2.

WHETHER THE ACTIVITIES OF KUWAL (THROUGH RHPL’S PLATFORMS)

ARE IN BREACH OF THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND PERSONAL DATA
PROTECTION RIGHTS AS GUARANTEED UNDER THE INTERNATIONAL
CONVENTION?

It is humbly submitted before the international court of justice that the activities of RHPL
platforms are asserted to align with legitimate commercial practices for advertising. It collects
and processes data as per international privacy laws, primarily for advertising which is a
legitimate interest. Users consent to data use by agreeing to terms and conditions. Data is
anonymized and aggregated before use. The AI-based curation of content is justified for an
enhancement of user experience through personalized content delivery based on individual
preferences and is not in breach of freedom of information. As private news and social media
entities, the platforms enjoy editorial independence and freedom to curate information for users.
Curation, including rankings and suggestions, is an editorial prerogative granted under free
speech protections and freedom of expression and preference.

2.1. The activities RHPL's platforms are asserted to align with legitimate commercial
practices for advertising which is not in breach of personal data protection and kuwal has
not violated the international laws.
It is submitted that the activities of RHPL in collection and processing of user data are consistent
with legitimate data usage practices that align with the right to privacy and personal data
protection enshrined under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) which Maur and
Kuwal are signatories to.1

Article 17(1) of the ICCPR upholds the right to privacy explicitly prohibiting “arbitrary or
unlawful interference” with privacy.2 However, General Comment No. 16 of the United Nations
Human Rights Committee recognizes that lawful and proportionate restrictions may be made
provided they are consistent with the provisions, aims and objectives of the Covenant and are
reasonable.3 ICESCR Article 15 also recognizes the right to benefit from scientific progress
balanced with moral and material rights. In the current context, RHPL’s platforms constitute

1
Moot compromis 1.6
2
ICCPR, Art 17(1)
3
CCPR General Comment No. 16
technological progress facilitating access to information and services relied upon extensively by
the citizens of Kuwal. Hence, any restrictions must not be arbitrary or unreasonable impacting
rights under the treaties.

The Budapest Convention on Cybercrime signed by both Maur and Kuwal4 also requires
countries to adopt domestic privacy legislation regarding computer data as per Article 13. Each
Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to ensure that the
criminal offences established in accordance with Articles 2 through 11 are punishable by
effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions, which include deprivation of liberty. 5 In the
absence of violations warranting discontinuation of services per local regulations, Kuwal cannot
be compelled to take action against technology companies that are vital digital infrastructure
providers enabling lawful exercise of communication rights and economic progress for Kuwal's
citizens.

The moot compromis does not specify demonstrable illegalities in RHPL’s data handling
practices but rather only raises general concerns6 about practices primarily geared towards
advertising7, which supports sustainability of free global platforms and services. As per
Annexure 1, RHPL's scope covers legal and compliance responsibilities regarding privacy.8
Personalized advertising and AI-based curation constitute legitimate commercial interests
aligned with rights of users to benefit from scientific progress as per Article 15(1)(b), ICESCR. 9

Citizens actively rely on and continue to access RHPL platforms through workaround methods
despite restrictions.10 This indicates user consent, at least implicitly, to share data voluntarily to
avail free services. In view of access facilitating core rights preserving interests of Kuwal's
population, discontinuing services merely on unproven allegations does not fulfil the
reasonableness standard warranting restrictions on rights as per General Comment No. 16.11

Therefore, in view of the above submissions grounded in Kuwal's commitments under

international human rights instruments, the activities of RHPL align with data protection
4
Moot Compromis 1.6
5
Budapest Convention, Art 13
6
Annexure No.2 of Moot Compromis
7
Moot Comprmis 3.3
8
Annexure 1, Moot Compromis
9
ICESCR, Article 15 (1.b)
10
Moot Compromis
11
CCPR General Comment No. 16
standards and lawful legitimate interests in sustaining free global digital services relied upon
extensively by the citizens of Kuwal.

3.2. The AI-based curation of content is justified for an enhancement of user experience
through personalized content delivery based on individual preferences and is not in breach
of freedom of information.
The curation of content based on individual user interests and preferences aligns with the
evolving practices of digital media platforms. It cannot be equated to censorship or inherently
considered manipulation. the use of AI algorithms to customize and personalize content delivery
enhances the user experience on platforms like Facetok and MyTube. It allows users to see more
of the information they desire and less of what they don't. The order, prioritization and
prominence given to different pieces of content is an editorial decision by the platform to
improve engagement. It is not an infringement on the right to information.

As per Report of UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion, access to internet creates right
to an 'enabling environment' for exercise of human rights online12. RHPL's algorithms
personalize content as per Art 19(2) of ICCPR which upholds right to 'seek' and 'receive'
information. This facilitates access as per enablement principle.13

Ranking and suggestions of social media posts or search results is automated editorial curation
justified under Article 10 ECHR which talks about the freedom of expression14. Here, AI based
curated content is justified.

As private entities, Facetok and MyTube have reasonable discretion in how they display or
curate third-party content contributed by users who agree to their terms of service. There are no
international standards governing such platforms.

In the absence of demonstrated harm or evidence of systemic content suppression, the use of AI
algorithms to filter and recommend content cannot be construed as a breach of freedom of
information. It aims to enhance meaningful access and make the service more user-friendly.

12
Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and
Expression, Geneva: UN, 6 Apr. 2018
13
Article 9, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966
14
Article 10, European Convention on Human Rights 1950
Under the Johannesburg Principles, restrictions on freedom of expression must be "necessary in
a democratic society" which AI-based curation is by optimizing user experience. 15

If specific instances of content moderation are disproportionate or questionable, domestic

remedies can address them. But the core algorithmic curation system is a justifiable technology
for optimizing user experience. Hence, the accusation that the AI-based curated content delivery
by RHPL is not in breach of freedom of information but actually in protection of it.

15
THE JOHANNESBURG PRINCIPLES ON NATIONAL SECURITY, FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND
ACCESS TO INFORMATION