ATANIA – Questions & Rebuttals

1. Isn’t the Ruby Sipar part of Rahad’s cultural heritage too?

We recognize that Rahad has some link with the Sipar since, according to the legend,
it represents the union of the 17 Atan Clans fighting against the invaders long before
the boundaries between the two States were set.
However, it is our submission that Atania is the one entitled to its possession for
several reasons:
- 1st, 16 out of the 17 original Atan clans remained in Atania
- 2nd, it was found during an archaeological mission in the Atanian land
- 3rd, in more than 100 years, Rahad has never claimed to have any sorts of
rights over the Sipar or tried to challenge Atania’s ownersip.

2. The Ruby Sipar was hidden and has been declared to represent a symbol
of sedition, why do you want it?
Due to the current situation of political and economical distress that Atania is facing
President Vhen has effectively decided to store it temporarily because it was being
misused as a symbol of sedition. However, this piece of outstanding value represents
the Atanian mixed culture has been for a long time a symbol of peace and unity, as
stated by President Vhen in p ?, and that’s why Atania is asking for its return.

3. Wasn’t the Ruby Sipar at risk of being destroyed in Atania?

No. The Ruby Sipar has been carefully kept and preserved by Atanian authorities ever
since its discovery on its side of the Canyon., more than a 100 years ago.
The importance to the Atanian Government can be proved by the fact that the country
deposited a specific comment regarding the definition of ‘cultural property’ of the
1970 UNESCO Convention to include the Sipar as stated in paragraph 60 of the
Compromis.
In conclusion, it is not at danger and if Atania wanted to destroy the Sipar it would
have already done so.

(Atania’s claims over the Ruby Sipar are, contrary to Rahad’s actions, evidenced in its
cultural links to the shield, its actions and international practice).

4. Still hidding it from public display does not violate the Kin’s right to
enjoy their cultural heritage?
Paragraph 19 of the General comment 21 recognizes that applying limitations to the
right to “take part in cultural right” may be necessary in certain circumstances. In
particular the y must pursue a legitimate aim necessary for the promotion of welfare
in a democratic society.
The Sipar represents a symbol of peace and tradition, but their misuse by subversive
elements to confront the government has led President Vhen to temporarily ban the
symbol from public display as a way of keeping law and order during these times, and
store it to preserve its integrity.

5. Was Rahad part of the 1970 Convention?

At the present moment it is. When the Ruby Sipar entered its territory it was not. The
Convention states its entry into force 3 months after the deposit of the ratification
instrument and Rahad ratified the treaty the 30th September 2014 so it entried into

1
force the 30th December 2014. And the Ruby Sipar entered Rahad’s territory the 3
October 2014.
However, Rahad had the obligation of refraining from acts that would defeat the
object and purpose of the treaty since it had expressed its consent to be bound by it
(Article 18.b) VCLT). And it is our submission that the obligation of return of stolen
cultural items constitutes international customary law since there is both opinion iuris
and State practice.

6. Is the Ruby Spar protected by this Convention?

It is clear that the Ruby Sipar falls within the scope of this Convention, because of its
historical and archaeological importance, and because it fits in the declaration made
by Atania when it became a party to this Convention, as stated in paragraph 60 of the
Compromis.

7. Big farms were exempted from the license, wasn’t this (an indirect)
discrimination?
No. The Government’s intention was to ensure the maximum efficiency in the
allocation of the scarce water in order to guarantee that every Atanian citizen had
sufficient access to food. That is why the most advanced and profit generating farms
were exempted from the purchase of a license. à The measure had a legitimate
public policy objective.

8. Wasn’t Atania obligated to give them food and water to comply with its
duties under the ICESCR?
Effectively, Atania is bound by this Convention since it is a party to it.
However, Article 2.1. ICESCR recognizes that, when pursuing the full realization of
a right, a State is constrained by its available resources and in this case the water
available was very limited. That is why in this case it could not fully comply, but this
does not constitute a breach of international law.

9. Which illegal acts has Atania committed towards the Kins?

None. If they had complied with the law and bought the required licenses, and they
had all the information and means to have done so, they would not have suffered the
water cuts and subsequent food scarcity.

10. Why have 95% of the Kins been unable to get the license required in
order to use public water?
Because they said it was against their culture to apply for administrative licenses in
order to use their natural resources, as stated in paragraph 37, but that is not a valid
justification for the breach of a domestic law. The water should be allocated with
priority to the farms that were profitable and could feed the most amount of
population possible.

11. The Kins have been waiting for the trial date to be set for almost 3 years,
how can be that delay justified?
In order to determine if the delay in the trial time is reasonable or not the
circumstances of the case must be taken into account - paragraph 37 of the General
Comment 35 by the Human Rights Committee.

2
The decision to retain them in prison was taken by the independent tribunals of Atania
because of their flight risk. We concede that 3 years is not ideal but unfortunately this
is not uncommon in the international legal landscape. For instance, in Spain the
maximum trial date set can be extended up to 4 years, depending on the charges. The
Atanian justice system accumulates a significant backlog, which is worsened by the
current circumstances of political and economical distress.
Moreover, every citizen in prison entails a great cost for the State and it is not in any
State interest to keep them in prison and Atania is in a bad serious situation

12. Can this Court give compensation directly to the Kins?

In principle, compensation shall be given to the States, as only States can be parties to
the contentious proceedings before the International Court of Justice.
However, the Court has awarded a direct compensation to a person in the Diallo Case.
In that case, Guinea exercised the diplomatic protection for one of its nationals.
In this case Rahad could not exercise diplomatic protection because none of the two
conditions required are met: the Kins are not Rahad’s nationals and they have not
exhausted the local remedies.

13. Is there a difference between considering the Kins refugees or just

migrants?
Yes, special international obligations apply to refugees such as the non-refoulement: a
State could not simply expel refugees of its territory if this would put them at risk of
being persecuted.
On these grounds, Rahad could argue that Atania had imposed on them an unwanted
burden whereas if they are just migrants Rahad’s actions would only be a
consequence of its freely adopted acts.

!!!!! There’s not 1 but 4 reports proving a causal link between the depletion of
the water and the damages suffered in Atania.

“The Court must decide on the evidence that it has before itself. On the one hand,
there’s not one, but four reports. …
On the other hand, there’s nothing.”

If there’s anyone that SHALL be awarded compensation those should BE the

KINS, that would be the ones who had suffered the hypothetical violation of
International Law.

Even if they were refugees Rahad would NOT be entitled for compensation, for 3
reasons:
- There’s not precedent where a State has given a compensation to other/s hosting
refugees
- Rahad has in any case decided voluntarily to be a party to the Refugee Convention
and assume the obligation of granting protection to these people. Awarding
compensation to countries hosting would be against the altruistic nature of this
Convention.
- Neither the 1951 Convention nor the subsequent Protocol establish a right for
compensation.