15th World Human Rights Moot

Court Competition

20 May to 21 July 2023

Geneva, Switzerland

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

LETTERS FOCUS AND CABUDURA

AND

GOVERNMENT OF VARANUS ISLANDS (VI)

MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT

i
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................ vi

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ............................................................................................... viii

Treaties, Conventions and Charters ............................................................................. viii

Resolutions and UN Documents ..................................................................................... xi

General Comments and Recommendations .................................................................xiii

Reports and Expert Opinions ...........................................................................................xv

International Cases and Communications ................................................................... xvii

United Nations Human Rights Committee ..................................................................xvii

International Court of Justice ......................................................................................xvii

European Court of Human Rights ..............................................................................xvii

UN Committee Against Torture .................................................................................. xxi

Inter-American Court of Human Rights ...................................................................... xxi

Inter-American Commission on Human Rights .......................................................... xxi

African Commission on Human and People’s Rights .................................................xxii

African Court of Human Rights ...................................................................................xxii

Domestic cases ............................................................................................................... xxiii

United States of America ........................................................................................... xxiii

Israel ..........................................................................................................................xxiv

German Federal Court of Justice ..............................................................................xxiv

Constitutional Court of South Africa ..........................................................................xxiv

ii
 Kenya ........................................................................................................................xxiv

United Kingdom .........................................................................................................xxiv

Books & Journals............................................................................................................. xxv

Domestic Laws ................................................................................................................ xxix

Miscellaneous ................................................................................................................... xxx

SUMMARY OF FACTS ................................................................................................. xxxiii

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ................................................................................................. 1

PRELIMINARY ISSUES ....................................................................................................... 1

i. Jurisdiction ........................................................................................................... 1

ii. Locus Standi ......................................................................................................... 1

iii. Admissibility ......................................................................................................... 2

MERITS ................................................................................................................................. 5

CLAIM A: The CA of Focus Farm and Letter Main Temple without compensation

and refusal to CL MdarahVac are inconsistent with VI’s IHR obligations. ............ 5

A. VI’s CA without adequate compensation was inconsistent with IHR

obligations. ..........................................................................................................................5

1. The Applicant has the title over Focus Farm and Letter Main Temple by

adverse possession. ............................................................................................ 5

2. The Legislation of CA is inconsistent with the IHR Obligations ................... 6

i. No Public Purpose stated .................................................................................6

ii. No Compensation ...............................................................................................7

iii. Denial of Right to Court ....................................................................................7

B. Denial of a CL is inconsistent with VI’s IHR obligations. .................................8

1. The Government of VI has a legal obligation towards the refugees. ....... 8

iii
 2. Non-Issuance of CL breached this obligation ............................................ 8

i. Against Public Interest ......................................................................................9

ii. Right to Life and Health is violated ................................................................9

CLAIM B: VI’s arms trade and treatment of Varanidean refugees in the Drago-

Zone are inconsistent with its IHR obligations. ..................................................... 10

A. VI’s arms trade is inconsistent with its IHR obligations ................................10

1. Violation of ATT........................................................................................... 10

2. No expert risk assessment and prevention of diversion ........................ 11

B. Migrants were not processed and accorded with status. ..............................11

1. Deprivation of migrants’ status rights under CIL .................................... 12

2. Violation of non-refoulement obligation ................................................... 12

C. Treatment of migrants and their transfer to Mero violates IHRL. ................13

1. Violation of IHRL obligations towards the migrants................................ 13

i. Right to liberty and security ..........................................................................14

ii. Right to be treated with humanity and dignity and exposure to

degrading treatment. ...............................................................................................14

iii. Right to an adequate standard of living and the highest attainable

standard of health ....................................................................................................15

2. Violation of non-refoulement obligation by transferring the migrants to

Mero ..................................................................................................................... 15

CLAIM C: VI’s agreements with MdarahVision and the consequent data

colonialism, expropriation, and exploitation are inconsistent with VI’s IHR

obligations. ................................................................................................................ 16

A. VI violated IHRL ........................................................................................................16

1. RTP ............................................................................................................... 17

2. The interference with the RTP was Unlawful and Arbitrary .................... 17

iv
 i. The disclosure was not provided by law ....................................................18

ii. Disclosure was arbitrary .................................................................................18

iii. The disclosure was not reasonable .............................................................19

B. VI failed to discharge its positive Obligation ....................................................19

REPARATIONS ................................................................................................................. 20

PRAYER ............................................................................................................................. 21

v
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ACHR American Convention on Human Rights

¶ Paragraph

¶¶ Page

ACHPR African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights

ACtHR African Court on Human and People’s Rights

Applicants Names applicants in the proceedings

Art Article

ATT Arms Trade Treaty

CA Compulsory Acquisition

CAT Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or

Degrading Treatment or punishment

CC Constitutional Court

CIL Customary International Law

CL Compulsory License

ECHR European Convention on Human Rights

ECtHR European Court of Human Rights

EU European Union

GC Geneva Convention

HC High Court

HR Human Rights

I-ACtHR Inter American Court of Human Rights

IACHR Inter-American Human Rights Commission

ICCPR International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

ICJ International Court of Justice

vi
ICRC International Committee of the Red Cross

IHL International humanitarian law

IHRL International human rights law

KC Komodoen Continent

KCh Komodoen Charter on Human Rights

KHRC Komodoen Human Rights Court

NGO Non-Governmental Organisations

OHCHR Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights

RC Refugee Convention

Res Resolution

RTP Right to Privacy

SC Supreme Court

UDHR Universal Declaration of Human Rights

UN United Nations

UNGA United National General Assembly

UNHCR UN High Commissioner for Refugees

VI Varanus Islands

WRT With regards to

SK Squamata Kingdom

IPR Intellectual Property Rights

FP Focus Pharmaceuticals

vii
 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Treaties, Conventions and Charters

ACHPR African Charter on Human and Peoples‟ Rights, adopted 27 June 1981,

1520 UNTS 217 (entered into force 21 October 1986).

ACHR American Convention of Human Rights, Pact of San José, Costa Rica‟,

opened for signature 22 November 1969, 1144 UNTS 123 (entered into

force 18 July 1978).

ACtHR African Court of Human Rights.

ACtHRP Organization of African Unity (OAU), Protocol to the African Charter on

Human and People's Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on

Human and People's Rights, 10 June 1998.

ACtHRR Rules of the Court, African Court of Human Rights.

ADIRF African Declaration on Internet Rights and Freedom (adopted 8

September 2014).

ADRDM Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), American

Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, 2 May 1948.

ArCHR Arab Charter on Human Rights.

ATT Arms Trade Treaty, 24 December 2014, UNTS Vol. 3013.

CERD International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial

Discrimination, Dec. 21, 1965, 660 U.N.T.S. 195.

viii
CPIAP Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic

Processing of Personal Data (Strasbourg, 28 January 1981), ETS 108

(19810, entered into force 1 October 1985.

CRC United Nations. “Convention on the Rights of the Child.” Treaty Series,

vol. 1577, Nov. 1989, p. 3.

ECHR Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental

Freedoms ‘The European Convention on Human Rights‘ (213 UNTS 222)

(Conclusion 11 April 1950, Entry into Force 3 September 1953) and

Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and

Fundamental Freedoms.

FP Protocol Against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms,

Their Parts and Components and Ammunition, 31 May 2001, 2326 UNTS

211.

GC International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Geneva Convention

Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (Fourth

Geneva Convention), 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 287 (entered into force

21 October 1950).

Hague International Conferences (The Hague), Hague Convention (IV)

Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and Its Annex:

Regulations Concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, 18

October 1907.

ICCPR International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, opened for signature

16 December 1966, 999 UNTS 171 (entered into force 23 March 2976).

ix
ICESCR International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, adopted

16 December 1966, 993 UNTS 3 (entered into force 3 January 1976).

ICRC-AP1 International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Protocol Additional to

the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection

of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977, 1125

UNTS 3, available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b36b4.html.

IOM International Organization for Migration, Glossary on Migration (2nd edn,

International Migration Law Series 2011).

OAUC Organization of African Unity Convention Governing the Specific Aspects

of Refugee Problems in Africa (adopted 10 September 1969, entered into

force 20 June 1974) 1001 UNTS 45.

RC Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (adopted 28 July 1951,

entered into force 22 April 1954) 189 UNTS 137.

SADP Supplementary Act on Data Protection (Abuja, 16 February 2010)

A/SA.1/01/10 (2010).

TRIPS Agreement on Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual

Property Rights (TRIPS), Article 31 (b), Agreement on Trade-Related

Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, Apr. 15, 1994, Marrakesh

Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1C, 1869

U.N.T.S. 299.

UDHR UN General Assembly, Universal Declaration of Human Rights,adopted

10 December 1948, UNGA Res 217 A (III).

x
Resolutions and UN Documents

Arbitrary- Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, ‘Report on the visit to Australia’

Detention(Aust (24 October 2002) UN Doc E/CN.4/2003/8/Add.2.

ralia)

CESCR-GC14. Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General

Comment No 14 (2000) UN Doc E/C.12/2000/4.

Doha Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health (Doha

Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health, WTO Doc.

WT/MIN(01)/DEC/2, Nov. 14, 2001).

Draft ILC, Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally

Wrongful Acts (2001) A/56/10.

EXCOM UNHCR EXCOM General Conclusion on International Protection No

99 (2004).

GVAP Global Vaccine Action Plan 2011-2020. World Health Organization,

2013.

Hammel HRC Communication No 155/1983, views 3 April 1987 (Hammel v

Madagascar) (1990) UN Doc CCPR/C/OP/2.

HRC-UN HRC ‘Concluding Observations on Russian Federation’ (6 November

2003) UN Doc CCPR/CO/79/RUS.

HRCC458/199 HRC Communication No 458/1991 (1994) UN Doc

1 CCPR/C/51/D/458/1991.

xi
Pandemics/HI UN Commission on Human Rights, Commission on Human Rights

V/AIDS Resolution 2004/26: Access to medication in the context of pandemics

such as HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, (16 April 2004) UN Doc

E/CN.4/RES/2004/26.

RES United Nations Security Council, Resolution 2417 (2018), 24 May

2018, S/RES/2417/ (2018).

SS-RTF United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), ‘Report of the

Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to

Freedom of Opinion and Expression’ (17 April 2013) UN Doc

A/HRC/23/40.

UNGA- United Nations General Assembly, Human Rights Situation in

Palestine Palestine and Other Occupied Arab Territories, 21 January 2008,

A/HRC/7/17.

UNGA- United Nations General Assembly, 72nd Plenary Meeting, 2 April

Plenary71 2013, A/67/PV.71.

UNGA- United Nations General Assembly, 72nd Plenary Meeting, 2 April

Plenary72 2013, A/67/PV.72.

UNGA- UNGA ‘Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and

Reparation Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human

Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law’

(21 March 2006) UN Doc A/RES/60/147.

UNHCR- UNHCR General Conclusion on International Protection No 85 (1998).

GCIP85

xii
UNHRC-GC31 United Nations Human Rights Committee (HRC), CCPR General

Comment No. 31, The Nature of the General Legal Obligation

Imposed on States Parties to the Covenant.

UNHRC- United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), ‘Report of the

SRPPRTF Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to

Freedom of Opinion and Expression’ (22 May 2015) A/HRC/29/32.

UNHRC-SSPP United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), Report of the

Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to

freedom of opinion and expression (30 May 2017) A/HRC/35/22.

V.M.R.B. HRC Communication No 236/1987(V.M.R.B. v Canada) UN Doc Supp

No 40 (A/43/40).

W.G.A.D. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, ‘Report of the Working Group

on Arbitrary Detention’ UN Doc A/HRC/7/4.

General Comments and Recommendations

HRC-GC21 HRC General Comment No 21 (1992) UN Doc A/47/40.

ECOSOC- United Nations Economic and Social Council, ‘Statement on the

Statement coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic and economic, social and

cultural rights, E/C.12/2020/1, 17 April 2020.

GC20 HRC General Comment No 20 (1992), UN Doc HRI/GEN/1/Rev.6.

GSPOA World Health Organization, Global strategy and plan of action on

public health, innovation and intellectual property, 11 January 2021,

EB148/10.

xiii
HRC-GC04 HRC General comment No 4 (1991) UN Doc E/1992/23.

HRC-GC07 HRC General Comment No 07 UN Doc HRI/GEN/1/Rev.6

HRC-GC14 HRC General Comment No 14 (2000) UN Doc E/C.12/2000/4.

HRC-GC16 HRC, General Comment 16, Art. 16 (Thirty Second Session, 1998),

Compilation of General Comments and General Recommendations

Adopted by Human Rights Treaty Bodies, U.N. Doc.

HRI/GEN/1/Rev.9 (Vol. I).

Mexico- Governing Body, 289th Session, March 2004, Representation under

Comment article 24 of the ILO Constitution, Mexico, GB.289/17/3, para. 134.

OHCHR-GC Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, CESCR General

Comment No. 14: The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of

Health (Art. 12), 11th August 2020, E/C.12/2000/4.

PoAP United Nations Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light

Weapons in All Its Aspects, Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat

and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in all

its Aspects, UN Doc A/CONF.192/15, 20 July 2001, 7 [Programme of

Action].

UNCAT-GC01 UN Commission Against Torture (UNCAT) General Comment No. 01,

CAT/C/60/R.2.

UNHLP United Nations High-Level Panel on Access to Medicines, United

Nations Secretary-General, United Nations Secretary-General's High-

Level Panel on Access to Medicines calls for new deal to close the

health innovation and access gap, U.N. Doc. A/71/255 (Sept. 14,

xiv
 2016).

UNHRC-GC16 United Nations Human Rights Committee (HRC), CCPR General

Comment No. 16, Article 17 (Right to Privacy): The Right to Respect

of Privacy, Family, Home and Correspondence, and Protection of

Honour and Reputation, 8 April 1988.

UNHRC-GC20 UNHRC General Comment No 20 (1994) HRI/HEN/1/Rev.1.

UNHRC-GC34 United Nations Human Rights Committee (HRC), CCPR General

comment No. 34, Article 19: Freedoms of opinion and expression (12

September 2011).

WTO-Circular World Trade Organization, ‘Response to Questions on Intellectual-

Property Challenges Experienced by Members in Relation to COVID-

19 in Document IP/C/W/671, 15 January 2021, IP/C/W/673.

Reports and Expert Opinions

ATT- Control Arms Secretariat, “ATT Monitor Report 2015,”

MonitorReport http://armstreatymonitor.org/en/the-2015-report/ pp. 26-43.

FAO-Land FAO’s Land Tenure Studies, “Compulsory Acquisition of Land and

Compensation”, Simon Keith, Patrick McAuslan, Rachaelc Knight,

Jonathon Lindsay, Paul Munro-Faure and David Palmer.

HCR-AR UN Human Rights Committee (HCR), ‘Annual report’ (1 December

2004) UN Doc E/CN.4/2005/6.

HR-Palestine UNGA, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human

Rights in the Palestinian Territories Occupied Since 1967 (2018)

A/HRC/37/75.

xv
SPEU- Report on the State Practice within the EU, ASIM 267, 13667/97 (JAN.

13667/97 6 1998).

Council- “EUR-Lex - L33124 - EN - EUR-Lex” (EUR-Lex - l33124 - EN - EUR-

Directive Lex) https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/summary/temporary-

protection-if-there-is-a-mass-influx-of-displaced-people.html.

HRC- HRC ‘Promotion and Protection of all Human Rights, Civil, Political,

Promotion Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Including the Right to

Development’(2009) UN Doc A/HRC/10/21.

Protection-HR Report of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of

Human Rights, E/CN.4/Sub.2/2001/13 (Aug. 21, 2001).

Rep-RTP Report of the Human Rights Council, GAOR, 72nd Session

Supplement No. 53, at 33 ‘The right to privacy in the digital age’, U.N.

A/72/53 (2017).

UNCHR UNCHR ‘Civil and Political Rights, Including The Questions of Torture

And Detention Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading

treatment’, UN Doc E/CN.4/2005/6 (2004).

UNHRC-RTOE HRC, ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and

protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Frank La

Rue’, (17 April 2013) UN Doc. A/HRC/23/40.

UNHRC-RTP HRC, ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy’, (27

February 2019) U.N. Doc. A/HRC/40/63.

xvi
International Cases and Communications

United Nations Human Rights Committee

G G v Australia Communication No. 2172/2012 U.N. Doc.

CCPR/C/119/D/2172/2012.

Hulst Van Hulst v The Netherlands Communication No. 903/1999 U.N.

Doc.CCPR/C/82/D/903/1999 (2004).

Toonen Toonen v Australia Communication No. 488/1992 U.N. Doc

CCPR/C/50/D/488/1992.

International Court of Justice

Fisheries- Fisheries (United Kingdom v Norway) [1951] ICJ Rep 116.

Case

NorthSea- North Sea Continental Shelf Cases [1969] ICJ Rep 3.

Case

European Court of Human Rights

Monasteries Case of the Holy Monasteries vs. Greece, Application No. 13092/87;

13984/88, 09 December 1994.

Chahal Chahal v The United Kingdom Appl No 70/1995/576/662 (ECtHR 16

November 1996).

Sporrong The Estate of E . SPORRONG and I .M . LONNROTH

vs SWEDEN, Application No. 7151 /75 and 7152/75, 8th October, 1980.

xvii
Delfi Delfi AS v Estonia App no 64569/09 (ECtHR, 16 June 2015).

Huvig Huvig v France App no. 11105/84 (ECtHR 24 April 1990).

MM MM v United Kingdom App no. 24029/07 (ECtHR, 13 November 2012).

Kruslin Kruslin v France App no. 11801/85 (ECtHR, 24 April 1990).

Amann Amann v Switzerland App no 27798/95 (ECtHR, 16 February 2000).

Silver Silver and Others v the United Kingdom App nos. 5947/72, 6205/73,

7052/75, 7061/75, 7107/75 (ECtHR, 25 March 1983).

K.R.S K.R.S v The United Kingdom App no. 32733/08 (ECtHR, 02 December

2008).

Groppeara Groppeara Rodio AG and Others v Switzerland App no. 10890/84

(ECtHR, 28 March 1990).

BBWatch Big Brother Watch and Others v the United Kingdom, App nos. 58170/13,

62322/14 and 24960/15 (ECtHR, 13 September 2018).

Herczegfalvy Herczegfalvy v Austria App No. 10533/83 (ECtHR, 24 September 1992).

Hannover Von Hannover v Germany (No 2) App no 40660/08 and 60641/08

(ECtHR, 7 February 2012).

Verein Verein Gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VgT) v Switzerland (No.2) App no.

32772/02 (ECtHR, 30 June 2009).

Catt Catt v The United Kingdom App no. 43514/15 (ECtHR, 24 January 2019).

Perry Perry v United Kingdom App no 63737/00 (ECtHR, 17 July 2003).

xviii
Uzun Uzun v Germany App no 3563/05 (ECtHR, 2 September 2010).

Weber Weber and Saravia v Germany App no 54934/00 (ECtHR, 29 June 2006).

Benedik Benedik v Slovenia App no 62357/14 (ECtHR, 24 April 2018).

Bărbulescu Bărbulescu v Romania App no 61496/08 (ECtHR, 5 September 2017).

Peck Peck v United Kingdom App no. 44647/98 (ECtHR, 28 January 2003).

Klass Klass and others v Germany App no. 5029/71 (ECtHR, 6 September

1978).

Copland Copland v the United Kingdom Application no 62617/00, 3 April 2007.

Halford Halford v United Kingdom, Application no 20605/92, 25 June 2017.

James James & Others v. the United Kingdom, Application No. 8793/79, 21

February 1986.

King Case of the Former King of Greece & Others v. Greece, Application no.

25701/94, 28 November 2002.

Sovtransavto Sovtransavto Holding v. Ukraine, Application No. 48553/99, 25 July 2002.

Pye J.A. Pye (Oxford) Ltd and J.A. Pye (Oxford) Land Ltd v. The United

Kingdom, Application no. 44302/02.

Kline Smith Kline & French Laboratories Ltd v. The Netherlands, Application

No. 12633/87, 4 October 1990.

Aksoy Aksoy v. Turkey, App. No. 21987/93, 18 December 1996.

Ireland Ireland v. The United Kingdom, Application No.5310/71, 13 December

xix
 1977.

Rotaru Rotaru v Romania App No. 28341/95 (ECtHR, 4 May 2000).

Gaweda Gaweda v Poland, App No. 26229/95 (ECtHR, 14 March 2002).

Hämäläinen Hämäläinen v Finland App no 37359/09 (ECtHR, 16 July 2014).

Marper S. and Marper v The United Kingdom, App. no. 30562/04 & 30566/04

(ECtHR, 4 December 2008).

Leander Leander v Sweden App no. 9248/81 (ECtHR, 26 March 1987).

Malone Malone v the United Kingdom App no. 8691/79 (ECtHR, 2 August 1984).

Zakharov Roman Zakharov v Russia [GC] App no. 47143/06 (ECtHR, 4 December

2015).

Mozer Mozer v The Republic of Moldova and Russia [GC] App no. 11138/10

(ECtHR, 23 February 2016).

Smirnova Smirnova v Russia App nos. 46133/99 and 48183/99 (ECtHR, 24 October

2003).

Liberty Liberty and Others v The United Kingdom App no. 58243/00 (ECtHR, 1

July 2008).

Maestri Maestri v Italy App No. 39748/98 (ECtHR, 17 February 2004).

Sunday The Sunday Times v The United Kingdom (No.1) App no. 6538/74

(ECtHR, 26 April 1979).

Slovenia Kurić and others v. Slovenia, Application no. 26828/06, 26 June 2012.

xx
 UN Committee Against Torture

MBB Communication No 104/1998 (Application No) UN Doc

CAT/C/22/D/104/1998 (Official Case No) IHRL 3764 (UNCAT 1999).

ZT Z.T. (No.2) v. Norway, CAT/C/35/D/238/2003, UN Committee Against

Torture (CAT), 5 December 2005.

Inter-American Court of Human Rights

Airey Airey v Ireland IACtHR Series A no. 32 (9 October 1979).

Bello Corte IDH. Caso de la Masacre de Pueblo Bello Vs. Colombia.

Sentencia de 31 de enero de 2006. Serie C No. 140, Para. 123.

Chincilla Chinchilla Sandoval et al. v. Guatemala, February 29, 2016.

Fontevecchia Fontevecchia y D’Amico v Argentina, IACtHR Series C No, 238 (Merits,

Reparations and Costs) (29 November 2011).

Honduras Velásquez-Rodríguez v. Honduras, Petition no. 7920, 29 July, 1988.

Salvador Salvador Chiriboga v. Ecaudor, Inter-American COurt of Human Rights,

Series C No. 179 May 6. 2008.

Velez Velez Loor v Panama, Inter-American Court of Human Rights Series C

No 218 (December 10, 2010).

Inter-American Commission on Human Rights

Granier Granier et al. v. Venezeula, Report on Merits, Report No. 112/12,

Inter-Am. Comm’n H.R, November 9, 2012.

Mary Mary and Carrie Dann v. United States,Case 11.140, Report No.

xxi
 75/02, Inter-Am. C.H.R., December 27, 2002.

Rosendo Rosendo Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, App. No. 777/01, Int.-Am.

Comm. H.R. (Oct. 12, 2005).

Court of Justice of the European Union

El-Dridi Case C-61/11 PPU M. El Dridi [2011] ECR 2011, 00000.

African Commission on Human and People’s Rights.

Amnesty Amnesty International and Others v. Sudan, App. Nos. 48/90, 50/91,

52/91 & 89/93, Af. Comm. H.P.R.

African Court of Human Rights

Ahmed Ahmed Ismael and 528 Others v the Arab, Communication 467/14,

Republic of Egypt, 27 May 2016.

COHRE Sudan Human Rights Organisation & Centre on Housing Rights and

Evictions (COHRE) v Sudan, Communication 279/03-296/05, 27 May

2009.

Haregewoin Haregewoin Gabre-Selassie and IHRDA (on behalf of former Dergue

Officials) v Ethiopia, 12 October 2013.

Kenya-CMR Centre for Minority Rights Development (Kenya) and Minority Rights

Group (on behalf of Endorois Welfare Council) v Kenya, 25 November

2009.

Lohe Lohe Issa Konate v Burkina Faso App no. 004/2013 (ACtHR, 5

December 2014).

Malawi Malawi Africa Association, Amnesty International, Ms Sarr Diop,

xxii
 Union interafricaine des droits de l’Homme and RADDHO, Collectif

des veuves et ayants Droit, Association mauritanienne des droits de

l’Homme v Mauritania, 11 May 2000.

Marcel Marcel Wetsh’okonda Koso and others v Democratic Republic of

Congo, Communication No. 281/03, 27 May 2009.

Nikiema Abdoulaye Nikiema, Ernest Zongo, Blaise Ilboudo & Burkinabe

Human and Peoples’ Rights Movement v Burkina Faso, App. No.

013/2011.

OSJI Open Society Justice Initiative v Côte d’Ivoire, Communication

318/06, 27 May 2016.

Domestic cases

United States of America

Butler Butler v. Anderson, 71 Wash. 2d 60, 64, 426 P.2d 467, 470 (1967).

Byrd Byrd v. United States 138 S. Ct. 1518 (2018).

Campbell Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd [2004] UKHL 22.

Fidelity-Case U.S Fidelity etc. Co. vs United States 246 Fed. 433 (1917).

Homma Constitutional Court of Korea, 2010 Homma 47 (23 August 2012).

Inman-Case People vs. Inman, 197 N.Y 200, 206, 90 N.E. 438 (1910).

Jarvis R v Jarvis, 2019 SCC 10.

Katz Katz v US (1967) 389 US 347.

Manillo Manillo vs. Gorski, Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1969, 54 N.J. 378,

xxiii
 255 A.2d 258.

Penn Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S 104

(1978).

Spencer R. v. Spencer, 2014 SCC 43, [2014] S.C.R. 212.

Waltemeyer Waltemeyer vs. Wisconsin Ry. Co, Iowa & Nebraska Railway Co.,71

Iowa 626, 33 N.W. 140 (1887).

Israel

Ascan HCJ 393/82, Jami’at Ascan et al, v IDF Commander in Judea and

Samaria et al, 37(4) PD, (1983) [10] (original text in Hebrew, translated

by Hamoked).

German Federal Court of Justice

MSD Merck Sharp and Dohme Limited v Shionogi and Co Limited German

Federal Court of Justice, [2016] EWHC 2989 (Pat).

Constitutional Court of South Africa

TACO Minister of Health and Others v Treatment Action Campaign and

Others (No 2) (CCT8/02) [2002] ZACC 15.

Kenya

Patricia Patricia Asero Ocheing and others. v. Attorney General citation,

Petition no.409 of 2009, High Court of Kenya, 20 April 2012.

United Kingdom

Roussel ROUSSEL-UCLAF v. G. D. SEARLE & CO. LTD. AND G.D.

SEARLE & CO. 1978] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 225, High Court of Chancery

xxiv
 Division.

Books & Journals

Allahyar Allahyar Mouri, The International Law of Expropriation as reflected in

the work of the Iran-US Claims Tribunal, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers

(1994).

Beirer F.K. Beier & G. Schricker, From GATT to TRIPS: The Agreement on

Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (1996) Vol.18,

Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Patent.

Bossuyt Marc J. Bossuyt, ‘Guide To The “Travaux Préparatoires” of the

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights’ Martinus Nijhoff

Publishers (1987).

Christof Christ of Heyns, The African Regional Human Rights System: The

African Charter, 108 PENN ST.L. Rev, 679, 688-89 (2004).

Clapham Clapham, Casey-Maslen, Giacca, & Parker. (2016, June 16). The

Arms Trade Treaty: A Commentary. Oxford University Press.

https://doi.org/10.1093/law/9780198723523.001.0001.

Correa C. Correa, 'Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights: A

Commentary on the TRIPS Agreement' (Oxford University Press: New

York: 2007).

Eduardo Eduardo Arboleda, ‘Refugee Definition in Africa and Latin America:

The lessons of Pragmatism’, (1991) 3 INT’L J. REF. L.

Fitzpatrick J Fitzpatrick, ‘Temporary Protection of Refugees: Elements of a

Formalized Regime’ (2000) 94 AJIL.

xxv
Foster Michelle Foster, ‘Protection Elsewhere: The Legal Implications of

Requiring Refugees to Seek Protection in Another State’, (2008) 28

MICH. J. INT'L L.

Fricke G L Fricke Compulsory Acquisition of Land in Australia (2 nd edn,

Sydney, Australia: Law Book Co., 1982).

Fricke G L Fricke Compulsory Acquisition of Land in Australia (2 nd edn,

Sydney, Australia: Law Book Co., 1982).

Gervais Daniel Gervais, ‘The TRIPS Agreement: Drafting History and Analysis

4th edition’, Sweet & Maxwell (2012).

Goodwyn-Gill Guy S Goodwyn-Gill, Jane McAdam, The Refugee in International

Law (3rd edn OUP 2007).

Harpum C Harpum et al, Megary & Wade The Law of Real Property (6 edn;

London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2000) p. 1358.

Henry Henry Onoria, ‘The African Commission on Human and People’s

Rights and the exhaustion of local remedies under the African

Charter’, African Human Rights Law Journal, (2003).

HLR-1918 Harvard Law Review, Dec., 1918, Vol.32, No.2 (Dec., 1918), pp. 135-

159.

ICRC-ATD ICRC, Arms Transfer Decisions: Applying International Humanitarian

Law and International Human Rights Law Criteria, Practical Guide,

2nd edition, 2016.

Jane-OUP Jane McAdam, Complementary Protection in International Refugee

xxvi
 Law (OUP 2007).

JeanMarie Jean-Marie Henckaerts and Louis Doswald-Beck, Customary

International Humanitarian Law Volume I: Rules, International

Committee of the Red Cross, (Cambridge University Press 2009).

Jerome Jerome H. Reichman, Catherine Hasenzah, ‘Non-voluntary Licensing

of Patented Inventions’ Issue Paper No.5 (June 2003).

Jones Jones, O., & Dunn, C. (2011), The Supreme Court of Zimbabwe:

Commercial Farmers Union et al. v. Minister of Lands & Rural

Resettlement et al. International Legal Materials, 50(4).

Ladas Stephen P Ladas, ‘Patents, Trademarks, and Related Rights, National

and International Protection’, (1975) Harvard University Press.

Lance Lance Wyatt, Rebuttable Presumption of Public Interest in Protecting

the Public Health-The Necessity for Denying Injunctive Relief in

Medically-Related Patent Infringement Cases After eBay v.

MercExchange, 13 CHI.-KENT J. INTELL. PROP. (2013).

Lauterpacht Elihu Lauterpacht, Daniel Bethlehem, ‘The scope and content of the

principle of non-refoulement: Opinion’ in Erika Feller, Volker Türk,

Frances Nicholson (eds), Refugee Protection in International Law,

UNHCR’s Global Consultations on International Protection (CUP &

UNHCR 2003).

Noor Noor Asyikeen Mohd Salleh & Sik Cheng Peng, Striking a Balance

between Public and Private Interests in Land Acquisition: A Cross-

Jurisdictional Perspective, 30 IIUMLJ 135 (2022).

xxvii
Nowak Manfred Nowak, U.N. Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, CCPR

commentary (2nd edn, Engel 2005).

Pallis Mark Pallis, ‘Obligations of States towards Asylum Seekers at Sea:

Interactions and Conflicts Between Legal Regimes’, (2002) 14 INT’L

J. REF. L.

Petersmann E-U Petersmann, The Human Rights Approach Advocated by the UN

High Commissioner for Human Rights and by the International Labour

Organisation: Is It Relevant for WTO Law and Policy?; J. INT'L ECON.

L. (2004).

Property-Book Jesse Dukeminier & James E. Krier, Propert (4th Edition. 1998)

Wolster Kluwer.

Resource- UNCTAD-ICTSD on IPRs and Sustainable Development, ‘Resource

Book Book on TRIPS and Development’, (2005) Cambridge University

Press.

RFR REDRESS, Reaching for Justice: The Right to Reparation in the

African Human Rights System, October 2013.

Simone Van Der Hof, Simone, Bert-Jaap Koops, & Ronald Leenes,

‘Anonymity and the Law in the Netherlands’, in Ian Kerr, Valerie

Steeves and Carole Luckock (eds.) Lessons from the Identity Trail

(2009).

Veijo Veijo Heiskanen, The Regulatory Philosophy of International Trade

Law, 38(1) J. World Trade 1, 1 (2004).

William William Thomas Worster, ‘The Evolving Definition of the Refugee In

xxviii
 Contemporary International Law’ (2009) 30 BERKELEY INT’L L. J.

Wilhelhm Jean Pictet, with the participation of Frédéric Siordet, Claude Pilloud,

Jean-Pierre Schoenholzer, René-Jean Wilhelm and Oscar Uhler,

Volume I: "Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition

of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field: Commentary",

ICRC.

Domestic Laws

Directive-EP Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council

of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in

Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals

[2008] OJ L 348, 24.12.2008/98.

EC-GDPR Council Regulation (EC) 2016/679 of 27 April 2016 on the protection

of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and

on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC

(General Data Protection Regulation) [2016] OJ L119/1.

GCC Section 900B, German Civil Code, 1900.

India’s- Section 65, Indian Limitation Act 1963.

Limitation

NZ Section 3(1), New Zealand’s Land Transfer Amendment Act, 1963.

RF REGERINGSFORMEN [RF] [CONSTITUTION] 2:1-12 (Sweden).

UK’s-Limitation Section 8(1),UK’s Limitation Act 1980.

xxix
Miscellaneous

EC2019 World Health Organization, Statement on the second meeting of the

International Health Regulations (2005) Emergency Committee

regarding the outbreak of novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), Jan. 30,

2020.

ADF- African Development Fund, ‘The Cost of Adaptation to Climate

ClimateChang Change in Africa’

e http://www.afdb.org/fileadmin/uploads/afdb/Documents/Project-

andOperations/Cost%20of%20Adaptation%20in%20Africa.pdf.

Callamard Agnes Callamard, ‘Expert meeting on the links between articles 19

and 20 of the ICCPR: Freedom of expression and advocacy of

religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility

or violence’ (UN HCHR Experts Papers, Geneva, 2 – 3 October 2008).

CholewinskI Ryszard Cholewinski, International migration law: developing

paradigms and key challenges (TMC Asser Institut 2007).

Clapham Clapham A, Gaeta P and Sassóli M, The 1949 Geneva Conventions:

A Commentary (OUP 2015).

DDS Dealing in double standards - the arms trade treaty. ATT Monitor.

(2016, August). Retrieved April 1, 2023, from

https://www.thearmstradetreaty.org/hyper-

images/file/ATT_Monitor_Case_Study_2-

Saudi_Arabia/ATT_Monitor_Case_Study_2-Saudi_Arabia.pdf.

xxx
Declaration- Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression in Africa, African

FoE Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights, 32nd Session, 17 - 23

October, 2002: Banjul, The Gambia.

DG-Remarks Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO Director-General's opening

remarks at the media briefing on COVID-19 (Mar. 11, 2020), available

at https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-

opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-covid-19---11-march-

2020.

Foster- Michelle Foster, ‘Colloquium, The Michigan Guidelines on Protection

Colloquium Elsewhere’ (2007) 28 MICH. J. INT'L L.

ICAO-Circular International Civil Aviation Organization, Circular 3559, Coronavirus

(COVID-19) – Joint Action by the International Civil Aviation

Organization (ICAO), the International Maritime Organization (IMO),

and the World Health Organization (WHO) (Mar. 9, 2020).

Karimova T. Karimova, “What amounts to a serious violation of human rights

law?” Geneva Academy Briefing No. 6, 2014.

Manila ‘Manila Principles on Intermediary Liability’ <

https://www.manilaprinciples.org/> accessed 23 March 2023,

Principle 2.

Proclamation- Proclamation 9994 of March 13, 2020 ‘Declaring a National

US Emergency Concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19)

Outbreak, Federal Register, The Daily Journal of United States

Government.

xxxi
Sang-Hun Choe Sang-Hun, South Korean Court Rejects Online Name

Verification Law, N.Y. TIMES, Aug. 24, 2012.

UG Council of the EU, updated User’s Guide to [EU] Council Common

Position 2008/944/CFSP defining common rules governing the control

of exports of military technology and equipment, COARM 172

CFSP/PESC 393, 20 July 2015.

xxxii
 SUMMARY OF FACTS

1. VI is a country on the east Komodoen Continent (KC) and consists of three islands

Vara, Juquor and NeZuquor. Before 1846 they were separate kingdoms. However,

Oga Gwevereshe (OG Warrior), the king of the Vara Kingdom, was able to unite the

three islands into one kingdom forcefully. The Drago-Zone is a disputed area that lies

within VI's shared border with the Varanidae Republic, and this matter is pending

before the ICJ.

2. VI's Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Provisions relating to the Right to

Property, civil-political and socio-economic rights, and cultural rights are similar to

those mentioned in the ICCPR and the ICESCR. VI has a Magistrate's Court, HC, SC

(highest Court of appeal) and CC. The CC has exclusive jurisdiction for Human Rights

and Constitutional matters. KCh has KHRC, which deals with matters relating to

violation of KCh or other international instruments ratified by the State concerned or

both.

Colonisation of VI

Father Mashayar Focus, from Squamata Kingdom (SK), was sent by the Queen of

SK on a religious mission to VI in 1863. In 1864, SK defeated OG Warrior,

establishing VI as a colony of SK. Mashayar Focus was allocated lands with sacred

Komodo Dragon Caves, now known as Focus Farms. Father Mashayar Focus

demolished local cemeteries and several Komodo Dragon Caves to construct the

Letter Main Temple.

xxxiii
Companies of Colonisers

Mashayar Focus founded FocusExtractives, a mining company. After his death, Lot

Focus, his son, inherited Focus Farm. In December 1914, Lot Focus and his two

brothers changed the company's name to FocusDefence LPC. They expanded their

operations to include military equipment, research and development alongside

mining minerals. In 1949, Lot Focus lost Focus Farm in a legal dispute with Ado Salt.

However, his son, Letters Focus, successfully raised funds and repurchased the farm

from the Salt family. Letters Focus also established Focus Inc. and FP.

Independence of VI

In 1956, Varanusians organised and protested against colonial rule, leading to an

armed struggle. LIBA (VI Liberation Army) was formed by Kenpo Druid (KD), and

after fighting for several years, warring parties signed a ceasefire agreement, the

LIBA-SK Agreement of 1983. The Agreement led to the first democratic elections in

VI, and KD became the first president. VI gained independence after Varanidae from

SK.

Internal War in Varanidae

Varanidae, post-independence, experienced a brutal civil war as local armed factions

clashed with each other and the Government. The Government of Varanidae has

accused VI of exacerbating this conflict and causing the displacement of Varanidaens

by supplying arms to the Government of Mero, which in turn arms these terrorist

groups. CABUDURA, an NGO based in VI, advocates for a ban on arms trade due

to its association with human rights violations. Their report, supported by evidence,

claims that VI's arms trade business violates IHL and has dramatically prolonged the

war in Varanidae, resulting in a refugee crisis. The report also asserts that VI was

xxxiv
aware of Mero's disregard for international humanitarian law but continued supplying

arms to them. International organizations and UN experts have echoed similar

allegations.

The war in Varanidae has caused severe environmental and famine crises, forcing

people to flee the country. VI responds to this influx by frequently arresting and

forcibly repatriating individuals attempting to enter its territory from Varanidae to

protect its borders. Upon assuming power, President Kōzō immediately halted VI's

arms sales to nations or groups involved in armed conflicts.

Refugee Crisis in Drago-Zone

Due to the civil war, famine, and climate change in Varanidae, many sought refuge

in Drago-Zone, resulting in a refugee crisis. The Government of VI has denied

responsibility for these individuals, claiming they are not refugees and that VI is not

accountable for their well-being. The VI military maintains control in Drago-Zone and

allows limited access to the ICRC for some medical assistance. However, the military

imposes strict restrictions on freedom of movement, justified on security grounds. The

conditions in overcrowded camps are dire, with outbreaks of diseases like cholera

and dysentery. There is no access to VI's hospitals and healthcare facilities, and over

9,000 deaths from COVID-19 are due to a lack of vaccines and medical equipment.

Moreover, education opportunities for children in Drago-Zone are severely limited,

with only around 1,500 children out of 4500 receiving schooling through a partnership

agreement with the private schools located in the borders on VI. In 2022, the VI-Mero

Migration Partnership was established to relocate people from the Drago-Zone to

Mero. VI agreed to provide Mero with 50 million Varanusian Dollar and cover

processing and integration costs. However, protests erupted due to insufficient

consultation regarding the Agreement. Many individuals who refused relocation

xxxv
feared persecution and victimization, with 80% expressing a preference to go to VI

rather than Mero. In September 2022, CABUDURA obtained a court order from the

VI High Court to suspend further relocations until the legality of such transfers was

determined. The Court's decision is still pending.

Law for CA

During the LIBA-SK Agreement negotiations, SK demanded constitutional

guarantees on property rights from the newly elected Government of VI. Section 20

was established, which protected property rights but allowed for government

acquisition in certain circumstances. Compensation would be provided, and

individuals had the right to challenge acquisitions in the Court. However, a military

coup in June 2018 removed President KD and installed Commander Kōzō, with

reports suggesting Varanidae Government's involvement.

In June 2021, Constitutional Amendment 3 was passed, amending Section 20. The

amendment focused on safeguarding future generations and addressing past

injustices through urgent land reform. It introduced nil compensation for compulsorily

acquired property, except for pre-existing improvements and excluding

improvements made by colonizers. Additionally, the right to challenge acquisitions in

Court was eliminated. Judges celebrated the amendment, expressing gratitude to

their ancestors and the Komodo Dragon for the return of their lands.

On June 19, 2021, the Government acquired the Focus Farm and Letter Main

Temple, transferring it to a close relative of President Kōzō. The new owner began

dismantling the Letter Main Temple, sparking protests on Twitter by Letters Focus.

xxxvi
COVID-19 in Drago-Zone and CL

Due to shortages of masks, medical equipment, and unavailability of vaccines, 9,000

people died from COVID-19 in the Drago-Zone by December 2021. In July 2021,

Mdarah Pharma, founded by Dr. Mdarah Madeker, produced the first COVID-19

vaccine called MdarahVac in KC. However, when FP, registered in VI, requested the

waiving of intellectual property rights for mass production of the vaccine for

humanitarian purposes, Dr. Madeker refused. FP took the matter to the VI High Court,

seeking the Government to invoke Article 31 of TRIPS and the TRIPS Act (1996) to

allow compulsory licensing of MdarahVac. Despite presenting evidence of the dire

situation in Drago-Zone and the vaccine's life-saving purpose, FP lost the case

against Mdarah Pharma and the VI government. Moreover, VI voted against the

TRIPS Communication brought by India and South Africa.

Data Appropriation

With recommendations of the UN Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human

rights, VI issued a call for tenders to provide IT infrastructure. Focus Inc. and

MdarahVision submitted their tenders, and MdarahVision won the tender. On 16th

April 2022, Focus Inc. staged a successful hostile takeover of MdarahVision in SK

and Letters Focus was alerted of massive data appropriation practices that

MdrahVision carried out between January 2020 and March 2022. Agreements

between the Government of VI and MdarahVision were discovered, and the latter

used to provide personal data for health and education projects. Moreover, it also

came to the notice that based on a contract in 2020, MdarahVision was granted

access to the personal data of Varanusians for research into the COVID-19 vaccine.

Letters Focus, in a press conference, revealed this as an abuse of personal data by

the Government of VI.

xxxvii
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. CLAIM A

The Applicant has title over Focus Farm and Letter Main Temple because of ‘adverse

possession’. Legislation concerning CA is inconsistent with international standards because

no public purpose has been stated. Moreover, no compensation is provided for the land

appropriated, and there is no right to contest the acquisition before a judicial forum, thereby

violating the owners ‘right to court’. The Government of VI is the Occupying Power and has

an obligation to ensure adequate health of the refugees in the occupied territory. There

existed a situation of ‘National Emergency’ in the Drago-Zone as many people were dying

of COVID-19, Government of VI should have issued a CL. Non-issuance of such license

went against the public interest and violated refugees’ right to life and health.

II. CLAIM B

CABUDURA is entitled to make claims with respect to the migrants, and VI violated

international law by failing to process the migrants and accord them a status consistent with

international law. Firstly, VI’s arms trade with Mero is inconsistent with its IHR obligations.VI

failed to prohibit arms trade and carry out an expert risk assessment to prevent diversion.

Secondly, CIL grants a status of subsidiary protection. By not according this status to the

migrants, VI has deprived the migrants of their status rights. VI further violated its non-

refoulment obligation by failing to process the VI migrants in due time and proposing

relocation.

xxxviii
 III. CLAIM C

VI’s decision to grant access to personal data violated the RTP of the victims. Firstly, VI’s

decision interfered with the victim's RTP. The interference was unlawful and not necessary

in the circumstances. Secondly, the interference failed to meet the proportionality

requirements since VI failed to adopt the least restrictive method available. Lastly, VI also

breached its positive obligation by failing to provide a legislative and regulatory framework

that protected the victims' RTP.

xxxix
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

PRELIMINARY ISSUES

i. Jurisdiction

Applicant submits that VI has accepted the jurisdiction to consider the violations of the

KC or any other relevant IHR treaties ratified by VI.1 Article 29 of the KC provides the

‘contentious jurisdiction’ to KHRC to decide upon matters relating to violation of the

KC or any other IHR treaty ratified by the State.2

In any event, the compétence de la compétence principle allows this honourable Court

to determine questions as to its jurisdictional competence and determine its own

jurisdictional limits.3

ii. Locus Standi

For Claim A, Mr. Letters Focus suffered personally from the damage directly caused4

and is a ‘victim of human rights violations’, since there is a recognised claim to

ownership of ancestral land in the absence of official title deeds.5

1
Factsheet¶7.
2
Ibid.
3
ACtHRP-Art.3(2).
4
Nikiema¶108-112.
5
Kenya-CMR¶206.

1
For Claim B, applications can be lodged by non-governmental legal entities

recognised under domestic law on behalf of victims.6 The application is brought on

behalf of the Varanidaen refugees by CABUDURA – an NGO registered in VI.7 The

Varanidaen Refugees are identifiable according to their presence in the Drago-Zone

due to the war and the famine.8 Where there are ‘grave and massive violations,’ it may

not be possible to identify the victims,9 and this uncertainty is a result of VI’s rights

violation.10

For Claim C, Local remedies were not in existence at the time when the facts

occurred.11

iii. Admissibility

The rules governing the admissibility of KHRC are similar to those provided in the

ACHPR.12 The Applicants are required to exhaust their domestic remedies before filing

a complaint/petition before KHRC.13 However, it is not absolute and has certain

exceptions.14

6
ACHPR-Art. 56(1); Haregewoin¶61.
7
Factsheet¶1,28,29,42.
8
Factsheet,¶24.
9
Malawi¶79.
10
Factsheet¶17.
11
Marcel¶49.
12
Factsheet¶7.
13
ACHPR-Art.56(5); ACtHRP-Art.6; ACtHRR-R.34 & 40; Amnesty¶32.
14
Aksoy¶52; Rosendo¶20; ZT¶8.1.

2
Wrt CLAIM A, insufficiency of national remedies is a ground for exception to the

exhaustion of national remedies.15 The remedies should comply with international

standards of providing compensation and restitution.16 However, in the current case,

the compensation is nil for the land compulsorily acquired by the Government of VI,17

thereby breaching the international standards for paying compensation.18 Moreover,

‘serious’ or ‘massive’ human rights violations are grounds for exception to the

exhaustion of domestic remedies.19 In the current case, by non-issuance of a CL, there

have been mass violations of the Right to Life and Health of the refugees,20 which

entitles the Applicant to file this petition before the KHRC.21

Wrt Claim B, following the judgments of the VI HC and the VI CC,22 CABUDURA had

duly exhausted all local remedies.

Wrt Claim C, the violation and the number of victims involved ipso facto renders local

remedies unavailable, ineffective and insufficient.23 A significant number of people

were targeted across the territory, and the violation is considered to be massive

because it is the product of a consistent and predetermined action that impacts a

15
Airey¶19(a).
16
Airey¶19(a); RFR¶¶44.
17
Factsheet¶32.
18
EHCR-Art1P1; ACHR-Art.21; ACHPR-Art.14.
19
Henry¶¶16; Ireland¶¶159.
20
ICCPR-Art.12; UDHR-Art.25; CERD-Art.5(e)(iv); CRC-Art.24; GVAP-Objective.2.2.
21
ACtHRR-R.39(1)(f); ACtHRP-Art.5(3).
22
23
COHRE¶100; OSJI¶46.

3
right.24 Furthermore, a ‘predetermined’ violation may arise from the implementation of

legislation.25 The magnitude of this violation affects a sizeable section of the population

of VI,26 and therefore, the exhaustion of local remedies is an exception.27

24
Factsheet¶44; Ahmed¶172; OSJI¶46.
25
Factsheet¶43; OSJI¶48.
26
Ibid.
27
Factsheet¶43-45.

4
 MERITS

CLAIM A: The CA of Focus Farm and Letter Main Temple without compensation

and refusal to CL MdarahVac are inconsistent with VI’s IHR obligations.

A. VI’s CA without adequate compensation was inconsistent with IHR

obligations.

1. The Applicant has the title over Focus Farm and Letter Main Temple

by adverse possession.

Adverse possession is a means to establish property ownership through continuous

possession28 and to give protection, it is necessary to recognize possession as a title.29

Courts have developed a series of requirements for adverse possession: (a) Exclusive

Possession, (b) Uninterrupted claim by the owner and (c) Continuous for the statutory

period.30

Letters Focus demonstrated exclusive possession by constructing Letter Main Temple

and establishing Focus Farm by Mashayar Focus.31 The indigenous people did not

contest ownership since 1864, indicating uninterrupted claim.32 The possession was

continuous from 1864 to 1985 and remained continuous after Letters Focus

28
HLR-1918¶¶135-137; Waltemeyer¶12; Fidelity-Case¶19.
29
Inman-Case¶205; Monasteries¶58.
30
Property-Book¶¶131; Manillo¶387; Butler¶64.
31
Factsheet¶11.
32
Factsheet¶11

5
repurchased the land until it was arbitrarily acquired by the Government of VI.33 These

actions align with the limitations provisions for adverse possession.34

2. The Legislation of CA is inconsistent with the IHR Standards

It is inconsistent because No Public Purpose stated[i], no compensation was

provided[ii], and Right to Court was denied[iii].

i. No Public Purpose stated

To compulsorily acquire land, the public purpose or ‘general interest’ of the community

must be there35 and stated explicitly.36 If not, it can be abused by the government

authorities.37 Moreover, a fair balance has to be struck between private rights and

public needs.38 The legislation does not clearly and objectively specify the purpose of

land acquisition.39 Merely stating “safeguard for future generations”, “to address the

injustices of the past,” and “recognise the hunger for land amongst dispossessed” is

wide and does not specifically and objectively state the public purpose for acquisition

of land,40 which leads to possible abuse by governmental authorities. Private

33
Factsheet¶15.
34
UK’s-Limitation[8(1)]; India’s-Limitation[65]; GCC[900B]; NZ[3(1)].
35
ECHR-Art1P1; ACHR-Art.21; ACHPR-Art.14.
36
FAO-Land¶2.14; Penn¶¶438; Sporrong¶123.
37
Allahyar¶¶329; Noor¶¶140.
38
FAO-Land¶2.2; Linguistic¶¶4-¶¶97.
39
Factsheet¶32.
40
Factsheet¶32.

6
individuals' land will be taken depending on the Government's arbitrary interpretation,

upsetting the fair balance.

ii. No Compensation

Compensation is an inherent right for deprivation of property because of CA and

should be provided by the Government.41 The legislation provides no compensation

for the lands that are compulsorily acquired by the Government, not even adequate or

less than the market value.42 This violates international laws governing CA and

interferes disproportionately with private property interests and rights.43

iii. Denial of Right to Court

Every individual has the ‘Right to Court’ in cases of violation of his civil rights.44 The

legislation should guarantee judicial procedure to contest CA.45 Owners have no legal

remedy in cases of acquisition if the judicial procedure is denied46 and due process of

law is faulted.47 Section-20(3) states that no one should apply to the Court to challenge

the acquisition.48 This leaves the Applicant with no remedy for his civil rights violations,

violating his ‘Right to Effective Remedy’.49

41
Harpum¶¶1358; Mary¶¶130; Granier¶336; Fricke¶¶2; Supra, note 35; ArCHR-Art.31; ADRDM-

Art.xxiii.
42
Factsheet¶32.
43
James¶53; King¶76-¶83.
44
ECHR-Art.6; ACHR-Art.8; ICCPR-Art.14(1); ACHPR-Art.17(1).
45
Sovtransavto¶96; Pye¶61; FAO-Land¶5.14; Mexico-Comment¶134.
46
Christof¶¶688-89.
47
Jones¶¶653-688.
48
Factsheet¶32.
49
ECHR-Art.13; Salvador¶58.

7
 B. Denial of a CL is inconsistent with VI’s IHR obligations.

As an occupier, the Government of VI has a legal obligation to ensure the health and

well-being of the refugees in the Drago-Zone[1]. Non-issuance of CL breached this

obligation[2].

1. The Government of VI has a legal obligation towards the refugees.

The territory is occupied if it is under the control and authority of a hostile army of

occupying power.50 The armed forces of VI are maintaining law and order in the Drago-

Zone,51 imposing restrictions on movement,52 implying that the Government of VI is

the occupying power. The Occupying Power holds an obligation to ensure the

adequate health of refugees in the occupied territory.53 Moreover, it should take

preventive measures necessary to combat epidemics, pandemics, and contagious

diseases,54 which also applies to COVID-19.55

2. Non-Issuance of CL breached this obligation

‘National emergency or circumstances of extreme emergency’ is grounds for granting

a CL for public health reasons.56 Epidemics represent ‘national or other extreme

emergencies,’57 and failure to issue such license impact public access to medicines to

50
Hague-Art.47; UNGA-Palestine¶11.
51
Factsheet¶27.
52
Factsheet¶27.
53
GC-Art.55; GC-Art.56; RES¶6; Hague-Art.43; HR-Palestine¶31; Ascan¶¶785.
54
Wilhelm¶¶152; Clapham.
55
DG-Remarks.
56
TRIPS-Art.31(b); Gervais¶116; Correa¶¶92-93.
57
Doha.Clause5(c); Correa¶¶92-93.

8
combat these diseases.58 COVID-19 is a public health emergency,59 and nations

issued CLs for vaccines to treat it.60 The refugees are dying because of COVID-19,61

Government of VI, despite being obligated, failed to issue CLs for their treatment.62

Moreover, non-issuance goes against the public interest [i] and violates the right to

life and health [ii].

i. Against Public Interest

Protecting human rights requires a balance between private and public rights.63 In CL,

public access to medicine takes precedence over the rights of a patentee.64 Non-

issuance of CL without reasonable grounds violates public interest.65 Similarly, non-

issuance of a CL in VI without valid reasons harms people's general interest in the

Drago-Zone.

ii. Right to Life and Health is violated

Individuals have the right to healthcare and access to vaccines,66 and states have an

obligation to ensure this access.67 During public health emergencies like pandemics,

58
GSPOA-Clause5.2; UNHLP.
59
EC2019; ICAO-Circular; Proclamation-US.
60
WTO-Circular¶29.
61
Factsheet¶27.
62
Factsheet¶39; Factsheet¶40.
63
OHCHR-GC; Kline; Beirer¶¶260.
64
Resource-Book¶¶541; Ladas¶¶532-37; Jerome¶15.
65
Lance¶¶298-320; MSD.
66
ICCPR-Art.12; UDHR-Art.25; CERD-Art.5(e)(iv); CRC-Art.24; GVAP-Objective.2.2.
67
Protection-Hr¶29; CESCR-GC14¶43-45; TACO¶94.

9
the State must prioritize the right to life over IPR.68 9000 people died in Drago-Zone

because of the COVID-19 emergency,69 despite the Government's refusal to issue CL

and grant access to the vaccines. Non-issuance of CL violates the right to life and

health of the refugees, who are more vulnerable to the pandemic.70

CLAIM B: VI’s arms trade and treatment of Varanidean refugees in the Drago-

Zone are inconsistent with its IHR obligations.

It is inconsistent with its IHR obligations[A]; it failed to process migrants and accord

refugee status [B]; treatment and transfer violates IHRL[C].

A. VI’s arms trade is inconsistent with its IHR obligations

The international trade in conventional arms affects a wide range of HRs protected

under international agreements and CIL.71 VI is bound to comply with various

obligations under the ATT72 and ICESCR.73

1. Violation of ATT.

An absolute obligation is imposed on a state party not to authorise a transfer if it has

knowledge of the circumstances being notorious or has reasonable suspicions that the

68
Patricia¶78-¶87; Roussel; Petersmann¶¶611;Veijo; Pandemics/HIV/AIDS¶7.
69
Factsheet¶27.
70
ECOSOC-Statement¶9.
71
ATT-MonitorReport¶¶26-43.
72
Clapham.
73
ICESCR-Art.11,12,13; Factsheet¶8.

10
arms would be used for crimes against humanity.74 VI had knowledge of the illicit flow

of arms by FocusDefence LPC to Mero, who armed terrorist groups that caused the

armed conflict in Varanidae, resulting in the displacement of Varanidaens, in turn

causing the refugee crisis.75

2. No expert risk assessment and prevention of diversion

State parties must carry out a comprehensive risk assessment prior to the

authorisation of an export.76 When there is a risk of unauthorised recipients using the

arms diverted to commit serious violations of IHL or IHRL, exporting State Parties must

assess the risk of diversion and consider establishing mitigation measures.77 VI failed

to assess the risk and authorised FocusDefence LPC to trade arms. Moreover, VI did

not adopt any mitigation measures and failed in its obligation to prevent diversion.78

B. Migrants were not processed and accorded with status.

Under CIL,79 ‘environmental refugees’ are granted a status of subsidiary protection

and are essentially provided with the rights set forth in the RC.80

74
ATT-Art.6.3; DDS.
75
Factsheet¶17.
76
Draft-Art.6(B)(1)(a).
77
ATT-Art.11.2; Bello¶123; UG¶¶46; Karrimova; UNGA-Plenary72; UNGA-Plenary71; ATT-Art.7;

ICRC, ATT-Art.1; ATT-Preamble; ICRC-AP1-Art.83.

78
ATT-Art.11; FP-Art.11; PoAP,Pt.II,¶2,11; Factsheet¶17-18.
79
RC; UDHR-Art.3; ICCPR-Art.6,7,12; CAT-Art.2; ECHR-Art.2,3,4,5; SPEU-13667/97; Council-

Directive; Goodwyn-Gill;
80
RC.

11
 1. Deprivation of migrants’ status rights under CIL

The migrants cannot claim the status of refugees, as the necessary element of

persecution is missing.81 However, CIL provides subsidiary protection for those who

do not satisfy this formal criterion of 'refugee'. State practice can be established when

many States engage in the same practice,82 and the practice of ‘specially affected

States’ is the most significant.83 Most African States ratified the OAU Convention,84

which includes 'environmental refugees' in its refugee definition.85 The State grants

protection under RC,86 and other states provide subsidiary protection in their municipal

law.87 VI failed to grant the migrants the status of subsidiary protection and deprived

them of their status rights by detaining them in the Drago-Zone while depriving them

of their basic needs.88

2. Violation of non-refoulement obligation

The non-refoulement obligation is rooted in the RC,89 CAT90 and ICCPR.91 States must

grant the migrants access to fair and effective procedures for determining status and

81
RC-Art.1(A)2.
82
Fisheries-Case¶131,138.
83
NorthSea-Case¶74; ADF-ClimateChange.
84
OAUC.
85
OAUC-Art.8(2).
86
Jane-OUP¶¶213; Fitzpatrick¶¶279,283.
87
Goodwyn-Gill¶¶38; Eduardo¶¶185,187; William¶¶146,136.
88
Factsheet¶26.
89
RC-Art.33(1).
90
CAT-Art.3.
91
ICCPR; GC20¶¶151.

12
protection needs.92 The non-refoulement obligation under the ICCPR is absolute and

applies even under exceptional circumstances.93 VI is obliged to observe the non-

refoulement obligation under CIL and ICCPR.94 VI has not afforded the migrants any

means to apply for a status, nor has it acknowledged the status of the migrants.95

Moreover, VI’s failure to recognize their status rights and to process the migrants in

due time violates this obligation.96

C. Treatment of migrants and their transfer to Mero violates IHRL.

VI violates its IHRL obligations by its conduct towards the migrants in the Drago-Zone

[1]. VI violates its non-refoulment obligation with the proposed transfer of the migrants

to Mero [2].

1. Violation of IHRL obligations towards the migrants

Governments are obliged to respect, protect and fulfil the HRs of individuals in

concentration or detention.97 VI failed to fulfil these obligations given the damning

conditions of the refugees in the Drago-Zone.98

92
Pallis¶¶329& 347; EXCOM; UNHCR-GCIP85; HRC-UN¶25.
93
Chahal¶79-80; UNCAT-GC01¶11; MBB¶6.4; UNHRC-GC20¶¶3-9.
94
ICCPR-Art.2.
95
Factsheet¶26.
96
Factsheet¶26-27.
97
OHCHR(2007).
98
Factsheet¶27.

13
 i. Right to liberty and security

Arbitrary detention violates the right to liberty and security99 and is a deprivation of

freedom of movement.100 It must have a legitimate aim,101 be proportionate, have a

fair balance between conflicting interests,102 and have a maximum duration of six

months.103 Detention must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and used only as a

last resort in migration policy.104 VI violated this right by forcibly returning migrants

crossing into its territory arbitrarily and detaining them in overcrowded, military-

manned closed-camps thereby restricting their movement.105

ii. Right to be treated with humanity and dignity and exposure to

degrading treatment.

All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and respect for the

inherent dignity of the human person.106 States are obligated to take positive measures

to ensure a minimum standard for humane detention conditions, regardless of

economic or budgetary difficulties.107 This protection is complemented by Article 7,108

which provides that no one shall be subjected to degrading treatment, which covers

99
ICCPR-Art.9; Hammel¶179; V.M.R.B.¶4.4,6.3,258.
100
Factsheet¶26; IOM¶¶25,27; Cholewinski¶¶54.
101
Cholewinski¶¶54; Velez¶162.
102
Arbitrary-Detention(Australia)¶12.
103
W.G.A.D.¶84; Directive-EP.
104
HCR-AR¶54; El-Dridi¶39; HRC-Promotion¶67,82.
105
Factsheet¶26-27.
106
ICCPR-Art.10; HRC-GC21.
107
HRCC458/1991¶9.3; Nowak¶¶188; HRC-GC21.
108
ICCPR-Art.7.

14
acts which cause physical and mental suffering to the individual.109 VI violated the

migrants’ right to be treated with humanity and respect for their inherent dignity by

denying them access to basic amenities during the time of health crisis and by

depriving entry into their territory.110

iii. Right to an adequate standard of living and the highest

attainable standard of health

Everyone has the right to an adequate standard of living for themselves and their

family.111 A State party must provide minimum standards with respect to the conditions

of detention.112 Poor sanitary and hygienic standards and lack of adequate food and

medical treatment are violations of these rights.113 VI violated these rights by not

providing the migrants with an adequate standard of living, failing to grant them the

highest attainable standard of health and by the unlawful treatment of the migrants.114

2. Violation of non-refoulement obligation by transferring the

migrants to Mero

A State can only transfer migrants to a safe third country115 with access to basic needs

and respect for their rights.116 If a transferring State has actual or constructive

109
GC20¶151; HRC-GC07.¶129.
110
Factsheet¶27.
111
ICESCR-Art.11; HRC-GC04¶1.
112
Nowak¶¶159.
113
Ibid¶¶172,247; HRC-GC14¶2; ICCPR-Art.10(1),12(1).
114
Factsheet¶27.
115
Lauterpacht¶¶122, ¶116.
116
Goodwyn-Gill¶¶393&395.

15
knowledge of violations of international obligations, it cannot make transfers in good

faith.117 The transferring State is disentitled from prompting any transfers to that State

unless and until there is clear evidence that the breach has ceased.118

The Government of Mero armed terrorist groups, causing displacement and a refugee

crisis.119 VI entered into a partnership and relocated migrants without adequate

consultation. Therefore, despite constructive knowledge, VI violated its non-

refoulment obligations.120

CLAIM C: VI’s agreements with MdarahVision and the consequent data

colonialism, expropriation, and exploitation are inconsistent with VI’s IHR

obligations.

It is inconsistent because it violated IHRL[A] and failed to fulfil its positive

obligations[B].

A. VI violated IHRL

States are obligated to respect the RTP irrespective of whether the interference

originates from State authorities or natural or legal persons.121 VI violated the rights

of the victims of the scandal.

117
Foster¶¶223,¶¶284.
118
Foster-Colloquium¶15.
119
Factsheet¶28.
120
Factsheet¶28.
121
ICCPR-Art.17; HRC-GC16.

16
 1. RTP

Personal data122 refers to any information related to an identified or identifiable

person.123 Concealing one’s identity is crucial124 to guaranteeing the right to ‘private

life.’125 However, in cases where an activity occurs in a publicly accessible location,126

it may be necessary to determine if an individual has a reasonable expectation of

privacy.127 VI's Government violated the RTP of individuals by sharing their personal

information with MdarahVision without their consent, which was discovered during a

hostile takeover.128

2. The interference with the RTP was Unlawful and Arbitrary

The disclosure of personal data without consent is unlawful and arbitrary.129 As it was

not provided by law[i], there was no legitimate aim for disclosure[ii], and disclosure

was unreasonable[iii].

122
Ibid.
123
EC-GDPR-Art.4(1); SADP; CPIAP.
124
Rep-RTP¶53; UNHRC-RTP¶¶10. UNHRC-RTOE¶¶23; ADIRF; Declaration-FoE; Delfi¶147;

Hannover¶95; K.U¶49; Spencer¶212; Simone¶¶504-05; RF; Homma¶47; Sang-Hun.

125
ECHR-Art.8.
126
Perry; Uzun; Hannover¶95; Benedik¶100.
127
Benedik¶101; Bărbulescu¶73; Copland¶41-42; Uzun¶44; Halford¶45; Katz¶62; Spencer¶17;

Byrd¶¶1518; Campbell¶21; Jarvis¶¶10.

128
Factsheet¶43-45.
129
UNHRC-GC16¶¶3-4; Toonen¶8.3; Hulst¶7.3; G, ¶4.5; SS-RTF¶¶28-29; ICCPR

Arts.12(3),17,18(3),21,22(2); Rotaru¶¶48; Gaweda¶¶39; Delfil¶119; Catt¶¶25; Marper¶¶99.

17
 i. The disclosure was not provided by law

An interference must have a legal basis in domestic law,130 accessible to the public131

and be formulated with sufficient precision to enable individuals to regulate their

conduct accordingly.132 The relevant legislation must specify in detail the precise

circumstances in which interferences may be permitted133 and be compatible with the

rule of law.134 There is no regulatory framework to protect individuals from unlawful

interference135 and excessive discretion, and abuse by law enforcement agencies.136

VI contracted with MdarahVision for health and education projects and its research

into the covid-19 vaccine, thereby disclosing personal data to MdarahVision that was

not provided by law even before the framework in the roadmap was published.137

ii. Disclosure was arbitrary

Interference will not be considered arbitrary if it is in accordance with the provisions,

aims and objectives of the ICCPR and is reasonable in the particular circumstances

of the case.138 To compel the disclosure of personal data of individuals without their

consent, governmental authorities must furnish relevant and sufficient justifications.139

130
Verein¶¶55; Rotaru¶¶52; Maestri¶¶30.
131
Sunday¶¶49; UNHRC-GC34¶¶2.
132
Groppeara¶¶68; Silver¶¶88; Herczegfalvy¶¶89; Leander¶¶51; Zakharov¶¶228; Rotaru¶¶52;

Malone¶¶56.
133
UNHRC-GC16¶8; MM¶¶193; Huvig¶¶32; Malone¶¶66-68; Rotaru¶52,55; Liberty¶¶59; Marper¶¶95.
134
Kruslin¶¶30; Malone¶¶67; BBWatch¶¶305; Benedik¶¶125.
135
Hämäläinen¶¶63; Airey¶¶33; Fonteecchia¶¶49; Manila; ADIRF¶¶18.
136
UNHRC-SSPP¶¶6-7.
137
Factsheet¶44.
138
GAOR(A/43/40)¶22; Huls¶7.3; HRC-GC16¶4.
139
Peck¶¶85; Mozer¶¶194.

18
Rights can be restricted if it aims to balance the right to privacy with other vital societal

interests, such as protecting the rights and reputations of others or ensuring public

health, and morals are safeguarded.140 No compelling legitimate reason was furnished

by VI. VI failed to take consent from the participants and did not inform them of such

disclosure.141

iii. The disclosure was not reasonable

‘Reasonable’ means that any interference with privacy must be necessary in the

circumstance of any given case and be proportional to the end sought.142 The

interference is necessary only if it fulfils a pressing social need,143 and proportionality

requires it to be the least restrictive measure to achieve the end sought.144 VI exploited

data to improve infrastructure and research for MdarahVac within the territory and

failed to regulate and ensure the protection of fundamental HRs.145

B. VI failed to discharge its positive Obligation

Individuals have right to protection of privacy,146 and the State must adopt measures

to enforce this right.147 This includes a regulatory framework and adjudicatory

140
UNHRC-GC31¶¶6; UNHRC-RTOE¶¶28; Bossuyt¶¶375; Callamard; Nowak¶¶468-480; ICCPR-

Arts.12(3),18(3),19(3),21,22(2).
141
Factsheet¶45.
142
Toonen¶8.3; HRC-GC16¶4.
143
Otegi¶49; Fuentes¶43; Mamere¶19; Steel¶87; Lehideux¶51; Bergens¶48.
144
UNHRC-SRPPRTF¶¶16-17; Lohe¶¶148-149; Sunday¶¶62.
145
Factsheet¶43.
146
ICCPR-Art.2,17(2).
147
UNHRC-GC16¶¶1.

19
machinery.148 Interference with privacy should be adjudicated by an independent

judiciary offering the best guarantees of independence, impartiality and a proper

procedure.149 VI published a Roadmap to protect personal data, but individuals were

not informed or asked for consent. VI's grant of access to personal data before the

roadmap was published violates its positive obligation.150

REPARATIONS

States have an obligation to provide remedies, compensation151 and reparations for

the violations of IHRL or IHR.152 Reparations should be proportional to the gravity of

the violation and harm suffered.153

Wrt CLAIM A, property rightfully owned by the Applicants should be returned to them

and restored to their original position.154 Additionally, CL should be issued to FP as a

fair balance has to be struck,155 and the right to health is to be maintained.156

Wrt CLAIM B, Applicants seek that the Court order, under its power to issue

provisional measure,157 that VI: determine the status of displaced varanidaens; and

facilitate the entry into innerland VI thereby providing access to better facilities.

148
Weber¶¶95; Kruslin; Huvig¶¶32-35; Amann¶¶74.
149
Klass¶¶55; Smirnova¶¶47-48; Hämäläinen¶¶63.
150
Factsheet¶43-44.
151
Slovenia¶79. Honduras¶68; ICCPR-Art.2(3).
152
UNGA-Reparation¶7;
153
UNGA-Reparation¶18
154
Chinchilla¶261.
155
OHCHR-GC; Kline; Beirer¶¶260
156
ICCPR-Art.12; UDHR-Art.25; CERD-Art.5(e)(iv); CRC-Art.24; GVAP-Objective.2.2.
157
Factsheet¶7

20
Wrt CLAIM C, VI must guarantee the victims’ RTP158 for which the victims must be

financially compensated.159

PRAYER

Applicant humbly prays before this Court to adjudge and declare that:

1. All the claims are admissible.

2. CA without adequate compensation and refusal of CL by MdarahVac is against

IHR Obligations.

3. VI’s arms trade and its treatment of Varanidean refugees in Drago-Zone are

inconsistent with its IHR Obligations.

4. VI’s agreements with MdarahVision and the consequent data colonialism,

expropriation and exploitation are inconsistent with VI’s IHR Obligations.

Word Count

Summary of Argument: 310

Arguments: 2956

158
CAT-Art.13; UNPIT-Principle3(b); ICCPR-Art.17(2).
159
ASR-Art.34,36(2).

21