IN THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

AT THE PEACE PALACE

THE HAGUE, THE NETHERLANDS

THE CASE CONCERNING EXTRADITION, ASYLUM AND

NATIONALITY.

UNION OF DHURESSIA & BARBADA

APPLICANT

v.

SANTA BARA, PARMALA & MANNAR

RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER

40TH ALL INDIA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION……………………………………………………..2

STATEMENT OF FACTS………………………………………………………………..3

STATEMENT OF ISSUES……………………………………………………………….8

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS………………………………………………………….9

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED……………………………………………………………..10

PRAYER …………………………………………………………………………………..13

1
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

In accordance with Article 40(1) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice,

the Union of Dhuressia and Barbada and Santa Bara, Parmala and Mannar submitted the

following dispute to the Court on 24 July 2022. The parties signed a special agreement to

submit their dispute to the Registrar of the Court. See Special Agreement Between Union

of Dhuressia and Barbada and Santa Bara, Parmala and Mannar for Submission to the ICJ

of Differences Between Them Concerning Questions Relating to Extradition, Asylum and

Nationality.

2
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

The Union of Dhuressia (hereinafter Dhuressia), is a transcontinental country mainly located in South
America. The country is a middle income country highly dependent on agriculture and other commodities
made up of metals. Mr. Antonio Gonzalez is the Chairman of Zales Cosmetics Corporation (ZCC) which is a
leading cosmetics manufacturing company in Dhuressia. ZCC is the second largest employer in Dhuressia
after the Dhuressian Railways.
Mr. Antonio was one of the most successful Dhuressian football players ever. He played for
Parakode Tuskers FC (PTFC) during 1998-2002 .In 2018 he invested $2 million in PTFC and became the
first former player of Dhuressia to buy a club and the funds were arranged by several loans from different
banks
In 2020, there were serious allegations against the functioning of ZCC in Dhuressia and different
investigating agencies started investigation. In January 2021, a consortium of banks led by the Central Bank
of Dhuressia approached ZCC for the payback of loans amounting to more than 8000 crores at that time it was
not in a position to pay back and hence in 2021 December, the consortium of banks declared ZCC as a wilful
defaulter. On receiving the information about the registration of criminal cases, Mr. Antonio fled to Santa
Bara in the mid of December, 2021.

Santa Bara, a neighbouring country of Dhuressia, is a federal republic of 50 States and each state
has their specified powers with a written Constitution and subject to the control of the Federal Government
of Santa Bara. Galifornia is one of the prominent states of Santa Bara with stringent laws relating to financial
frauds. The Prevention of Money Laundering Law, 1997, of Galifornia makes the willful default of
repayment of loans as an criminal offences.
In January 2022, Dhuressian Government officially requested Santa Bara Government to extradite
Mr. Antonio and said request was rejected by Santa Bara Government in February 2022. Since there is
a treaty between Dhuressia and Santa Bara for facilitating extradition of persons alleged to have
committed crimes, Dhuressia expressed its protest towards the rejection of the extradition request. The
Governor of State of Galifornia has supported the Dhuressian Government and criticised the stand taken by
Santa Bara.

In March, 2022 apprehending an arrest from Galifornia Enforcement Agencies, Mr. Antonio
sought asylum in the Embassy of Parmala which is situated in Galifornia. The Republic of Parmala is
3
always at the forefront of human rights accepted the asylum request of Mr. Antonio. Since the Asylum is
granted against the Santa Bara in the Embassy situated in Galifornia, the Santa Bara President severely
criticised the said grant of asylum and it objected by Dhuressia as it violates general principles of
international law.
In April 2022, Mannar, a Caribbean Island Country granted nationality to Mr. Antonio through the
processing of an application for registration of nationality submitted by Mr. Antonio in 2018 with
retrospective effect. The grant of nationality with effect from 2018 was objected to by Dhuressia, as it
violates general principles of international law according to Dhuressia.
In May, 2022, Mannar officially requested Parmala to arrange safe passage to Mr. Antonio Parmala
with the help of Santa Bara arranged a safe passage for Mr.Antonio through Barbada, a transit country.
While Mr. Antonio was waiting in the Barbada airport, the security personnel arrested Mr. Antonio and
handed him over to the officers belonging to the enforcement agency of Dhuressia. Both Parmala and
Mannar raised objections to the said arrest and handing over of Mr. Antonio.the different events which took
place in connection with extradition, asylum, grant of nationality, and the subsequent arrest of Mr. Antonio
have created tension and conflicts in the relations between dhuressia, santa bara, parmala, mannar and
barbada. though several negotiations were attempted between the countries to resolve the disputes, the
negotiations were not successful and the countries failed to resolve their disputes amicably. therefore, they
agreed to submit their disputes to the international court of justice under a special agreement pursuant to
article 36, paragraph 1, of the statute of the international court of justice. the laws of these countries are not
in parimateria with any other country, hence they agreed to apply the general international law as a source of
law. a joint notification was addressed to the register of the court and the special agreeement was submitted
to the international court of justice by the union of dhuressia and barbada (applicants) and the santa bara,
parmala and mannar (respondents) concerning extradition, asylum and nationality.

4
 JOINT NOTIFICATION
ADDRESSED TO THE REGISTRAR OF THE COURT

The Hague, 24 July, 2022

On behalf of the Union of Dhuresia & Barbada and the Santa Bara, Parmala & Mannar in accordance with
Article 40(1), paragraph 1, of the Statute of International Court of Justice, we have the honor to transmit to
you an original copy of the Special Agreement for submission to the International Court of Justice of the
Difference between the Applicants and the Respondents concerning the Differeces Between them
concerning Extradition, Asylum and Nationality in the Hague, The Netherlands, on the twenty fourth day
of July in the year two thousand twenty two.

/s/ /s/

Ambassadors of the Union of Dhuressia Ambassadors of Santa Bara, Parmala

& Barbada & Mannar

5
 SPECIAL AGREEMENT

SUBMITTED TO THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

BY THE UNION OF DHURESSIA AND BARBADA (APPLICANTS)
AND THE SANTA BARA, PARMALA AND MANNAR (RESPONDENTS)
CONCERNING EXTRADITION, ASYLUM AND NATIONALITY

The Union of Dhuressia & Barbada (Applicants) and the Santa Bara, Parmala & Mannar (Respondents)
(hereinafter the Parties);
Recalling that the Parties are Members of the United Nations and that the Charter of the United Nations
calls on Members to settle international disputes by peaceful means,

Considering that differences have arisen between them concerning the Extradition, Asylum and Nationality
and other matters;

Noting that the Parties have been unable to settle these differences by direct negotiations;

Desiring further to define the issues to be submitted to the International Court of Justice (“the Court”) for
resolution;

In furtherance thereof the Parties have concluded this Special Agreement:

Article 1
The Parties submit the questions contained in this Special Agreement (“the Case”) to the Court pursuant to
Article 40(1) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice.

Article 2
It is agreed by the Parties that the Union of Dhuressia & Barbada shall appear as Applicants and the Santa
Bara, Parmala & Mannar as Respondents, but such agreement is without prejudice to any question of the
burden of proof.

Article 3
(a) The Court is requested to decide the Case on the basis of the rules and principles of international law,
including any applicable treaties.

(b) The Court is also requested to determine the legal consequences, including the rights and obligations
of the Parties, arising from its Judgment on the questions presented in the Case.

Article 4
(a) The proceedings shall consist of written pleadings and oral arguments.

6
(b) The written pleadings shall consist of memorials to be submitted simultaneously to the Court by the
Parties.
Article 5

(a) The Parties shall accept any Judgment of the Court as final and binding upon them and shall execute it
in its entirety and in good faith.

(b) Immediately after the transmission of any Judgment, the Parties shall enter into negotiations on the
modalities for its execution.

In witness whereof, the undersigned, being duly authorized, have signed the present Special Agreement
and have affixed thereto their respective seals of office.

Done in The Hague, The Netherlands, on the twenty fourth day of July in the year two thousand twenty
two.

/s/ /s/

Ambassadors of the Union of Dhuressia Ambassadors of Santa Bara, Parmala

& Barbada & Mannar

7
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

A. The rejection of extradition request by Santa Bara is against the basic principles
of international law.

B. The extra-territorial asylum granted by Parmala is a violation of international

obligations by Parmala.

C. The grant of nationality by Mannar with effect from 2018 is not justifiable.

D. The arrest and extradition of Mr. Antonio is in accordance with the basic
principles of international law.

8
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

A. The rejection of extradition request by Santa Bara is against the basic principles
of international law.

It is humbly submitted to this honourable court that the

rejection of extradition request by Santa Bara is against the basic principles of
international law. Based on the facts of this current case it is clear that there is a treaty
for extradition between Union of Dhuressia and Santa Bara, but it was breached by
Santa Bara by rejecting the extradition request of Dhuressia which results in violation
of an international obligation by Santa Bara. And also there is no ground to refuse the
request of extradition in this case matter.

9
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

A. The rejection of extradition request by Santa Bara is against the basic principles
of international law

It is humbly submitted to this honourable court that the

rejection of extradition request by Santa Bara is against the basic principles of international law.
Based on the facts of this current case it is clear that there is a treaty for extradition between Union
of Dhuressia and Santa Bara, but it was breached by Santa Bara by rejecting the extradition request
of Dhuressia which results in violation of an international obligation by Santa Bara. It invokes state
responsibility under Article 1 of Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Act by
International Law Commission which says that “Every internationally wrongful act of a State entails
the international responsibility of that State”, based on Article 2(b) of Responsibility of States for
Internationally Wrongful Act by International Law Commission explaining that it is a wrongful act
when the state “constitutes a breach of an international obligation of the State”.

It is said that the state responsibility is invoked because there

was a breach of obligation and also there was no ground for rejection of the extradition requested by
Dhuressia. As the parties are members of the United Nations and the Charter of the United Nations,
the United Nations Modern Law on Extradition 2004 describes the grounds for refusal of an
extradition request from Sections 4 to 15 which are –

 Offences of political nature

 Discrimination clause
 Torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
 Fair trial standards-Judgement in absentia-Extraordinary or ad hoc court or tribunal
 Ne bis in idem
 Statute of limitation
 Military offences

10
  Nationality
 Death penalty
 Extraterritoriality
 Surrender to International Criminal Court or Tribunals
 Prosecution in case of non-extradition respectively.

In this said case there was no fulfillment of any of these grounds in order to reject the request for
extradition from Dhuressia. The offence committed by Mr. Antonio Gonzalez in Dhuressia was also
a criminal offence in Galifornia which is one of the prominent states in Santa Bara along with
another state. Even though in Section 5 in chapter 1 from Part 2 of United Nations Model Law on
Extradition it is provided that Double Criminality as a requirement for extradition, under the
PROTECTION PRINCIPLE it is said that double criminality never applies when extraterritorial
jurisdiction is based on the protection principle. Usually, this principle applies to crimes committed
against the state, but it may, rather exceptionally, also encompass crimes against the economic
interests of a state. In the Abu Salem Extradition Case, Abu Salem worked with the D-Company
( Gang of Dawood Ibrahim). He was accused of murders, attempted murders, extortion, drugs
dealing , money laundering etc. He was a part of Mumbai Serial blasts case, 1993 which killed more
than 250 people. After the incident he fled to Dubai then to USA and finally ended up in Portugal. A
Red Corner Notice was issued against him by Interpol. He was arrested in Portugal for staying there
with forged passports and documents.There was no official extradition treaty between Portugal and
India then i.e, in 2002 (The official treaty was signed by both countries only in 2007). So India made
a formal request to Portugal for extraditing Abu Salem to India. The request was made in pursuance
of the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings to which both India and
Portugal are signatories. The extradition request was made by India for the prosecution of the
accused in relation to 9 criminal cases. When the Extradition Trial started in Portugal, Indian
Ambassador in Libson (Portugal) gave assurance to the Republic of Portugal that:

Abu Salem will not be prosecuted for any offence other than those for which he is sought for and;
He will not be re-extradited to any other third country.
Also the Portugal mandated that he should not be imposed with death penalty and an imprisonment
more than 25 years cannot be awarded to him.
11
In 2005, the Supreme Court of Justice granted the extradition request made by India.

In this case the economic interest of Dhuressia is affected

because Zales Cosmetic Corporation has procured loan and haven’t repaid it which amounts to more
than 8000 crores which was approached by Central Bank of Dhuressia asking to repay the loan. As
Mr. Antonio is the chairman of the Zales Cosmetic Corporation, on hearing the information about
the registration of criminal cases, fled to Santa Bara. The request for extradition was made by
Dhuressia was to trial him and to protect the economic interest of the state. Based on the protection
principle and the non-fulfillment of the grounds of refusing the request of extradition, the request for
extradition of Dhuressia was rejected by Santa Bara which also breached the treaty of extradition
between Santa Bara and Dhuressia. So it can be concluded that the rejection of extradition request
amounts to violation of basic principles of the international law.

12
 PRAYER

WHEREFORE IN LIGHT OF FACTS STATED, ISSUES RAISED AND ARGUMENTS

ADVANCED AND AUTHORITIES CITED, IT IS MOST HUMBLY PRAYED BEFORE THIS
HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT TO ADJUDGE AND DECLARE:

1. That the rejection of extradition requested by Santa Bara is against the basic principles of
international law.

2. By such rejection of the request of extradition without any grounds of refusal, Santa Bara has
violated the Treaty of Extradition between Santa Bara and Dhuressia.

3. Santa Bara has invoked state responsibility by violating the Treaty of Extradition.

MAY ALSO BE PLEASED TO PASS ANY OTHER ORDER THAT IT DEEMS FIT IN LIGHT
OF JUSTICE, EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE.

ALL OF WHICH IS MOST HUMBLY SUBMITTED

Place: Hague S/d

Date: On behalf of the Petitioners

13