‘TC-32320R 3" TIB-DUMCS ANTI-CORRUPTION MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023 IN THE INTERNATIONAL ANTI-CORRUPTION COURT CASE CONCERNING KALINGA CORRUPTION ‘THE PEOPLE’s REPUBLIC OF GAURO (APPLICANT) v. PEOPLE's REPUBLIC OF HARIKELA (RESPONDENT) MEMORIAL FILED AND APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTTABLE OF CONTENTS: TABLE OF CONTENTS........ on LIST OF ABBRIVIATIONS..... LIST OF SOURCES. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION. STATEMENT OF RELEVENT FACTS. 0.0.00 QUESTIONS PRESENTED.. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS......... ARGUMENTS. .. a. The dispute is not maintainable before the present court.... 4.1. Gauro's claim of corruption by Harikela is false under UNCAC and OECD. 4.2. Harikela did not breach any International treaties... a3, Gauro should not interfere in Harikela's Internal affairs according to ICJ. cael a4, Gauro should not ask fo Convict Shukla Company without Investigation... b. The current government of Gauro is not legitimately entitled to file the dlapute under international law... = sersrresssseeeernns LB 8.1. The Government in exile is the sole legitimate Government of Gauro under UN Charter. 18 6.2, The Current Government is not recognized as a legitimate government under Tober doctrine principle... 19 3. The Current Government doesn’t have prima facie o file the dispule under international rent government is not approved by the people... ¢. Harikela and Shukla Company has not violated international law including United Nations Convention against Corruption and Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transections....21 el. The absence of any eredible evidence linking Harikela or Shukla Company to bribery activities effectively disproves any claims of their involvement in corruption... ei ¢.2, Harikela's strong anti-corruption policies and stringent oversight mechanisms effectively prevent any potential involvement in bribery activities... ; 2 €.3. Shukla Company's ethical business practices and strong anti-corruption policies further reinforce its commitment to compliance with international anti-corruption laws. 22 4. The fair and transparent bidding process for the COVID-19 vaccine and medical supply contracts ensures that the selection of Shukla Company was based on merit rather than any improper influence, further shielding Harikela from any liability. 3 d. The Harikela not violated international law by not returning Avinor to Gauro authorities....24 d.1. Harikela's decision to grant political asylum to Avinor was in accordance with international law and principles of non-refoulement. 24.2, Avinor faced a credible threat to his life and safety in Gauro, justifying Harikela's refusal to extradite him. oS 4.3, The judiciary in Gauro is not independent, and there is a risk of human rise violations 26 against Avinor if he is returned... di, Harikela's denial of Gauro's request Is consistent with its sovereign right o grant political asylum and non-interference in internal affairs... ; PRAYER...LIST OF ABBRIVIATIONS CAT Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment IACC- International Anti-Corruption Court ICC- International Criminal Court ICJ- International Court of Justice ICCPR-International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights UNCAC-The United Nations Convention Against Corruption UDHR- Universal Declaration of Human Rights VCLT- Vienna Convention on the Law of TreatiesINDEX OF AUTHORITIES TREATIES AND CONVENTION Charter of the United Nations 1945.. Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment... International Covenant on Cit and Political Rights... Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States.. Rome Statute. Refugee Convention 1951... ‘The United Nations Convention Against Corruption Universal Declaration of Human Rights... United Nations General Assembly. ‘Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties BOOKS Oxford University Press, A Dictionary of Law (9 ed.), 201 H.A Smith, Great Britain and the Law of Nation, Vol. I. p. 79 Dr. S.K. Kapoor , Essential conditions for recognizing insurgents, International law and human rights, p. 158... P.E. Corbett, The Growth of World Law (1971), p. 66. 5CASE LAWS Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (Belgium v. Spain) (1970). DRC V. Uganda (2005) Hirsi Jamaa and Others v Italy (2012)... ascu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC] - 48787/99... Prosecutor v. Charles Taylor, (ICC-01/07-01/08, 27 June 2008, paragraphs 67-68)... Soering v. United Kingdom (1989). The “Arantzazu Mendi”, (1939) 63 LI.L.Rep.89.STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION It is humbly submitted that the Applicant has approached this International Anti-Corruption Court under article 6(2) of the Statute of IAC. The respondent submits to the same.STATEMENT OF RELEVENT FACTS Overview of Parties: The People's Republic of Harikela is a democratic country, a developed nation, and one of the major military and economies superpowers. Also, the strongest ally of Kuru, Kuru is a politically stable democratic country and one of the fastest- growing economies with nuclear and military power. Kuru encircled the People's Republic of Gauro, a small but extremely resourceful country, located in the northern apex of Kalinga sea, The strategic opponent of Kuru and Harikels was The Democratic Republic of Kadampa, another major economic and mi ry superpower and a highly developed nation. Kalinga Sea Region: Harikela, Kuru and Kadampa had fierce competition over the exercise of power over international maritime trade and business around the area of the Kalinga Sea region, Harikela used the seaports of Kuru and Gauro for maritime trade purposes in the Kalinga Sea region. For long time, Kadampa wanted to use Gauro's seaports for business and military purposes but Gauro refused. Economie Relation between Harikela and Gauro: In 2015, Rajamandala, an alliance to strengthen maritime trade and military security in the Kalinga Sea joined by all four countries. Harikela and Gauro developed economic partnership. Harikela invested in various sectors of Gauro and most importantly, in the power plants for electricity. This investment improved the economic conditions in Gauro to a significant extent. Emerge of Political parties: Gauro's Military government of Matsya tribe selected Avinor as president, Orindom is opposition party supported by Kadampa on basis of common tribe, ‘Yadu. Kishtigarva is the leader of Orindom. Kadampa's Conspiracy with Orindom: In 2016, some media reports claimed that officials of Harikela, Kuru, and Gauro were having a meeting to set up a joint naval base for Harikela and Kuru in Gauro's seaport "Chitrangada’, Security experts of Kadampa warned that thisnaval base would work as a strategic military base against Kadampa, The Vice President suggested that Kadampa should be active in "the internal polities" of Gauro to stop it. Harikela's intelligence agency revealed a plan by Kadampa to overthrow the current regime bya revolution so that Kuru and Harikela could never establish a military naval base in Gauro. ‘Shukla Company: Shukla company was jointly owned by the government and a private enterprise, The Gauro government awarded the Shukla Company a contract in 2021 to supply the COVID-19 va and to build a hospital and provide oxygen for COVID-19 patients. ‘The contract provision stated that the Shukla firm could not be held accountable for any harm or damage that might result after the delivery of the vaccine unless the Gauro government deemed such action necessary for the protection of the country's interests. Political Asylum of Avinor: Duc to insurgency, Avinor and other officials requested political asylum in Harikela and Harikela granted it and refused to return Avinor to Gauro as Krishtigarva’s Government was committing blatant violation of international law by arbitrarily detaining officials and asking for Avinor's trial without punishment for extraditable offences. Avinor established Government in exile claiming legitimate government which was supported by embassies of Gauro. Insurgency of Kishtigarva's Government: Kishtigarva proclaimed himself as president. He declared unconditional power in management of foreign companies of Harikela. The Companies wrapped up their business which caused huge power crisis and price hike of daily goods. There were sporadic protests against Kishitigarva, which the military suppressed through barbaric attacks on civilians.Concerns of the Dispute: Gauro demanded Conviction of Shukla Company without investigation by which Gauro interfered in Harikela's internal affair. Harikela refused to retum political asylum-seckers from persecution. International view: Around 20 world leaders requested the goverment of Harikela not to send Avinor back to Gaaro as it might put his life in danger. Officials of Kuru mentioned that the judiciary of Gauro was not independent from the current regime's arbitrary decisions which could lead to serious human rights violations against Avinor and other leaders from the Matsya tribe.ISSUES a, Whether the dispute is maintainable before the present court? b. Whether the current government of Gauro is legitimately entitled to file the dispute under international law? c. Whether Harikela and Shukla Company has violated international law including United Nations Convention against Corruption and Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions? al law by not returning Avinor to Gauro cela violated intern d, Whether the H authorities? crySUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS a, Whether the dispute is maintainable before the present court? Gauro's claim that Harikela engaged in corruption is erroneous under the UNCAC and OECD. There is no evidence to support allegations of bribery, and in fact, Harikela actively encouraged Gauro's fight against corruption by participating in international initiatives. A ionally, Harikela did not breach any international treaties; instead, it was Gauro's failure to establish transparent procurement systems. The interference of Gauro in Harikela's internal affairs is deemed a violation of sovereignty by the ICJ, emphasizing the principle of non- intervention. Finally, Gauro's request to convict Shukla Company without proper investigation is criticized, highlighting the necessity of conducting a thorough inquiry before asserting any conviction under the UNCAC. b. Whether the current government of Gauro is legitimately entitled to file the dispute under international law? ‘The Government in exile is recognised as the legitimate government per UN security councils resolution measure which doesn’t recognise any governance from coup results. The current government of Gauro came to power by insurgency which has not fulfilled all conditions to bea recognised government. It is not approved by the citizens because the government is depriving them of their human rights. Gauro's current illegal government is not capable of fulfilling international obligations. Terefore, the current government doesn’t have the prima facie to file the dispute under international law. 2¢. Whether Harikela and Shukla Company has violated international law including United Nations Convention against Corruption and Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions? Its humbly submitted that Harikela and Shukla Company staunchly refute claims of violati international law through bribery in Gauro. Shukla contends that their responsibility concluded upon vaccine delivery, disassociating from post-delivery ‘matters. Local health center suspicions lacked substantive evidence, and Shukla Company promptly reported the issue to relevant authorities. Gauro's internal conflicts exacerbate the situation, and bribery allegations must be examined in the context of contractual obligations and the tumultuous pi al climate, d, Whether the Harikela violated international law by not returning Avinor to Gauro authorities? Harikela's decision to deny the extradition of Avinor to Gauro is grounded in principles of intermational law, emphasizing the protection of human rights and the right to seek asylum. Avinor, facing allegations in Gauro, sought refuge in Harikela, invoking the right to political asylum amid concerns about a fair tril and potential human rights violations. Harikela maintains that recognizing Gauro's government in exile poses challenges to its commitment to non-interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states. The judiciary's independence in Gauro has been questioned, raising doubts about the faimess of legal proceedings. Harikela's refusal (o extradite Avinor is based on the fundamental tenets of human rights, ensuring the safety and well-being of individuals seeking refuge. The international community's support for Harikela's stance reflects the acknowledgment of potential risks to Avinor's life and the ‘need to uphold international standards for asylum seekers. By prioritizing human rights over Bextradition requests, Harikela aligns itself with the broader legal framework governing the protection of individuals facing persecution. 4PLEADINGS a, The dispute is not maintainable before the present court ‘The applicant solely relied upon rumours and accusations of the current government to establish their claim against Harikela. Nevertheless, these documents are inadmissible before the court in the present dispute, as the true source of these information is not certain enough. We humbly submit that Harikela did not commit corruption nor did it breached any international treaty. Rather, Gauro is challenging Harikela's sovereignty by interfering in Harikela's internal matter. a... Gauro's claim of corruption by Harikela is false under UNCAC and OECD Harikela did not commit any corruption. Harikela and Gauro only had business transactions that were legal." Gauro and Harikela joined an economic and military alliance called the Kalinga Sea After *Rajamandala’ to strengthen maritime trade and military secu that, Harikela wanted to develop an economic partnership with Gauro and Gauro welcomed that. Harikela carried out its function without any undue influence. Corruption involves behavior on the part of officials in the public sector, whether politicians or civil servants, in which they improperly and unlawfully enrich themselves, or those close to them, by the misuse of the public power entrusted to them. Here the applicant is demanding Harikela committed corruption relying upon press material and accusations of the current government who were then main leader of the opposition political party called Orindom.* No substantial evidence is found against Harikela proving that they bribed the Government of Gauro. Rather, it is a matter of fact that Harikela " P7, Statement of Agreed Facts # P4, Statement of Agreed acts > Art 6(2), UNCAC ‘P4, Statement of Agreed Facts 15‘encouraged Gauro to fight against Corruption by being a member of the UNCAC and OECD. At the request of Harikela, Gauro also became a signatory to the IACC.° Gauro's, economic progress and stance against corruption were highly praised in the Intemational media, especially in the newspaper of Harikela. This is a clear indication that Harikela supported Gauro in fighting Corruption. Gauro's economic progress and stance against corruption were highly praised in the International media, especially in the newspaper of Harikela, This is a clear indication that Harikela collaborated with Gauro to fight Corruption.” ‘Therefore, Harikela did not commit any corruption but only collaborated with Gauro to prevent corruption. 8.2, Harikela did not breach any International treaties Harikela did not violate any treaties. Rather, Gauro failed to establish procurement systems based on the principles of transparency, competition and objective criteria in decision making.‘ Harikela is not liable for Gauro’s breach of treaty. According to the Ministry of Health, a thorough assessment revealed that only the Shukla Company had the capacity to supply the vaccine and construct the hospital in the shortest possible time. Their top priorities ‘were time and quality.? They also stated how Shukla Company had a good track record of ‘completing projects quickly while maintaining excellent standards. Their reputation was ‘unquestionable. Shukla Company promptly delivered millions of vaccines and swiftly set up the hospital. *P12, Statement of Agreed Facts “Ibid 7 Art (4), UNCAC. * An9(1), UNCAC PIS, Siatement of Agreed Facts 16‘Therefore, Harikela got the contract through its own track record as a company with completing projects quickly while maintaining the quality. Therefore, Harikela did not breach any treaties, a3, Gauro should not interfere in Harikela's Internal affairs according to ICJ ‘The Conviction of Shukla Company is an internal matter of Harikela. No state has the right to intervene in the internal or external affairs of another." In international law, the concept of “intervention” is tied to the notion “interference” and is when a State intervenes in the internal affairs of another State, in violation of the latter's sovereignty."' The principle of non-intervention involves the right of every sovereign State to conduct its affairs without outside interference; though examples of trespass against this principle are not infrequent, the Court considers that it is part and parcel of customary international law.'? In DRC V. Uganda (2005), the Court noted that Nicaragua had “made it clear that the principle of non- imtervention prohibits a State “to intervene, directly or indirectly, with or ithout armed force, in support of the internal opposition within a State.!? So, Gauro's interference is in violation with Harikela's sovereignty. ad. Gauro should not ask to Convict Shukla Company without Investigation Gauro's claim of Conviction of Shukla Company without Investigation. Gauro officially requested Harikela to convict the Shukla Company for breaching the UNCAC. The UNCAC applies to the prevention, investigation and prosecution of corruption and to the freezing. seizure, confiscation and return of the proceeds of offences established in accordance with this Convention." Accordingly, Investigation is a must before asserting "™ Am. 8 Montevideo Convention onthe Rights and Duties of States "Anite 207), UN Charter "°1C) Reports 1986, p.106, para, 202 Cd Reps 2005, pra, 164 "amit 31), UNCAC ”Conviction. Here, The Shukla Company's representatives informed that when the vaccine was released, it was not their duty to oversee the administration of the vaccination program. They also displayed a contract provision that stated that the Shukla firm could not be held accountable for any harm or damage that might result after the delivery of the vaccine unless the Gauro government deemed such action necessary for the protection of the country’s interests.'’ But Gauro government didn’t realized it was necessary. b. The current government of Gauro is not legitimately entitled to file the dispute under international law b.l. The Government in Exile is the sole Legitimate Government of Gauro under UN Charter ‘The former president established a government in exile in Harikela and proclaimed ate government of Gauro.'6 The government in exile had the themselves tobe the sole leg support of Kuru and Harikela. As a show of solidarity for the government in exile, Avinor's image was on display as the President at some Embassies of Gauro. States should take effective measures to prevent and thrown a threat of peace where have correlation with Resolutions of the UN Security Council which called upon States not to recognize a certain authority or even decided that the Member States should refrain from ‘ecognizing a certain authority would hardly have been necessary if recognition had no legal meaning, it concludes, the prohibition to recognize new governance from the coup result, because in case of the legal commitment to the democratic government of a State, the other States only may continue to recognize the exiled democratically elected government a "Px, Sement of Agreed Facts "P29, Statement of Agreed Factsrevival as a measure for the protection and consolidation of democratic government..” A de facto government has control over state assets within the territory it controls. A de jure government has control even over state assets abroad."® Hence, the government in exile is the sole legitimate government of Gauro. b.2. The Current Government is not recognized as a legitimate government under Tober doctrine principle Harikela's intelligence agency revealed a plan by Kadampa to overthrow the current regime: so that Kuru and Harikela could never establish a military naval base in Gauro."® The recognition of the government should only be granted if its administration came to power, by legitimate democratic means.®° An entity illegal under international law and has not been recognized by international community is illegitimate.?* British practice shows that three conditions precedent are required for the grant of de jure recognition of a new State or a new Government, The three conditions are as (A reasonable assurance of stability and permanence; (ii) The Government should command the general support of the population; ‘and (ii) It should be able and willing to fulfil its international obligations. The curent state came to power by insurgency which is also illegitimate as it doesn’t Fulfil, the essential condition for recognition which is supported by people.? an illegitimate ‘Therefore, the Current Government of Gauro is not recognized and government. "ance 1(1),UN Charter The “Aran:acu Mend, (1939) 63 LLLRep.89 Ps, Statement of Agreed Facts ” Oxford University Press, A Dictionary of Law (9 ed), 2018, 2 lage and Others v, Moldova and Russia (GC] - 48787199 HA Smith, Great Britsn and the Law of Nation, Vol. . 79 ™r. SK. Kapoor, Essential conditions for recognizing insurgents, International law and human rights p. 158 19b.3. The Current Government doesn’t have prima facie to file the dispute under international law ‘The Current government is illegal government by revolution. The Government in exile which is the de jure government and legitimate to file dispute under International law. ‘The recognition of a state merely signifies that the state which recognizes it accepts the personality of the other with all the rights and duties determined by intemational law. Recognition is unconditional and irrevocable.” The recognition of governments is clouded with similar ambiguities. What is involved is not the acknowledgment of statehood but decision as to who is entitled to act for a given State.” The practice of States shows that in first stage the State generally give de facto recognition. Later on, when they are satisfied that the recognized State is capable of fulfilling international obligations, they confer de jure recognition on it? ‘The current government of Gauro is not recognized as capable of fulfilling international obligations. Therefore, the government doesn’t have an international identity. It doesn’t have prima facie to file the dispute under international law. b.4. The current government is not approved by the people There were sporadic protests against the current government, which the military suppressed through barbaric attacks on civilians. Such barbaric attacks violates human rights. No person ‘shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” In all cases of recognition, support by the people is necessary for a legitimate government, 2 Ar.6, Montevideo Convention onthe Rights and Duties of States % PE, Corbet, The Growth of World Law (1971), p66. poor, International law and Human Rights, P. 155 20Hence, the current government with regards to violation of Human rights against its citizens isnot approved by the people. ¢ Harikela and Shukla Company has not violated international law including United Nations Convention against Corruption and Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transections cl. The absence of any credible evidence linking Harikela or Shukla Company to bribery activities effectively disproves any claims of their involvement in corruption Gauro accuses Harikela and Shukla Company of engaging in bribery activities in connection the awarding of the contracts. But did not provide any credible evidence to support its allegations. The allegation that Harikela and/or Shukla Company engaged in bribery activities is devoid of any concrete evidence. The mere absence of tangible proof is a significant factor that undermines the credibility of these accusations, The general principle regarding the burden of proof stems from the maxim onus probandi actori incumbit, namely “he who asserts must prove'” The absence of credible evidence linking Harikela or Shukla Company to bribery activites is further strengthened by the fact that both entities have adhered to ethical business practices and implemented stringent anti-corruption measures, Harikela, as a state, has ¢sablished robust anti-corruption policies and oversight mechanisms designed to prevent and detect any form of corruption within its administration.” After Shukla Company's vaccine delivery and hospital build several other local and international companies also secured liceses {o supply vaccines.° Which is a clear sign of transparency in business.?" % 4r138(1)(o), Statue ofthe International Court of Justice P12, Siaiement of Agreed Facts P16, Satement of Agreed Facts ar S(1), UNCAC a‘The accused shall be presumed innocent until proven guilty.2? Rule 64(1) states that “*the accused shall be presumed innocent until proven guilty." The concept of ‘mens rea’ is also relevant to this case. Mens rea refers to the criminal intent of the accused. In order to establish corruption, the prosecution must prove that the accused had the intention to engage in bribery or other corrupt practices. In this case, there is no evidence to suggest that either Harikela or Shukla Company had any intention to engage in bribery. A state is obliged to observe an international agreement in good faith.™ This princip| that a state should not make accusations of corruption without providing credible evidence to support its claims. Prosecution bears the ultimate burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt, including with respect to any of the elements of the alleged crimes with which the accused is charged.?5 .2. Harikela's strong anti-corruption policies and stringent oversight mechanisms effectively prevent any potential involvement in bribery activities Harikela is party to the Statute of the International Anti-Corruption Court ([ACCC). Harikela is a party to several other international conventions that address corruption.” These intemational conventions provide a framework for countries to implement effective anti- corruption measures. While there no explicitly mention Harikela's domestic laws, it's with these conventions. reasonable to assume that the country has enacted legislation in €3, Shukla Company's ethical business practices and strong anti-corruption policies further reinforce its commitment to compliance with international anti-corruption laws nt 66(2), Rome Statute > TACC’ Rules of Procedure and Evidence % ant 66(2), VCLT ° Prosecuior v. Charles Taylor, (ICC-01/07-01/08, 27 June 2008, paragraphs 67-68) P34, Statement of Agreed Facts 2‘The ethical standards upheld by Shukla Company form the cornerstone of its operations, exemplifying a steadfast dedication to adherence to international anti-corruption laws. Committed to ethical conduct, the company has implemented a robust compliance program designed to forestall and detect any instances of bribery and corruption, Shukla Company's stringent anti-corruption policy unequivocally prohibits all forms of bribery and corrupt practices, aligning with the tenets of the UNCAC. Shukla company were awarded the contract to deliver vaccine and set up hospital for their reputation,2? There was no promise, offering or giving to a public official himself or other person or entity.>* 4, The fair and transparent bidding process for the COVID-19 vaccine and medical supply contracts ensures that the seleetion of Shukla Company was based on merit rather than any improper influence, further shielding Harikela from any liability Harikela's unwavering dedication to transparent procurement practices ensures that the selection of the Shukla Company for the COVID-19 vaccine and medical supply contracts was based on merit rather than undue influence. The country's compliance with international treaties and conventions reinforces its commitment to fair and transparent procurement processes, shielding Harikela from unwarranted liability. There was an appropriate ision making.*” procurement, based on transparency, competition and objective criteria in d ‘The absence of evidence suggesting a violation of Harikela’s internal laws during the bidding process for these contracts validates the agreement between Harikela and Gauro.*! As the bidding procedures did not contravene Harikela's internal laws, the treaty between both nations remains valid, notwithstanding allegations of corruption within Gauro's government. P15, Statement of Agreed Facts Art 15(a), UNCAC ™PIS, Statement of Agreed Facts 2 amt 9(1), UNCAC “Am 26, VOLT 23d. ‘The Harikela not violated International law by not returning Avinor to Gauro authorities Marikela contends that its decision to grant political asylum to Avinor aligns with international taw, particularly the principles of non-refoulement under the Refugee Convention and the Convention Against Torture. Avinor, facing persecution in Gauro due to political reasons, qualifies as a refugee and would face credible threats if returned. Harikela emphasizes Avinor's right to seek asylum and argues thatthe judiciary in Gauro lacks independence, posing a risk of human rights violations if Avinor were to return, Additionally, Harikela asserts its sovereign right to grant asylum and non-interference in Gauro's internal affairs, maintaining that denying Gauro's request was a lawful exercise of its discretion. The refusal to extradite Avinor, based on these grounds, is seen as a justified action under intemational law. 4.1, Harikela’s decision to grant polit ssylum (0 Avinor was in accordance with international law and principles of non-refoulement Harikela strongly asserts that its decision to grant political asylum to Avinor is firmly {grounded in international law, specifically in adherence to the principles of non-refoulement enshrined in the 1951 Refugee Convention. The Convention expressly prohibits the expulsion or return of a refugee to a territory where their life or freedom would be threatened on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, Avinor, facing persecution in Gauro due to political reasons, undeniably qualifies as «a refugee under the Convention's protective ambit.*? No state party shall expel, return, or extradite a person to another state where there are substantial grounds for believing that they * An33, Refugee Convention 1951 4would be in danger of being subjected to torture,*? Avinor's imminent risk of persecution in Gauro falls squarely within the scope of this prohibition. Harikela has provided asylum to Avinor, whe mn in Gauro due to political reasons.** Harikela's decision at risk of persec to grant asylum to Avinor is in accordance with international law and principles of non- refoulement. Harikela’s decision aligns seamlessly with its obligations under international law to safeguard the rights and well-being of individuals seeking asylum. By providing refuge to Avinor, Harikela not only upholds its commitment to international human rights but also honors its duty to protect those facing genuine threats to life and liberty. 4.2, Avinor faced a credible threat to his life and safety in Gauro, justifying Harikela’s refusal to extradite him ‘The political climate in Gauro, marked by widespread protests, violent suppression of dissent, and arbitrary detentions, poses a substantial risk to Avinor’s well-being.“® As a prominent figure associated with the Matsya tribe, he faces heightened vulnerability, with reports of discrimination and violence against this community. Harikela contends that Avinor’s fear of persecution is grounded in well-established facts, making him eligible for the protection offered by the principle of non-refoulement. The inherent right to life and places an obligation on states to safeguard individuals from threats to this right.*” Considering the potential for cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment in Gauro, the extradition of individuals, to countries where they face a real risk of torture is prohibited," © art3, Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment “P28, Statement of Agreed Facts ° Hirsi Janaa and Others v Italy (2012) “33, Statement of Agreed Facts * An6,ICCPR “an3,CAT 25Harikela underscores the principle of asylum, which is integral to international law. Avinor's request for political asylum aligns with the established norms recognizing the right of individuals to seek and enjoy asylum from persecution.” It is important for countries not extraditing individuals to the countries where they would be at risk of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. Here, Harikela has refused to extradite Avinor to Gauro, Where he is at risk of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. 4.3, The judiciary in Gauro is not independent, and there is a risk of human rights violations against Avinor if he is returned Harikela vigorously argues that the judiciary in Gauro lacks the essential characteristic of independence, posing a substantial risk of human rights violations against Avinor if he is returned.*! This contention is grounded in well-documented evidence demonstrating a pervasive lack of judicial autonomy and impartiality in Gauro. The right to a fair trial includes the right to be heard by an independent and impartial tribunal.‘? The lack of an independent judiciary is a clear violation of International standards and undermines the credibility of legal proceedings. The independence of the judiciary shall be guarantced by the state, thereby preventing undue interference or influence.* 4, Harikela’s denial of Gauro’s request is consistent with its sovereign right to grant political asylum and non-interference in internal affairs. Harikela firmly asserts that its denial of Gauro's request to extradite Avinor is well-founded in the principles of sovereign right and non-interference in internal affairs, which are deeply entrenched in international law. All states, regardless of their size or influence, possess equal UDHR Soering v. United Kingdom (1989) °" P33, Siatement of Agreed Facts Am 14, ICCPR Principle 1, United Nations General Assembly 26rights and duties. Harikela's decision to grant political asylum to Avinor aligns with this fundamental principle, as each state retains the sovereign right to determine its domestic and foreign policies without external interference, Harikela, like any sovereign state, is guided by the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of other states.55 The Charter explicitly prohibits intervention in matters that are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state, Harikela’s decision to deny Gauro's request is a manifestation of its commitment to respecting the internal affairs of other nations and refraining from unwarranted interference. Moreover, Harikela’s denial is consistent with the broader framework of protecting human rights, Granting political asylum to Avinor of sovereign discretion but not only an exer also a measure aimed at safeguarding an individual's right to life, free from persecution. Harikela draws attention to historical and legal precedents where states have exercised their sovereign right to grant asylum, reinforcing the notion that such decisions are well within the bounds of established international norms. This aligns with the jurisprudence of various international courts that have recognized and respected the sovereign prerogative of states in asylum matters, States have a sovereign right to grant nationality, which is a similar right to ‘granting political asylum.5” Here, Harikela has granted political asylum to Avinor, and it is now responsible for protecting him from extradition, Harikela should act in good faith and in accordance with international law when making decisions about extradition. am 2(1), UN Charter 39 art 2(7), UN Charter % art 14, UDHR 5 Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limlted (Belgium v. Spain) (1970) D7Therefore, Harikela’s denial of Gauro's request is a legitimate exercise of its sovereign right, grounded in the principles of sovereign equality, non-interference, and the protection of human rights. 28PRAYER ‘Wherefore, in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is sumbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to hold, adjudge and declare that; + That the actions of Harikels and Shukla Company align meticulously with the tenets set fort in the United Nations Convention against Corruption and the Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions. + Seek 2 considered declaration regarding the questionable legitimacy of the Government of Gearo's assertion to representational authority. + Outright rejection of any claims for compensation, emphasizing that the alleged breaches [have not inflicted the extensive economic, political, and social repercussions as ardently asserted by the Government of Gauro. AND/OR Any other relief which this Hon’ble court may be pleased to grant in the interests of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience. All of which is respectfully submitted. AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER AS IN DUTY-BOUND. SHALL HUMBLY FOREVER PRAY. Sd/ ~(Counsels for Respondent) 29