Privacy Authorities Moot

SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 1 Monday, March 04, 2024

Printed For: CHINMAY HARSH KARN, SCC Online MyLOFT Remote Access
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10th RMLNLU SCC OnLine Moot, 2022

Winner Team Memorial - Respondent
Before
The International Court of Justice
The Hague, Netherlands
(Under Article 40(1) of the Statute of the ICJ)
In the Case of
The Socialist Republic of Qinquest … (Applicant);
Versus
The Republic of Winland … (Respondent).
“Case Concerning the Ban on Chirp and Other Matters”
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Sl. Title Page
No. No.
1. List of Abbreviations 3
2. Index of Authorities 4
3. Statement of Jurisdiction 9
4. Statement of Facts 10
5. Issues Raised 12
6. Summary of Arguments 13
7. Arguments Advanced 15
I. Whether the Court can adjudicate over the present dispute
and whether the same is maintainable before it?
……………………………………………………………15
II. Whether the ban imposed on Chirp by the Presidential Order
promulgated by the President of Winland is violative of the
Principles of Freedom of Speech and Expression enshrined
both in the Winlandan Constitution and the International
Law?……………………………………………………………17
III. Whether the ban imposed by the Presidential Order
promulgated by the President of Winland is violative of the
Right to Determination and Right to Personal Life and Liberty
of the Minority group of Runerians under the Winlandan
Constitution and the International Law?
……………………………………………………………21
IV. Whether the ban on Chirp under the Presidential Order is
tenable under the Principles of International Law?
……………………………………………………………25
V. Whether the statement made by the President Palpatine as
the head of State for Winland, in respect to the Qinquestian
people, wherein he refers to the Sickness virus as
‘Dragonvirus’ constitute as a direct insult of the Socialist
Republic of Qinquest, thereby the same amounting to the
Defamation of State as per the Principles of International
Law? ……………………………………………………………28
8. Prayer 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Abbreviation Expansion
¶ Paragraph
¶¶ Paragraphs
§ Section
§ § Sections
AIR All India Reporter
App Application
Art. Article
cl. Clause
Cri. L.J. Criminal Law Journal (India)
ECtHR European Court of Human Rights
GFEPA Global Financial Emergency Powers Act
ICCPR International Covenant on Civil and Political Right
ICJ International Court of Justice
I.T Act Information Technology Act
p. Page no.
SC Supreme Court of India
SCC Supreme Court Cases
SCR Supreme Court Reporter (India)
UN United Nations
v. Versus
QCP Qinquest Communist Party
ICESR International Covenant on Economic and Social Rights
VCLT Vienna Convention on Law of Treaties
ARSIWA Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally
Wrongful Acts
U.N. United Nations
HRC Human Rights Committee
GC General Comment
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Sl. Authority Page
No. Number
1. TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS
1. Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning 41
Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in
accordance with the Charter of the United Nations (Adopted
by the General Assembly on 24 October, 1970)
2. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (adopted 14
16 December, 1966, entered into force 23 March, 1976).
3. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural 14
Rights (Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and
accession by General Assembly resolution 2200A(XXI) of 16
December, 1966)
4. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Jan. 27, 1980. 14
5. World Trade Organization Agreement 21
6. General Agreement on Trade and Services, Jan. 1, 1995. 21
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. The Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally 25, 26

Wrongful Acts (ARSIWA) Dec. 14, 1976.
8. Statute of the International Court of Justice, Jun. 26, 1945. 11
2. JOURNAL ARTICLES
1. Amy Shepherd, Extremism, Free Speech and the Rule of Law 15
Evaluating the Compliance of Legislation Restricting
Extremist Expressions with
Article 19 ICCPR, 33 UTRECHT JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL AND
EUROPEAN LAW 62, 71-72 (2017).
2. Toby Mendel, Restricting Freedom of Expression: Standards 17
and Principles, Background Paper for Meetings Hosted by the
UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and
Expression, Centre for Law and Democracy, p. 9;
3. John O'Connor, Good Faith in International Law (1991) 2. 14
4. C Fried, ‘Privacy’, (1968) 77 Yale Law Journal 475, 483. 20
5. SD Warren and LD Brandeis, ‘The Right to Privacy’, (1890) 4 20
Harvard Law Review 193, 195
6. SE Wilborn, ‘Revisiting the Public/Private Distinction: 20
Employee Monitoring in the Workplace’, (1998) 32 Georgia
Law Review 825, 833.
7. Delimatsis, Hrynkiv, Security Exception under the GATS - A 24
Legal Commentary on Article XIVbis GATS, Tilburg University
L.J., 2020.
8. Hahn Mich. J. of Int'l L. 12 (1991), 558. 24
9. Moni, Srinivas, Defamation in International Law: The Legal 26
Implications of Trump Calling COVID-19 “Chinese Virus”, 53
Cornell Intl. L. J., p. 50.
10. Raj Bhalla, National Security and International Trade Law: 24
What the GATT Says and What The United States Does, 19 U.
Penn.J. Intl. Trade L. 262 (1998).
11. Roger P. Alford, The Self-Judging WTO Security Exception, 24
697 Utah L.Rev (2011).
3. BOOKS REFERRED
1. Dominika Bychawska Siniarska, Protecting the Right to 13
Freedom of Expression under the European Convention on
Human Rights, 35-36 (2017)
2. Sarah Joseph & Melissa Castan, The International Covenant 17
on Civil and Political Rights, cases, materials and
commentary 615 (3rd ed. Oxford University Press 2013); Eur.
Consult. Guide on Article 10 of the European Convention on
Human Rights, Freedom of Expression, 24 (2021).
3. J Michael, ‘Privacy’, in D Harris and S Joseph (eds), ‘The 20
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and
United Kingdom Law’ (Clarendon Press, 1995), p.333.
4. F Volio, ‘Legal Personality, Privacy, and the Family’, in L 20
Henkin (ed), The International Bill of Rights (Columbia
University Press, 1981), 193−5.
5. M Nowak, UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: CCPR 20
Commentary (2nd edn, NP Engel, 2005), 378.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. AF Westin, Privacy and Freedom (Athenaeum, 1967), 7 20

7. Villiger, Commentary on the 1969 Vienna Convention on the 26
Law of Treaties, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden, 2009,
pp. 374-375.
4. CASES REFERRED
International Cases
1. International Court of Justice, Case Concerning the Arrest 12
Warrant of 11 April, 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo
v. Belgium), Judgement 14 Febuary 2002; available on
http://www.icj-cij.org.
1. Appellate Body Reports, China − Measures Related to the 13
Exportation of Rare Earths, Tungsten, and Molybdenum,
WT/DS431/AB/R/WT/DS432/AB/R/WT/DS433/AB/R,
adopted, 29 August, 2014.
2. Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua 14
(Nicaragua v. United States of America) Merits, Judgment
ICJ Reports 1986.
3. Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of 14
America), Preliminary Objection, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports
1996, p. 803.
4. Youtube Corp v. The Presidency of Telecommunication and 17
Communication, 2014, Esas [Case] No. 2014/4705,
Constitutional Court, Turkey.
5. Panel Report, Russia-Measures Concerning Traffic in Transit, 25
WTO Doc. WT/DS512/7/R (adopted 5 April, 2019).
6. Panel report, Saudi Arabia − Measures Concerning the 25
Protection of Intellectual Property Rights − Communication
from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, WTO Doc.WT/DS567/R
(Adopted 16 June, 2020).
7. Le Pen v. France, App. No. 18788/09, (Eur. Ct. H.R). (Apr. 29
20, 2010).
8. Erbakan v. Turkey, App. No. 59405/00, 64 (Eur. Ct. H.R.) 29
July 6, 2006).
Domestic Cases
1. Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, (2016) 7 SCC 221, 15
2016.
2. Foundation for Media Professionals v. State (UT of J&K), 15
(2020) 5 SCC 746,
3. Ramlila Maidan Incident, In re., (2012) 5 SCC 1, 2012 Cri LJ 13
3516.
4. N.K. Bajpai v. Union of India, (2012) 4 SCC 653. 15
5. Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, (2020) 3 SCC 637. 13
6. Gujarat Mazdoor Sabha v. State of Gujarat, (2020) 10 SCC 16
459 : 2020 SCC OnLine SC 798.
7. Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 740. 18
8. Superintendent, Central Prison, Fatehgarh v. Dr. Ram 19
Manohar Lohia, (1960) 2 SCR 821.
9. Kharak Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1963 SC 1295. 22
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1976) 2 SCC 521 : AIR 22

1976 SC 1207.
OTHER SOURCES
1. General comment No. 34, Article 19: Freedoms of opinion 12
and expression, CCPR/C/GC/34, Human Rights Committee
102nd session Geneva, 11-29 July, 2011.
2. General Comment No. 31 [80], The Nature of the General 13
Legal Obligation Imposed on States Parties to the Covenant,
CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add. 13, 26 May, 2004, Adopted on 29
March, 2004 (2187th meeting).
3. Adopted at the 98th plenary meeting, 14 Dec. 1976. In: 14
Resolutions and decisions adopted by the General Assembly
during its 31st session. Volume 1, 21 September-22
December, 1976. - A/31/39. -1977. - p. 42-43. - (GAOR,
31st sess., Suppl. no. 39).
4. U.N. G.A. 53rd Sess., U.N. Doc. 56/83/A/56/49 (Vol.1) (Dec. 14
12, 2001).
5. The Johannesburg Principles on National Security, Freedom 18
of Expression and Access to Information, 20 Human Rights
Quarterly 1, 7(a)(ii) at p. 5 (1998).
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
Both Winland and Quinquest are parties to the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights (ICCPR). As per Article 36(1) of the Statute of the International Court
of Justice, this Court has the requisite jurisdiction to consider the present application
from all persons alleging violations of their rights under various treaties, including the
World Trade Organization Treaty and the ICCPR.
The Applicants have filed applications before this Court alleging violations of their
right to freedom of speech and expression in Article 19 of the ICCPR, the tenability of
the Presidential Order passed by President Palpatine of Winland in light of the General
Agreement on Trade and Services (GATS), and the allegation of defamation for
President Palpatine's speech. They have exhausted the available domestic remedies.
Therefore, the Hon'ble Court has the jurisdiction to adjudicate this case.
The Applicants humbly submit to the jurisdiction of this Court, and request this
Court to adjudge the dispute in accordance with the applicable rules and principles of
international law, including any applicable declarations and treaties.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
■ ABOUT WINLAND
1. The Republic of Winland, has the highest number of Chirp users in the World.
Chirp is a social media mobile application aimed at social community building online.
Winland has been inhabited by Devoteds, Runerians and immigrants. While Devtaan is
majority religion of majority in Winland, Runerians account for 10% of the population
of Winland. Communal tension between the two religious groups regarding have been
prevailing in Winland.
2. Mr. Vince Palpatine, the President of Winland has long exhibited tendencies to
favour Devoteds. Under his rule, the internal policies of State have become less
conducive for Minorities.
■ ABOUT QINQUEST
3. The Socialist Republic of Qinquest is being ruled by Mr. Cho Hak Wei, the leader
of Qinquest Communist Party. Qinquest is governed by a single party, unlike Winland.
Citizens of Qinquest are mostly followers of Runeria, and the dragon is considered as
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the national symbol of Qinquest.

4. QCP exercises policy control over media and press with the motive of preventing
unwanted foreign interventions. At the same time, the government has taken actions
to bolster the domestic businesses. The QCP is interested in expanding home-grown
businesses internationally.
■ CHIRP AND THE PANDEMIC
5. Chirp was developed and launched by its CEO, Mr. Chen, an ardent follower of
QCP. Chirp has over 250 million followers globally and notably, has the widest reach
among users in Winland.
6. Chirp is being promoted as a ‘video-sharing social network. Chirp's privacy policy
has specified the scope for collection of users’ data. It also has a
Community Standards Policy that lays down the basic code of conduct for users and
specifies content liable to be taken down.
7. The ‘Sickness’ is an ongoing global pandemic which is transmitted by a virus that
spreads easily through coughs and sneezes. The cure for the Sickness is through
inoculation. At this time, Chirp was being used by anti-vaccine groups to spread
misinformation against vaccination.
■ ATTACK ON MINORITIES OF WINLAND
8. Runerians were being targeted on Chirp, and were being called super-spreaders
of the virus. Consequently, the minorities were refused medical access in hospitals in
Winland. Pursuant to the protests of Devoteds, 2250 Runerians were prohibited to
enter Winland for 10 years.
■ INVOLVEMENT OF QCP IN THE OPERATIONS OF CHIRP AND THE
PRESIDENTIAL ORDER
9. Allegations were being made on the increasingly pro-QCP attitude in the
functioning of Chirp. A National Intelligence Law was passed by Qinquest that
empowered the government to compel Chirp to hand over the data collected.
10. In exercise of powers under GFEPA and Winlandan I.T Act, the President of
Winland made a declaration of financial emergency in Winland and announced a
mandatory divesture of all assets owned by Chirp. Further, the President declared ban
on Chirp, and the same was upheld to be constitutionally valid by the Supreme Court
of Winland.
■ ALLEGED DEFAMATION
11. President Mr. Palpatine made a statement calling out Sickness as ‘Dragonvirus’.
The Qinquestian government claims this amounts to defamation of the state of
Quinquest.
12. Upon the failure to negotiate the ban and other matters, both the parties have
agreed to approach the ICJ. Thus, the present dispute.
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS ARE PRESENTED BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT OF
JUSTICE FOR ITS CONSIDERATION:
I. Whether the Court can adjudicate over the present dispute and whether the same
is maintainable before it?
II. Whether the ban imposed on Chirp by the Presidential Order promulgated by the
President of Winland is violative of the Principles of Freedom of Speech and
Expression enshrined both in the Winlandan Constitution and the International
Law?
III. Whether the ban imposed by the Presidential Order promulgated by the
President of Winland is violative of the Right to Determination and Right to
Personal Life and Liberty of the Minority group of Runerians under the Winlandan
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Constitution and the International Law?

IV. Whether the ban on Chirp under the Presidential Order is tenable under the
Principles of International Law?
V. Whether the statement made by the President Palpatine as the head of State for
Winland, in respect to the Qinquestian people, wherein he refers to the Sickness
virus as ‘Dragonvirus’ constitute as a direct insult of the Socialist Republic of
Qinquest, thereby the same amounting to the Defamation of State as per the
Principles of International Law?
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1. The Hon'ble International Court of Justice do not have the authority to
adjudicate over the present matter and the same is maintainable before it.
The presidential ordinance that was promulgated by the republic of Winland
banning Chirp has been in accordance with the laws of the Republic of Winland and
the International obligations of the state under ICCPR. The right to make laws for the
interest of its citizens is a part of the sovereign function of the state therefore the
court cannot adjudicate on the same. Further, the defamatory statement made by
president cannot be attributed to the country of Winland since there is no proof
beyond reasonable doubt that the statement was made by him in his official capacity
therefore the issue cannot also be heard by the court.
2. The ban on chirp, as promulgated by the president of Winland is not
violative of the principles of freedom of speech and expression enshrined in
the constitution of Winland and in international law.
The ban on Chirp is not violative of the principles of freedom of speech and
expression contained in the Winlandan constitution for the following reasons: the
Presidential Order was made in accordance with Winland's domestic laws, the
President of Winland has successfully to justified the “unusual and extraordinary
threat” posed by the functioning of Chirp, and this ban is therefore a reasonable
restriction since the prohibition is for protecting the right to life and privacy of
Winladans and to ensure national security.
3. The ban imposed on chirp by the presidential order promulgated by the
president of Winland is not violative of the right to determination and right to
personal life and liberty of the minority groups of Runerians under the
Winlandan constitution and the international law. The ban on the other hand
protects the right to life and liberty of all Winlandans.
The Ban on chirp does not violate any rights of Runerians under the law of Winland
they are entitled to a legal remedy in case of violation of any other their rights. The
ban on chirp is not violative of their right to self-determination. Further, Article 17 of
the ICCPR and article 22 of the constitution of Winland gives the citizens of Winland
the right to privacy which has been constantly violated by Chirp therefore the ban
imposed is justifiable.
4. The ban and compulsory divesture imposed on chirp by the presidential
order promulgated by the president of Winland is tenable as per the principles
of international law.
The Presidential Order imposing the ban on Chirp is tenable under the principles of
international law. Winland has not violated the MFN clause of the WTO agreement and
the ban falls within the security exceptions as mentioned under GATS agreement.
5. the statement made by president Palpatine as the head of state for Winland,
with respect to the Qinquestian people, wherein he refers to the sickness virus
as ‘dragonvirus’ do not constitute a direct insult of the socialist republic of
qinquest
The statements made by President Palpatine do not amount to defamation of the
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
state of Winland because it cannot be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the
president of Winland had made these statements in his official capacity since that is
not clear, under Article 5 of the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful
Acts (ARSIWA) the responsibility cannot be attributed to the Republic of Winland.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1. THE COURT CANNOT ADJUDICATE OVER THE PRESENT DISPUTE AND THE
SAME IS NOT MAINTAINABLE
It is humbly submitted before this honourable court by the respondents (The
Republic of Winland) that the court does not have the jurisdiction to hear the case.
1.1. The State of Winland has passed the presidential order in question to
protect the right to life and privacy of the citizens of Winland and to ensure
national security. This is a part of the sovereign function of the Republic of
Winland therefore the court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate on the validity of
the same.
1. The 1970, United Nations Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning
Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in Accordance with the Charter of
the United Nations (‘the 1970 Declaration’)1 states ‘the principle concerning the duty
not to intervene in matters within the domestic jurisdiction of any State, in accordance
with the Charter’. The principle includes the following directives:“No State or group of
States has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the
internal or external affairs of any other state…”2
2. These principles enshrined in the 1970 declarations3 indicate that the states have
the right to decide the matters within their own jurisdiction and it is on the part of
other states to not interfere with the workings of the same. In this case from the facts
of the case we see that the Chirp has been involved in activities that are violative of
right to privacy of citizens of Qinquest. The app upon which the applicant country has
significant oversight has been involved in creating unrest within the territories of
Winland therefore it is within the sovereign rights of the Republic of Winland to create
laws that protect the citizens of Winland.
3. Further, this law has been brought in through legitimate means. The Global
Financial Emergency Powers Act of Winland gives the President of Winland the power
to declare national emergency when there is a threat which is primarily from external
sources. In this case the threat that the social media application Chirp (Qinquestian
application) and its American subsidiary Technocrat pose specifically with reference to
the Qinquestian influence via the National Intelligence Act of Qinquest is of serious
concern to the state of Winland therefore it is well within its right to enact any laws
that protect the country from the same. Therefore, the court should respect the
sovereign rights of the Socialist Republic of Qinquest and not discuss the merits of the
said legislation.
1.2. The statements made by the Mr. Palpatine cannot be attributed to the
state of Winland and therefore the state of Winland cannot be held for
defamation
4. The charge of defamation levelled against Qinquest is not maintainable before
the honorable court. Articles 4 and 5 of the Articles of the Responsibility of States for
Internationally Wrongful Acts (ARSIWA)4 states that an action done by persons
capable of exercising governmental authority will be attributable to the state they
belong to, provided the “person or entity is acting in that capacity in the particular
instance”5.
5. From the facts of the case is not clear whether the President's spoke of the virus
as “Dragonvirus” while he was performing his duties as President. This would fall
under the category of a personal opinion made by the president. This would attract the
exception contained in Article 5 of the ARSIWA, and therefore the charge of
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
defamation cannot be attributed to the state of Winland.

6. Further, since the comment cannot be attributed to the republic of Winland, even
if the comments made by president Palpatine is defamatory, he cannot be charged for
defamation personally in either the courts since he enjoys diplomatic immunity6 .
1.3. The Socialist Republic of Qinquest cannot in this case seek damages from
Winland because the maxim he who seeks equity must do equity shall apply.
7. The demand of the Socialist republic of Qinquest to seek damages shall not be
maintainable before the honourable court if we are to take into the consideration the
general principle of equity in international law. It would seem to be an important
principle of equity that where two parties have assumed an identical or a reciprocal
obligation, one party which is engaged in a continuing non-performance of that
obligation should not be permitted to take advantage of a similar non-performance of
that obligation by the other party.7 Here from the facts of the case it is clear that the
Socialist Republic of Qinquest has been involved in unfair censoring of Winladan social
media applications and has been creating a very hostile environment for Winlandan
companies despite the fact that both Winland and Qinquest are parties of the similar
conventions.
8. The Qinquestian government has been involved in various activities that are
violative of its own obligations under the WTO Agreement and the ICCPR, and ICESCR.
Therefore, the claim for damages made by Qinquest for the alleged violation of the
treaties will not pass the test of equity as understood in international law.
2. THE BAN IMPOSED ON CHIRP BY THE PRESIDENTIAL ORDER PROMULGATED
BY THE PRESIDENT OF WINLAND IS NOT VIOLATIVE OF THE PRINCIPLES OF
FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION ENSHRINED BOTH IN THE
WINLANDAN CONSTITUTION AND THE INTERNATIONAL LAW.
2.1. The Ban imposed on Chirp via the impugned Presidential Order is Not
Violative of the Principle of Freedom of Speech and Expression enshrined in
Art. 16 of the Winlandan Constitution.
We humbly submit that, The Order of Ban on Chirp is not violative of the Right to
Freedom of Speech and Expression guaranteed under Art.16 of the Winlandan
Constitution. Banning Chirp is within the limitative spirit of the Article.8
2.1.1. The Ban was made by and under the authority of law.
9. The President of Winland has exercised his power to restrict the freedom of
speech and expression and declaration of emergency in accordance with the
Winlandan Constitution, Winlandan I.T Act and GFEPA. Thus, the Order was made with
the backing of Constitutional provisions such as Article 29 and 35, Sections 1701 and
1702 of the GFEPA.9 Both the substance and procedures under the said provisions
were followed.
2.1.2. The Ban was made with a legitimate purpose of protecting the Security of
Winland.
10. Upon the satisfaction of presence ‘unusual and extraordinary threat’ to the
national security of Winland by the President, the necessity to impose the restriction
was felt. Precisely, the operation and usage of Chirp among Winlandan people have
eventually posed threat to national security, foreign policy and economy of Winland.10
2.1.3. The Ban on Chirp is a reasonable restriction.
11. The Ban is ‘prohibition’ imposed on the freedom of speech and expression
which even qualifies as ‘reasonable restriction’.11 The executive authorities of Winland
examined on the proposed ban of President and submitted a Report concurring the
same to be the least invasive action that is adequate to meet the disorder prevailing in
the State.12 The Ban, thus is proportionate to the purpose sought to be achieved.
2.2. The Ban imposed on Chirp via the impugned Presidential Order is Not
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Violative of the Principle of Freedom of Speech and Expression enshrined in

Art. 19 of the ICCPR.
We humbly submit that, The Right to freedom of speech and expression is not an
absolute right.13 The Order banning Chirp falls within the ‘limitative spirit’ of the
freedom.14
2.2.1. The Ban on Chirp was made ‘as prescribed by law’.
12. The Constitution of Winland allows for reasonable restrictions15 to the freedom
of speech and expression16 . The laws directing to block the access of any computer
resource can only be made ‘in the interest of national security, public order and others
specified’17 . Thus, the law is ‘clear and unambiguous’18 . The precision level of grounds
of restriction depends on ‘the content and the field it is designed to cover’19 and not on
the words independent of its context20 . Thus, the impugned presidential order banning
Chirp was made in accordance with the Winlandan Constitution, Winlandan I.T Act and
GFEPA.
13. As the restrictions being specified in the Constitution which has been made
adequately accessible by public21 , Chirp could have reasonably foreseen the
consequences of its reckless activities.22 The law authorizing restriction, is therefore
sufficiently precise and is in consonance with the letter and spirit of UDHR and
ICCPR23 .
14. The delegation of power to President was fettered24 by the ‘findings report’ of
the executive branch of government, made after a lawful investigation under the I.T
Act.25 In addition, the order is open for judicial review when it is not ‘according to the
procedure established by law’26 or made devoid of reasons for imposing restriction 27 .
Thus, it cannot be argued that the President's power is arbitrary, as the scope of power
and the manner of exercise is defined within the law28 , and default is open for judicial
scrutiny29 .
15. The Special Committee's report on the operations of Chirp30 was the basis
behind the Presidential Order banning the application. Moreover, validity of the Order
was upheld in the Supreme Court of Winland31 which means the impugned order was
not made without legal basis32 .
2.2.2. The Ban on Chirp was made ‘in pursuit of the legitimate aim of protecting the
security of Winland’.
16. The Respondent did perceive the unusual and extraordinary threat to national
security33 by Chirp application because of the (i) excessive intervention of QCP into the
functioning of Chirp via National Intelligence Law, (ii) abnormal pro-QCP attitude of
the CEO and the staff members of Chirp, (iii) past data theft by Chirp and (iv)
existence of bizarre internal party cell to accomplish QCP's wishes.34 Thus, the overall
operation of Chirp in Winland was with the motive of ‘undermining the democratic
values’35 of Winland. Thereby, the duty to safeguard the territorial integrity36 of
Winland and its people was realized.
17. The hatred and hostility were spread against Runerians by labelling them as
‘super-spreaders’37 . Instances including denial of medical services in hospitals38 have
threatened the integrity of Winland by causing grave disorder.39
18. Chirp was used by ‘Anti-vaccine groups’ with 31 million followers40 that was
disrupting Winland's Vaccination drive to prevent the spread of Sickness by imparting
misinformation about the pandemic.41 Social media utilized to risk the lives of public
should not be encouraged.
2.2.3. The Ban on Chirp was passed with Necessity and is Proportionate.
19. The reckless attitude of Chirp in not regulating posts that incite religious
violence, necessitated the ban.42 The added existing differences between Devoteds and
Runerians are also to be considered.43 Furthermore, Chirp was widely utilized to spread
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
misinformation about the pandemic which necessitated the immediate action in

pursuit of preventing Sickness spread, that is ‘legal, and least restrictive’44 .
20. The Order of ban on Chirp is proportionate to the State's duty to protect the
larger public interests. While social media exist to facilitate friendly relation among its
users, it should not turn to be a platform against social interest.
3. THE BAN IMPOSED ON CHIRP BY THE PRESIDENTIAL ORDER PROMULGATED
BY THE PRESIDENT OF WINLAND IS NOT VIOLATIVE OF THE RIGHT TO
DETERMINATION AND RIGHT TO PERSONAL LIFE AND LIBERTY OF THE
MINORITY GROUP OF RUNERIANS UNDER WINLANDAN CONSTITUTION AND
THE INTERNATIONAL LAW.
It is humbly submitted that: The Ban on Chirp clearly is not violative of the right of
minority Runerians. In fact, the ban was initiated in part to protect the life and liberty
of the minorities living within the boundaries of Winland. Further, the ban was also
initiated in part to protect the right to privacy of all Winlandans including Runerians as
per guaranteed under the under the constitution of Winland
3.1. There is no violation of right life or right self-determination of the
Runerians under ICCPR or ICESR because of the ban on Chirp.
22. Right to self-determination under Article 1 (1) of the ICCPR and ICESR is very
narrow in its scope. The actual meaning of the same was further clarified in the
general comment 1245 of the ICCPR. Wherein it was made clear what would constitute
as the right to self-determination.
It is the right to determine their political status and freely pursue their economic,
social and cultural development'. The article imposes on all States parties
corresponding obligations. This right and the corresponding obligations concerning its
implementation are interrelated with other provisions of the Covenant and rules of
international law46
23. The constitution of Winland has wholeheartedly accepted this principle and
guarantees equality before law for all its citizens47 including Runerians. They are free
to express their opinion in any other forum other than the application Chirp. They are
given all legal protections under law in Winland like any other citizen. They are free to
approach the courts of the country and pursue domestic remedies in case of injustice
like any other Runerians including elections and all other democratic practises.
Therefore, the allegation that the ban of a social media application would violate the
right to determination of Runerians is completely unfounded.
24. The second aspect to it is the right to life of Runerians are being violated. The
right to life guaranteed under Article 6 of the ICCPR is not appliable in these
circumstances. The provision defines right to life in a narrow sense that is the right not
to be killed by the state.48 Article 6 also places an obligation on the state to ensure
that the agents of the state are not responsible for the death of individuals.49 The
scope of this right as prescribed by the ICCPR is very limited therefore the allegation
that the right to life of Runerians are being violated by the ban on chirp is a very
expansive interpretation of the text of the ICCPR which is not permissive.
3.2. The ban was implemented to protect the rights of the minorities as
prescribed under Article 27 of the ICCPR.
25. Article 27 of the ICCPR places the onus on the government to ensure that the
minorities of the country are allowed to follow their culture, religion and preserve their
languages. General comment 2350 further emphasis on this special right that is
afforded to minorities under the ICCPR.
The protection of [Article 27] rights is directed towards ensuring the survival and
continued development of the cultural, religious and social identity of the minorities
concerned, thus enriching the fabric of society as a whole.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
26. It is clear from the facts presented before the court that Runerians who are a
religious minority51 have been incessantly targeted by the devoted supremacist in
through chirp and there has been rumours spread through chirp that resulted in
creating a difficult situation for them in the society. Because of these vicious attacks
the Runerians are not able to live fearlessly by being true to their religious and ethnic
identity. Chirp has not anything from stopping this from happening. This application
has very clearly fuelled conflict within the religious communities in the country.
Therefore, in the interest of minorities and its obligations under Article 27 of the ICCPR
the government of Chirp was forced to take this drastic measure.
3.3. The right to privacy of guaranteed to individuals under Article 17 of the
ICCPR and Article 22 of the constitution of Winland are being violated by Chirp
therefore the Winlandan government's decision to ban the social media
application was done in consonance with its obligations under the said Article.
27. Article 17 of the ICCPR gives the right to all individuals it states that “no one
shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home
or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation.” It not only
is a negative right; the convention also affords a positive right of the same to all
individuals by stating that “Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against
such interference or attacks. The second part of the convention therefore allows the
state to essentially create laws that protect the privacy of its citizens.”
28. Privacy has been defined as the desire of individuals for solitude, intimacy,
anonymity, and reserve.52 It has been defined widely as ‘the right to be left alone’53
and narrowly as a right to control information about one's self.54 A compromise
definition could be that a right to privacy comprises ‘freedom from unwarranted and
unreasonable intrusions into activities that society recognizes as belonging to the
realm of individual autonomy’55 . The ‘sphere of individual autonomy’ has been
described as ‘the field of action [that] does not touch upon the liberty of others’,
where one may withdraw from others, to ‘shape one's life according to one's own
(egocentric) wishes and expectations’56 . The ICCPR however does not give an accurate
definition of the same. However, through various precedents it has been established
by the court that surnames, and even names of person can form a part of their right to
privacy.57
29. Article 17 of the ICCP clearly prohibits unlawful and arbitrary interference with
the right to privacy of individuals. In the case of Chirp from the facts its is very clear
that Qinquestian agents who have in the past involved themselves in the case of
illegally collecting biometric data are a part of chirp and have a clear say in
determining the privacy policy of the organisation. This leaves the app to be used as a
tool for collecting sensitive personal information of people. These actions if carried out
would clearly falls within the realm of unlawful as explained in the general comment
1658 of the ICCPR. Wherein it is states that:
The term ‘unlawful’ means that no interference can take place except in cases
envisaged by the law. Interference authorised by States can only take place on the
basis of law, which itself must comply with the provisions, aims and objectives of the
Covenant.59
30. Further, if we look into the National intelligence Act which is applied in the case
of Chirp, the Republic Socialist of Qinquest has provisions that clearly state that all
organisations based in Qinquest will assist in the col lection of intelligence with is
detrimental to the national security of Qinquest. Article 11 clearly mentions that even
foreign institutions and individuals' data can be collected if justified under the National
Intelligence Act. This is a clear violation to the obligations of Qinquest under Article 17
of ICCPR. Chirp being a Qinquestian company is expected to abide by the rules of this
legislation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
31. General comment 1660 emphasises that the law allowing such collection of data
must be precise and circumscribed, so as not to give decision-makers too much
discretion in authorizing interferences with privacy:
Relevant legislation must specify in detail the precise circumstances in which such
interferences may be permitted. A decision to make use of such authorised
interference must be made only by the authority designated under the law, and on a
case-by-case basis.61
However, in the case of NIA, its clear that whenever the government of Qinquest
feels it fit, it can collect data of any individual including Winlandan citizen. The
expression ‘arbitrary interference’ is accurate to be used in this circumstance. That is
even when the interreference is done through lawful means it is in violation to the
principles enshrined in the convention.62 The Qinquestan governments interference in
the privacy of the Winlandan citizens is nothing short of this. In Toonen v. Australia63
(488/92) the Committee discussed the concept of reasonableness. The committee
came to the conclusion that only when the interference is reasonable it can be
justified. Here from the phrasing of the law in question (NIA) as well as the
extraordinary influence the Qinquestan government has on Chirp, it is only rational
that Winland has security concerns over the operation of chirp.
32. Further, the domestic laws of Winland particularly Article 22 of the Constitution
of Winland guarantees the right to privacy to all citizens as a part of their right to life64
therefore, it is also in light of this domestic consideration the Republic of Winland had
to go ahead and ban Chirp.
33. Further in addition to this, cases have been reported in Winland where young
children have been exposed to pornographic materials through Chirp and the company
has taken no significant care to address this issue, this is of serious concern to the
Winlandan people. This is prohibited under the Winlandan IT Act and despite this the
company has continued to act ignorant of all these concerns therefore it is in the
interest of the right to life and liberty of its citizens the president of Winland was
forced to take such a drastic step.
4. THE BAN ON CHIRP UNDER THE PRESIDENTIAL ORDER IS TENABLE UNDER
THE PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
It is humbly submitted that the Presidential Order issued by the President of
Winland which led to the ban of Chirp is valid in the eyes of international law. Despite
the fact that upon prima facie reading of the relevant law on the matter, the Most
Favoured Nation (MFN clause) appears to be violated, there is sufficient justification
for the legality of the order within the national security exception contained within the
General Agreement on Trade in Services (hereinafter referred to as GATS)65 .
4.1. Even though the ban on chirp prima facie violates the MFN clause of GATS,
it falls within security exceptions in the General Agreement on Trade in
Services (GATS).
4.1.1. “Chrip” the social media plantform fufils the definition of service under GATS
therefore the provisions of GATS can be referred in this case
34. It is well established from the facts of the case that both the Republic of
Winland and Qinquest are members of the World Trade Origination and therefore they
are bound by the WTO agreements.66
35. “Chrip” is a social media platform that is based in Qinquest and the main
function of which is to provide a platform for people across the globe to communicate
via shares, likes, and posts. The platform's functions are extended to all countries
including the republic of Winland. It can be observed that services of Chirp which is
based in Qinquest which is a member nation of WTO, is provided to the people of
Republic of Winland which is also a member of WTO.67 It is also known to us from the
facts of the case that Chirp had a commercial presence in the Republic of Winland.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
36. All these factors when read with Article 168 of the GATS agreement leads us to
the conclusion that “Chirp” a social media platform that is based in Qinquest is a
service as defined by the convention and therefore the parties i.e., the Republic of
Winland and Qinquest, being part of the WTO are expected to follow the obligations of
GATS.
4.1.2. There is no doubt as to the fact that the measures imposed by the Order are
“measures affecting “trade in services”“69
37. Article I: 1 of the General Agreement on Trade and Services (GATS) states that
it applies to “measures by members affecting trade in services”. This definition is
deliberately broad, as it does not seek to exclude a priori any measure form the scope
of the GATS. It seeks to be wide ranging and all-encompassing, and seeks to be
relevant to any measure where the supply of a service, or where the regulation of a
provision of a service is concerned. This view was also expressed by the Panel in EC-
Bananas III70.
38. In the instant matter, there is no doubt that measures implemented through a
presidential order, seeking to ban a social media networking site such as Chirp fall well
within the scope of the GATS. The effect of the measures put in place by the
Presidential Order banning Chirp would mean that Chirp's ability to provide services in
the state of Winland would cease. Such measures can therefore be construed as
“measures affecting trade in services” by the GATS.
39. It is also essential to note that this preliminary enquiry as to whether the
measures qualify for consideration under the GATS or not, is well within the
jurisprudence set forth by earlier decisions of the Appellate Body of the World Trade
Organization. In the case of Canada-Autos71, the Appellate Body noted that the
“fundamental structure and logic of Article I: 1 requires that a determination of
whether such measure is covered by the GATS must be made before the consistency
of that measure with the substantive obligation can be assessed.”72
4.1.3. The GATS Gives Member Countries Generous Discretion in Invoking the Security
Exception
40. Having explained that the measures may be validly considered under the GATS,
an assessment of the substantial obligations of Winland, the member country in
question must be undertaken. The MFN clause forms the backbone of the General
Agreement on Trade in Services. In Article II of the Agreement73 , member countries
are barred from acting in a manner that discriminates between countries or favors any
one country over another for the purpose of providing services and service suppliers.
Within the same agreement, Article XIV bis74 provides that a member country can
adopt and enforce any measures in the interest of national or international security,
which would otherwise be inconsistent with its obligations under other terms of the
GATS. Through this provision, the GATS confers “unrestricted discretion”75 on member
countries if they choose to frame measures that are inconsistent with their obligations
under the GATS, seeking refuge in the national security exemption.
41. This generous discretion can be for three main reasons. To begin with, it is
worth noting that the use of the word “its” in the text of the Article passes the burden
to determine whether the exemption is to be invoked or not on the country framing
such measures. It is usually the case that these decisions are buttressed with political
considerations76 , which will vary based on the situation in the member country seeking
to frame measures restricting flow of goods and/or services. Further interpretative
assistance can be sought from the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT).
The travaux préparatoires of the GATT77 (which provide useful analytical support as to
the history and rationale of the provisions contained in the GATT) points to the
semantic similarities between Article XIV bis of the GATS and Article XXI of the
GATT78 . Since the provision in the GATT is described to be self-judging, the same
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
rationale can be extended to the similarly phrased provision in the GATS as well.
42. In the instant matter, it is therefore submitted that Winland has made use of
the generous discretion available to it as a member of the World Trade Organization,
and subsequently. Having established the need for equal treatment of Article XIV bis
of the GATS (which provides the national security exception) and Article XXI of the
GATT, where both are to be understood as being “self-judging”, there arises no scope
to question whether Winland was correct in exercising this discretion or not.
5. THE STATEMENT MADE BY PRESIDENT PALPATINE AS THE HEAD OF STATE
FOR WINLAND, IN RESPECT TO THE QINQUESTIAN PEOPLE, WHEREIN HE
REFERS TO THE SICKNESS VIRUS AS ‘DRAGONVIRUS’ DOES NOT CONSTITUTES
AS A DIRECT INSULT OF THE SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF QINQUEST
It is humbly submitted before this honorable Court that President Vince Palpatine,
in his role as the President of Winland, did not engage in defamatory speech towards
Quinquest. The President's speech enjoys an array of protections under the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Further, there is a dispute as to
the facts surrounding the instance of such allegedly defamatory speech, thereby
lending ambiguity to the degree of harm allegedly caused.
5.1. President Palpatine's Statement Cannot Be Regarded as Defamatory as It
Enjoys Protections under the ICCPR
43. Reliance is placed on Article 19(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights (hereinafter, the ICCPR)79 . This Article grants state parties the right to
hold opinions without interference. As per the Covenant, this right exists without
restriction or exception. Therefore, no person or state party may be subjected to
deprivation of any right granted as per the Covenant due to an opinion that they hold.
Further, all forms of opinion are protected, including opinions of a political, scientific,
historic, religious, or moral nature80 . Further, any form of effort to coerce the holding
of an opinion is prohibited.81
44. In addition to the above, Article 19(2) of the ICCPR guarantees freedom of
expression to state parties. This includes the right to seek, receive and impart ideas of
all kinds, regardless of frontiers, and includes political discourse82 . Paragraph 2 of this
Article even “embraces expression that may be considered deeply offensive”83 .
45. In the instant matter, Quinquest's threat to sue President Palpatine for the
opinions he holds is incompatible with the settled principles of international law on
defamation and the holding of opinions. Any action targeting the President's statement
is to be regarded as a brutal attack on the right to free speech and expression as
postulated in Article 19 of the ICCPR84 . Thus, while Quinquest may argue that the
President's use of the phrase “Dragonvirus” is deeply offensive to their country, in the
absence of clearly defined rules around what constitutes defamatory speech, President
Palpatine cannot be held liable for defamation as per the existing standards set forth
in international law.
5.2. The President was Not Acting in His Official Capacity When Making the
Allegedly Defamatory Statement
46. There is a great emphasis on the context surrounding allegedly defamatory
speech in international law85 . The context of an insult often includes a consideration of
the following seven factors: what was said, who said it and to whom, how it was said,
when it was said, where it was said, what intent the speaker had and what impact the
statement had86 .
47. Further, a combined reading of Articles 4 and 5 of the Articles of the
Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (ARSIWA)87 (which discuss
the attributability of conduct to a state) reveal that acts done by persons capable of
exercising governmental authority will be attributable to the state they belong to,
provided the “person or entity is acting in that capacity in the particular instance”88.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
48. The facts provided in the problem statement do not adequately describe
whether the President's use of the term “Dragonvirus” occurred when he was
performing his duties as President, or if they were spoken in a more private setting.
This would attract the exception contained in Article 5 of the ARSIWA, and the
President would be exempt from liability in an instance where he was not acting in the
capacity of President. Any other interpretation of this factual scenario would not only
result in a violation of the rules set out in the ARSIWA, but would also defeat the
jurisprudence on defamation and free speech settled thus far.
5.3. President Palpatine's Opinions Cannot Be Subjected to The Test of Truth
49. At the outset, all allegations against President Palpatine and the allegedly
defamatory speech are denied, and the burden of proof to establish that the
defamation did occur lies with Quinquest. It is worth mentioning that regardless of the
claims brought forward by Quinquest, the statement made by President Palpatine is
saved by the commonly accepted defense of truth.
50. The United Nations Human Rights Committee has stated that truth is a valid
defense to defamation, especially in penal defamation laws89 . It has previously been
established that President Palpatine's statement sufficiently qualifies as an opinion,
and according to the settled standards in international law, statements of opinion
should not be penalized, because unlike facts, opinions cannot be tested to be true or
false90 .
51. Therefore, an inquiry into the truth of the phrase “Dragonvirus” cannot be
entered into. The President's use of the phrase has been qualified as an opinion, and
such opinion cannot be subjected to the test of truth.
PRAYER
THE REPUBLIC OF WINLAND RESPECTFULLY REQUESTS THE HON'BLE
COURT TO ADJUDGE AND DECLARE THAT:
1. The Court does not have jurisdiction over the present dispute. It is not an
appropriate case for which this Court should exercise its jurisdiction.
2. The ban imposed on Chirp by the Presidential Order promulgated by the
President of Winland is valid under the constitution of Winland and the principles
of international law, as it poses by the Chirp app to the national security of
Winland on account of the excessive policy-level intervention of the QCP in the
operations of Chirp and the unfettered powers held by the Qinquestian
government over Chirp, under the National Intelligence Law of the Socialist
Republic of Qinquest.
3. The ban imposed on Chirp by the Presidential Order promulgated by the
President of Winland is valid under the GFEPA and the Winlandan Information
Technology Act, since the Chirp app collects data of its Winlandan users and
supplies the same to the Qinquestian authorities, thus engaging in intelligence
harvesting and exploiting Winlandan personal information-the same which being
violative of the right to privacy of the citizens of Winland and presents an
alarming risk to the security and safety of the Winlandans.
4. The source of power behind the Presidential Order of banning Chirp is as per the
Winlandan laws and based on the powers that were legally and constitutionally
granted to the President by the Legislature of Winland, and there is no arbitrary
exercise of power by the President in relation to the order, since the same is
based on the findings of a thorough and valid investigation conducted by
Winlandan authorities into the operations of Chirp.
5. The Chirp app is being used in Winland to promote communal tensions between
Devoteds and Runerians, and has led to widespread violence against the minority
Runerians. In light of this threat to national peace and security, the ban on Chirp
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
under the Presidential Order should be upheld.

6. The Chirp app is being used to aggregate personal information of minor and
young users in Winland without the consent of their parents and guardians and
thus poses a severe risk on the safety and well-being of the children of Winland.
In light of this threat to national peace and security, the ban on Chirp under the
Presidential Order should be upheld.
7. The Chirp app has been known to be misused by the anti-vaccine groups of
Winland to spread misinformation regarding the Sickness pandemic and has
hampered the Winlandan government's attempts to execute a nation-wide
vaccination campaign for curbing the spread of the pandemic. In light of the risk
posed to the health and wellbeing of Winlandan individuals, a ban on Chirp as an
intermediary is valid.
8. The statement made by Mr. Palpatine was made in his capacity as an individual
and not as the head of state for Winland. Further, the same was a cursory
statement of opinion by Mr Palpatine and in no manner does the same constitute
as ‘Defamation of the State’.
9. The Presidential Order mandating divestment by Technocrat, Chirp and their
subsidiaries, affiliates, and resident Qinquest shareholders in Winland and
disclosure of all data obtained or derived from Chirp application users in Winland
is valid under the Winlandan laws on grounds of the QCP propaganda that is
being conducted by way of Chirp and the risk that Chirp's excessive usage in
Winland poses to the privacy of personal information of its citizens and the
national security of the country.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
———
1 Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in
accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, adopted by the General Assembly on 24 October, 1970
(resolution 26/25 (XXV))
2
Id. p.123.
3
Ibid.
4
U.N. G.A. 53rd Sess., U.N. Doc. 56/83/A/56/49 (Vol.1) (Dec. 12, 2001).
5 Ibid., art. 5.
6
International Court of Justice, Case Concerning the Arrest Warrant of 11 April, 2000 (Democratic Republic of
the Congo v. Belgium), Judgement 14 Febuary 2002; available on http://www.icj-cij.org
7
Netherlands v. Belgium, Permanent Court of Int'l Justice, P.C.I.J. (ser. A/B) No. 70. 76-78
8WINLAND CONST. art. 22; id. art. 29; id. art. 35 cl 1; Global Financial Emergency Powers Act., § 1701, cl (b),
Acts of Parliament, (Winland).
9
Ramlila Maidan Incident, In re., (2012) 5 SCC 1, 2012 Cri LJ 3516, ¶ 30.
10 Memorial, ¶ ¶ 10-12.
11 Anuradha Bhasin Case, ¶ ¶ 39, 40; Narendra Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 1960 SC 430, ¶ 17.
12
Supra note 28, ¶ 33; Moot Proposition, ¶ 56.
13International Covenant on Civil and Political Right (ICCPR) art 19 (3), Dec. 16, 1996, 999 U.N.T.S. 171;
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), G.A Res 217 (III) A, U.N. Doc. A/RES/217(III), art 29(2) (Dec. 10,
1948); General Comment no. 34, Article 19, Freedom of Speech and Expression, International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights, UN Human Rights Committee (HRC), 102nd Session, 11-29 July, 2011, CCPR/C/GC/34, 12
September, 2011, ¶ 46; Kimel v. Argentina, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., ¶ 54
(May 2, 2008).
14
ICCPR art 19 (3); General Comment no. 34, ¶ 21.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15
WINLAND CONST. art. 29; id. art. 35 cl 1.
16 WINLAND CONST. art. 16.
17 Supra note 34.
18
Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogation of Provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights, U.N Economic and Social Council, UN Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination nd
Protection of Minorities, U.N. Doc. E/CN 4/1984/4, ¶ 17 (1984); The Johannesburg Principles on National
Security, Freedom of Expression and Access to Information, 20 HUMAN RIGHTS QUARTERLY Human Rights
Quarterly 1, 1.1(a) at p. 3 (1998); Dominika Bychawska Siniarska, Protecting the Right to Freedom of Expression
under the European Convention on Human Rights, 35-36 (2017); Gaweda v. Poland, App no. 26229/95, ¶ 40
(March 14, 2002), untitled (menschenrechte.ac.at).
19Centro Europa 7 SRL and Di Stefano v. Italy, App no. 38433, ¶ 142 (June 7, 2012), Microsoft Word - CENTRO_
EUROPA_ 7_AND_DI_ STEFANO.doc (camera.it).
20Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties art. 31(1), May 23, 1969, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331; Amy Shepherd,
Extremism, Free Speech and the Rule of Law Evaluating the Compliance of Legislation Restricting Extremist
Expressions with Article 19 ICCPR, 33 UTRECHT JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL AND EUROPEAN LAW 62, 71-72
(2017).
21
Toby Mendel, Restricting Freedom of Expression: Standards and Principles, Background Paper for Meetings
Hosted by the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression, Centre for Law and Democracy, p.
9; Sunday Times v. UK, App No 6538/74, ¶ 49 (26 April, 1979).
22 Id. Sunday Times, paras ¶ ¶ 47, 51, 52.
23 General Comment no. 34, ¶ 26.
24
WINLAND CONST. art. 35 cl 1; Siracusa Principles, ¶ 18; Malone v. The United Kingdom, App no. 8691/79, ¶ 68
(Aug. 2, 1984), ECHR (shu.edu).
25 Moot Proposition, ¶ ¶ 51, 56.
26 WINLAND CONST. art. 22.
27
WINLAND CONST. art. 35, cl 1.
28
Supra note 43, Malone Case, ¶ 68; Silver v. The United Kingdom, App no. 5947/72, 6205/73, 7052/75,
7061/75, 7107/75, 7113/75, 7136/75, ¶ 88 (March 25, 1983).
29Siracusa Principles, ¶ ¶ 17, 18; Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right
to Freedom of Opinion and Expression, Frank La Rue, UN Human Rights Council, 17th Session, 20 March, 2010-31
March, 2011, A/HRC/17/27, 16 May, 2011, ¶ 45.
30 Moot Proposition, ¶ 56.

32
General Comment no. 34, ¶ 27; Surek v. Turkey, App no. 26682/95, ¶ 47 (July 8, 1999).
33 The Johannesburg Principles, 2 at p. 4; Moot Proposition, ¶ 54.
34 Moot Proposition, ¶ ¶ 11, 15, 16, 41, to 47; General Comment no. 34, ¶ 40; ICCPR art 17(2).
35 Vereniging Weekblad Bluf! v. The Netherlands, App no. 16616/90, ¶ 35 (Feb. 9, 1995); Dominika Bychawska
Siniarska, Protecting the Right to Freedom of Expression under the European Convention on Human Rights, 49-50
(2017).
36 Siracusa Principles, ¶ 29.

39General Comment no. 34, ¶ 46; Gunduz v. Turkey, App no.3571/97, ¶ 37 (June 14, 2004); Moot Proposition, ¶
38; Ramji Lal Modi v. State of UP, AIR 1957 SC 620, ¶ 9.
40
Moot Proposition, ¶ 32.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
41 Id.
42Salihu v. Swedan, App no. 33628/15, ¶ 53 (May 10, 2016); The Johannesburg Principles, 1.3 at p. 4 (1998);
Moot Proposition, ¶ 27.
43 Leroy v. France, App no 36109/03, (Oct. 2, 2008).

44 The Johannesburg Principles, 1.3(b) at p. 4 (1998).
45UN Human Rights Committee (HRC), CCPR General Comment No. 12: Article 1 (Right to Self-determination), The
Right to Self-determination of Peoples, 13 March, 1984, available at:
https://www.refworld.org/docid/453883f822.html [accessed 19 January, 2022].
46 Id. ¶2.
47 Article 14, Constitution of Winland.
48UN Human Rights Committee (HRC), CCPR General Comment No. 6: Article 6 (Right to Life), 30 April, 1982,
available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/45388400a.html [accessed 17 January, 2022]
49 Id. ¶3
50 ¶3 moot proposition, Suárez de Guerrero v. Colombia (45/79).
51 Ballantyne et al v. Canada (359, 385/89)
52J Michael, ‘Privacy’, in D Harris and S Joseph (eds), The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and
United Kingdom Law (Clarendon Press, 1995), p.333.
53 SD Warren and LD Brandeis, ‘The Right to Privacy’ (1890) 4 Harvard Law Review 193, 195
54AF Westin, Privacy and Freedom (Athenaeum, 1967), 7; see also C Fried, ‘Privacy’, (1968) 77 Yale Law Journal
475, 483.
55SE Wilborn, ‘Revisiting the Public/Private Distinction: Employee Monitoring in the Workplace’ (1998) 32 Georgia
Law Review 825, 833.
56 M Nowak, UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: CCPR Commentary (2nd edn, NP Engel, 2005), 378. See
also F Volio, ‘Legal Personality, Privacy, and the Family’, in L Henkin (ed), The International Bill of Rights
(Columbia University Press, 1981), listing aspects of privacy and examples of privacy violations at 193−5
57 Coeriel and Aurik v. the Netherlands (453/91), Raihman v. Latvia (1621/07).
58UN 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,
available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/453883f922.html [accessed 17 January, 2022]
59 Id. ¶7.
60 Id. ¶1.
61 Ibid.
62 General clause 16.
63 Toonen v. Australia, Communication No. 488/1992, U.N. Doc CCPR/C/50/D/488/1992 (1994).
64Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No 494 of 2012; (2017) 10 SCC 1 : AIR
2017 SC 4161
65 General Agreement on Trade and Services art. XXIV bis, Jan. 1, 1995.
66 WTO agreements include GATT, GATS and TRIPS.
https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/inbrief_e/inbr_e.htm#wto_agreements
67Article II, General Agreement on Trade in Services, Apr. 15, 1994, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World
Trade Organization, Annex 1B, 1869 U.N.T.S. 183, 33 I.L.M. 1167 (1994).
68 Supra n 64.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
69 Supra 64, art. I: 1.

70Panel Report, European Communities − Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas, WTO
Doc. WT/DS27/R para. 7.285 (adopted 12 November, 2012).
71 Appellate Body Report, Canada − Certain Measures Affecting the Automative Industry, WTO
Doc.WT/DS139/12/R (adopted 4 October, 2000).
72
Id.
73 General Agreement on Trade and Services art. II: 1, Jan. 1, 1995.
74 supra n 64.
75Raj Bhalla, National Security and International Trade Law: What the GATT Says and What The United States
Does, 19 U. Penn.J. Intl. Trade L. 262 (1998).
76 Roger P. Alford, The Self-Judging WTO Security Exception, 697 Utah L.Rev (2011).
77 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, art. 32, Jan. 27, 1980.
79 ICCPR (adopted 16 December, 1966, entered into force 23 March, 1976) 999 U.N.T.S. 17 (‘ICCPR’), art 19(1).
80UNCHR ‘General comment No 34’ on ‘Article 19 (Freedom of Opinion and Expression)’ (2011) UN Doc
CCPR/C/GC/34, (‘General Comment 34’) para 9.
81 See communication No. 878/1999, Kang v. Republic of Korea, Views adopted on 15 July, 2003.
82 General comment, para 11.
83
Ibid.
84 ICCPR (adopted 16 December, 1966, entered into force 23 March, 1976) 999 U.N.T.S. 17 (‘ICCPR’), art 19.
85 See, e.g., Vereinigung Bildender Ktinstler v. Austria, App. No. 68354/01, 33 (Eur. Ct. H.R.) (Jan. 25, 2001).
86
Id.
87 U.N. G.A. 53rd Sess., U.N. Doc. 56/83/A/56/49 (Vol.1) (Dec. 12, 2001).
88 Ibid., art. 5.
89
General Comment No. 34, 47. The U.N. Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression agrees. See Contribution
of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, 12,
U.N. Doe A/CONF.189/PC.2/24 (Mar. 22, 2001).
90 General Comment No. 34, 47.
Disclaimer: While every effort is made to avoid any mistake or omission, this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/ regulation/ circular/
notification is being circulated on the condition and understanding that the publisher would not be liable in any manner by reason of any mistake
or omission or for any action taken or omitted to be taken or advice rendered or accepted on the basis of this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/
rule/ regulation/ circular/ notification. All disputes will be subject exclusively to jurisdiction of courts, tribunals and forums at Lucknow only. The
authenticity of this text must be verified from the original source.

Privacy Authorities Moot

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Privacy Authorities Moot

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.

Page 1 Monday, March 04, 2024

10th RMLNLU SCC OnLine Moot, 2022

7. The Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally 25, 26

6. AF Westin, Privacy and Freedom (Athenaeum, 1967), 7 20

10. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1976) 2 SCC 521 : AIR 22

the national symbol of Qinquest.

Constitution and the International Law?

defamation cannot be attributed to the state of Winland.

Violative of the Principle of Freedom of Speech and Expression enshrined in

misinformation about the pandemic which necessitated the immediate action in

under the Presidential Order should be upheld.

31 Moot Proposition, ¶ 60.

37 Moot Proposition, ¶ 35.

43 Leroy v. France, App no 36109/03, (Oct. 2, 2008).

69 Supra 64, art. I: 1.

You might also like