Honorable President, Distinguished Members of the Court, it is an honor and a privilege to

address this hallowed court. The Applicant state of Qinquest, though its agents, will do its
utmost best in assisting this court, in this present case concerning the ban on chirp and other
matters. This is Agent 2 for the Applicant, and in the next 12 minutes, I shall relay the
Applicant’s submissions regarding ban imposed on chirp 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 winlandan constitution and the international law. Subsequently, I shall then
forward the submissions regarding ban on chirp under the presidential order is tenable under
the principles of international law, and President Palpatine defamatory statements on Qinquest.
If the Distinguised Members are well versed with the facts of the case, shall this agent begin
with his arguments?

I shall now proceed with the arguments.

Distinguished Members, The third argument simply seeks to question the present conflict is
a simple case regarding ban of Mobile app named Chirp. The ban is an unjustified,
discriminatory measure and constitutes as an indirect expropriation against the investors of the
app. The Applicant firmly believes that An absolute ban on chirp is a disproportionate response
on behalf of Winland government. This Agent will now be referring at decisions of the
European Court of Human Right shows that standards of proportionality could be imported,
signals that measures must be necessary as per the objective as well as be least restrictive to
the rights of investors. An absolute ban on chirp is a disproportionate response on behalf of
Winland government is violative of right to self-determination, life and liberty under Article
1(2); Article 6; Article 9 of UN Charter, Article 1; Article 12 of ICCPR and Article 1 (1) of
ICESCR because it is violative to the right of Investors, mode of expression for minorities and
an extensive measure.

The Applicant firstly raises that Chirp is the Mode of Expression for Minorities. Winland has
chosen to destroy an online community where millions of Winlandans have come together to
express themselves, share video content, and make connections with each other. This is a clear
violation of Right to personal life and liberty guaranteed under the Winlandian Constitution as
well as international instruments. The possibility of the application manipulation of Chirp by
the Qinquest government is purely speculative in nature.

The Applicant secondly raises that extensive measures have been taken by Chirp to protect the
privacy and security of Winlandan user data, including by having the Chirp application store
such data outside of Qinquest (in Winland and another country) and by erecting software
barriers that help ensure that Chirp stores the user data of Winlandans separately from the user
data of other Chirp products. The notification of the ban is ambiguous in defining the
culpability of the app. The term “unusual or extraordinary threat” is vague and subject to
misinterpretation. Using the same as excuse in the veil of condition for the President to exercise
his authority under the GFEPA is unconstitutional as per the Winlandan constitution as stated
in footnote 71. Chirp never poses safety threat for minors, Chirp has developed a ‘Family
Safety Mode’ for parents and guardians to be able to control the digital well-being of minor
users. This mode covers features such as screen time management, content restriction controls
mode, and filtration of direct messages that children can send or receive.

The Applicant thirdly raises that As per Ch. V, Art. 25, U.N. Charter, The app did not violate
the national peace of Winland. International courts have accepted an act that serves in the
public interest. Thus, such arbitrary ban on an ‘expressive platform for minorities’ is directly
violative of right to life and liberty and promotes ‘continues oppression’ on a specific group in
a democratic nation like Winland violating ‘Minority Rights’ under the International as well as
national laws.

The forth Argument, Distinguished members, is quite straightforward. President of Winland's

decision requiring Chirp stockholders in Winland to sell all assets affiliated with the Chirp
application in Winland and give over all data collected or generated from Winlandan Chirp
users is arbitrary and draconian. Mandating a blanket withdrawal from Technocrat by all
subsidiaries, affiliates, and resident Qinquest stockholders in Winland is a severe action that
breaches the WTO's principle of nondiscrimination in trade and free trade precepts.

The Applicant firstly raises that Tribunals, such as the one in Telenor v. Hungary, have
identified two criteria for determining expropriation: Firstly, the degree of economic hardship
and Secondly, the length of economic suffering.

The first part requires the applications to demonstrate that the restriction significantly deprived
investors of their investments. This might result in a large decrease in projected profits or a
violation of an investor's rights, both of which are obvious consequences of the contested
restriction. Blocking domain names by internet service providers, referred to as geo-blocking,
hinders customers from accessing Winland and stifles any previously held market share; both
of these are expropriation-eligible assets.
Second, majority of applications generate income via promotions and click-based adverts,
which generate revenue only while the platforms are working. Furthermore, the prohibition has
robbed the programme of a sizable user base in Winland.

The Applicant secondly raises that The BIT (Bilateral Investment Treaty) that exists between
Winland and Qinquest empowers foreign investors to directly bring claims against the host
State before an international arbitration tribunal in case of a dispute, which is known as the
Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS). Winland had unilaterally terminated a number of
investment treaties in 2018, including the BIT with Qinquest on October 3, 2018, however, the
treaty continues to bind the countries due to the “survival or sunset clause” contained in
Winland - Qinquest BIT.

Thus, by virtue of the 15-year sunset clause, the Qinquestian investments still enjoy protection
under the BIT and there exists a potential claim for a Qinquestian entity to bring an ISDS claim
against the Winlandan government. This would also include Qinquestian investments made in
Winland through other countries under different ownership structures. Although one could
always argue that the BIT doesn’t expressly label websites or apps as ‘investments’, it is
pertinent to note that the definition of investments under the BIT is broad enough to encompass
Qinquest apps. The treaty expressly labels IPR as investments, which gives some scope of
protection to websites or applications. Following that, an investment is protected by a variety
of substantive safeguards, including ‘Most Favored Nation'; 'Full Protection and Security'; 'Fair
and Equitable Treatment' ("FET"); and protection against unjustified expropriation. Also,
Chirp's processes are not consistent, and it gathers a variety of data. The policy of banning all
functions would be unreasonable. As a consequence, the Qinquest investors have grounds to
sue Winland for restitution or compensation.

The Applicant thirdly raises that there exists Absence of Due Process and Rationale by
Winlandan government. The guarantees of procedural fairness and due process of law are
important elements of the right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial, which
is guaranteed in international human right law. According to Rule 9(1) of IT Rules of Winland,
the Designated officer initiates the block request/recommendation to the Secretary ‘Special
Committee’, and the Secretary bases his order on this request/recommendation. Thus, the
clause authorising the designated official to head the committee reviewing the order violates
another basic principle of Natural Justice, namely that 'no one should be judge in his own case,'
i.e. Nemo Judex In Causa Sua. Due to the government's failure to follow proper process in
imposing limits on the right to free speech and expression, as demanded by International law
Principles on several occasions, the order is unjust and arbitrary.

Therefore, it is humbly submitted before this hon’ble court that the action of Winlandan
government in banning the Chirp app in its territory is evidently Arbitrary, Draconian and in
violation of International law Principles.

Finally, Distinguished members, The last argument is Freedom of opinion and expression are
fundamental rights of every human being and are indispensable for the fulfilment and
enjoyment of many other human rights. It has been perceived in various international
instruments, including in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, standards that are now part of general international law
and customary international law. In the international community, defamation has destabilising
implications. 146 countries have ratified UNGA Resolution 31/91, which forbids "defamation
aimed at undermining other governments' political, social, or economic order." Although some
states have agreed to condemn state defamation, the word itself is confusing due to the lack of
a uniform meaning. The UN Human Rights Committee has provided the most definitive
interpretation of the scope of the right to freedom of expression In its General Comment No.
34, which stated that this right includes “the expression and receipt of communications of every
form of idea and opinion capable of transmission to others such as political discourse,
commentary on one’s own and on public affairs”

The Applicant firstly raises that The question of attributability arises from the use of the words
“by the accused State.” Attributability to a State is governed by the Articles on Responsibility
of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (ARSIWA), which states that actions of a person
vested with legislative, executive, or judicial authority could be attributable to the State. As the
executive head of the State, actions of President Palpatine are attributable to the Republic of
Winland.

The Applicant secondly raises that The right to reputation is recognised by many countries as
well as the Universal Declaration on Human Rights as well as ICCPR. “No one shall be
subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to
attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law
against such interference or attacks”. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights lays
down “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.” Furthermore,
everyone has a right to protection of law against such infringements. Right to reputation is an
inseparable right of an individual and such right cannot be sacrificed or crucified at the altar of
another’s Right to freedom of Speech.

The applicant thirdly raises that Defamation of a State contravenes international law because
it violates the principle of non-intervention. Defamation that destabilizes the political, social,
and economic aspects of State has been considered intervention. The principle of non-
intervention proscribes States from, directly or indirectly, coercively interfering in the internal
affairs of other States. The dragon is a mythical and colossal serpentine monster that constantly
appears in Qinquest mythology, and is the national emblem of Qinquest. The term
‘Dragonvirus' is malevolent, ubiquitous, and an assault on the Qinquest Sovereign and
Qinquestian people. The terminology we employ must be carefully chosen to avoid profiling
of those involved. Such egregious behaviour may be defamatory. As stated above, this might
economically destabilise Qinquest, thereby violating the conventional norm of non-
intervention. Unverified remarks may dramatically damage a nation's internal and worldwide
impression, especially with the introduction of the internet and global access to information.
Therefore, it is humbly submitted that the action of President of Winlandan government in
defaming Qinquestian state in its territory is evidently in violation of International law
Principles.

I pray, Distinguished members, that The Imposed ban by the Respondent is violative of
International trading principles and Right to self-determination, life and liberty of Individuals.
The comments made by Mr. Palpatine are not protected under the right of freedom of speech
and expression and thus Defamatory and thus, seeking damages. I pray to this court to pass any
order that this Hon’ble court may deem fit in the interest of equity, justice and good conscience.

It has been a pleasure arguing before this bench.