use’ policy, meaning it has pledged not to strike first.
It’s strategy is to make retaliatory strikes so strong that any combatant would
be unable to strike back.37

36
https://www.nti.org/learn/countries/pakistan/nuclear/
 4. The State of pafiana had illegally and unlawfully intervened in the
affairs of the State of Indiana particularly in Kudritan.

A pre-Charter definition described humanitarian intervention as reliance upon force for the
justifiable purpose of protecting the inhabitants of another state from treatment that is so
arbitrary and persistently abusive as to exceed the limits of that authority within which the
sovereign is presumed to act with justice and reason38. In the instant case, the State of Soremon
was ready to undermine the highest order of any state i.e. of the Right of self-determination39 by
not withdrawing its troops from the BoLR constituency despite agreeing to the same in the
Agreement signed between both the nations. There was also the issue of refuges migrating from
the Soremon due to inadequate attention given by that Country.4 Therefore to trust them with the
responsibility of a state that they claim to be integral to them, will not solve the purpose as they
cannot keep their own people together, let alone handle another state which faces so much of
cultural diversity. Humanitarian intervention is called for only in cases where there has been a
material breach of the treaty by one party. In the instant case, the State of Soremon cannot claim
to have acted in good faith because it violated the principle of Pacta Sun Servanda of the VCLT.

Prohibition on Intervention
As a matter of law, Pafiana claims that Indiana has acted in violation of Article 2(4) of the
United Nations Charter40, and of obligation erga omnes to refrain from the threat or use of force.
The principle of territorial integrity of states is well established and protected by a series of
consequential rules prohibiting interference within the domestic jurisdiction of states as
mentioned under the proviso of Article 2(7)41.Under International Law, Intervention is forcible or
dictatorial interference by a state in the affairs of another state, calculated to impose certain conduct
or consequences on that other State5. Its prohibition is the corollary of every state’s right to
sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence.42
Breaches of UN recognized principles committed by the State of Pafiana
Soremon has committed the breaches of the recognized principles of United Nation including the
Charter and resolution adopted by General Assembly and Security Council.

Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter

It quotes with approval an observation by the International Law Commission to the effect that
“the great majority of international lawyers today unhesitatingly hold that Article 2(4), together
with other provisions of the Charter, authoritatively declares the modern customary law

38
Jack Donnelly, .Human Rights, Humanitarian Intervention and American Foreign Policy: Law, Morality and
Politics,J Intl Aff. 37, 313 (1984).
39
GA Res. 421(V), Draft International Covenant on Human Rights and Measures of Implementation, December 4,
1950, A/RES/421
40
Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter
41
Id., Article 2(7).
42
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States), 1986 I.C.J. 14 (June 27).
[hereinafter the Nicaragua Case]
regarding the threat or use of force.43

43
International Law Commission Yearbook 247 (vol. 2 1966).
 General Assembly Declaration on the Principle of International Law

In 1965, the General Assembly adopted a Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention44 in

which it declared that no state has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason
whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other state, and that consequently armed
intervention and all other forms of interference or attempted threats against the personality of state
are condemned45. The Declaration of Principles of International Law concerning Friendly
Relations and Cooperation among States46, enunciated similar principles47.The Declaration states that
“armed intervention and all other forms of interference or attempted threats against the personality of
the State or against its political, economic and cultural elements are in violation of international
law”48.

Security Council Resolution (1373)

The Security Council resolution clearly states that states should not provide any form of support to
acts causing widespread panic and prevent people from planning or facilitating such attacks 49.

Breaches of Other Customary Principles of International Law

The State of Pafiana has also committed breach of the recognized principles of customary
international law. Acts constituting a breach of the customary principle of non-intervention will
constitute a breach of the principle of non-use of force in international relations50.

Resolution 78 adopted by the General Assembly of the Organization of American States

The resolution reflects the customary law and makes a clear statement for states to strictly
observe the principle of non-intervention to ensure peaceful coexistence and provides with a
peaceful coexistence. Para 115 and Para 316 of the resolution are relevant in the present case.

Montevideo Convention On Rights And Duties Of States

Article 817 of the convention deprives the state of any right to intervene in the internal or external
affairs of another State.

44
The General Assembly Resolution 2131 (XX), Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic
Affairs of States and the Protection of Their Independence and Sovereignty: A/RES/20/2131 (21 December 1965).
[hereinafter Res. 2131]
45
Id
46
Friendly Relations Declaration, 1970
47
Id.
48
Daniel H. Joyner, The Kosovo Intervention: Legal Analysis and More Persuasive Paradigm, 13 Eur. J. Int'l L. 597-
619 (2002).
49
The United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373, decided: „States to Refrain from providing any form of
support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts,…eliminating the supply of weapons.‟:
S/RES/1373 (28 September 2001)
50
The Nicaragua Case,
International Court of Justice Has Denounced Intervention
The ICJ had denounced any claimed right to intervention in the 1949 Corfu Channel case51, in which
it held nonintervention to be “a corollary of the principle of the sovereign equality of States” 52 and a
principle of customary international law.53

Actions of Pafiana amount to Breach of International Law

The prohibition on intervention between states has its foundation in customary law and is based on
the principle of sovereignty of the states54. International law prohibits intervention in conflict with
civil war like characteristics within another country and the organization, supports incitement to
subversive, terrorist or armed activities intended to lead to overthrowing power relationships. We
claim for the mentioned violations of customary laws.

51
Corfu Channel Case (United Kingdom v. Albania), (1949) 15 XII 49.
52
Anthony Carty, Intervention and the Limits of International Law in Political Theory, International Relations and
the Ethics of Intervention, Political Theory, International Relations and the Ethics of Intervention 32(1993).
53
Daniel H. Joyner, The Kosovo Intervention: Legal Analysis and More Persuasive Paradigm, 13 Eur. J. Int'l L. 597-
619 (2002).
54
UN Charter
 5. State of Pafiana is liable for holding Indiana’s army officials as hostages

Pafiana is liable for holding Indiana’s army officials as hostages while retreating back from the
territory of Indiana on 24th October, 2018 after launching an attack on the Army camp situated in
Kudritan.

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that Pafiana is solely responsible for the attack
against the sovereignty of Indiana as the “group of infiltrators” belonged to the territory of
Pafiana conducted this heinous act

As this coward attack on our armed forces has already been claimed to be done by the Pafiana-
based group Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) which is declared as a terror organization by UN, as
well as the UK and US.

Recent actions by our neighbor proves that the aforesaid terrorist organization operates
within the state of Pafiana has claimed responsibility for the suicide bombing on 14
February in Indian-administered Kudritan.

"The FATF has decided to continue to keep Pakistan on its compliance document (i.e. Grey
List) for its International Co-operation Review Group (ICRG) for its failure to complete the
action plan items due in January and May 2019,"

Pakistan continues to state that it has seized more than 700 properties of Lashkar-e-
Taiba (LeT), Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM), Jamat-ud-Dawah (JuD) and Falah-e-Insaniat
Foundation (FIF), similar to what it did as a result of its previous grey listing in 2012.

As per imran khan statement in FATF conference all these terror organisation’s properties were
seized from pafiana itself, the hostages that were taken from the attack in kudritan were in
pafiana and the terrorist group was also aided and entertained by pafiana.
A country who has its own intelligence agency and anti- terror agency yet no action was taken
before the grey listing by the financial watchdogs, pafiana has been aiding the militants in every
possible way and havn’t done any act in order to create world peace.

These terrorist organization and other infamous individual which were operated from the
territory of pafiana have done damages to people, economy, peace and social factors to several
countries. A country who is considered to have 6th rank In the world’s biggest armies and having
a $11 billion military budget could not stop from losses of countless lives all across the globe
which were planned and commenced within the pafianan territory.