TEAM 746A

THE 2024 PHILIP C. JESSUP INTERNATIONAL LAW AND MOOT COURT

COMPETITION

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

AT THE PEACE PALACE

THE HAUGUE, NETHERLANDS

CASE CONERNING THE STERREN FORTY

REPUBLIC OF ANTRANO
(APPLICANT)

VS.

KINGDOM OF REMISIA
(RESPONDENT)

MEMORIAL OF THE APPLICANT

 TABLE OF CONTENTS
NAME OF THE CONTENT PAGE

TABLE OF CONTENTS I

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES V

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION XI

QUESTION PRESENTED XII

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS XIII

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS XVII

PLEADINGS 1

I. ANTRANO HAS STANDING TO BRING THE DISPUTE 1

CONCERNING REMISIA’S DEPRIVATION OF
NATIONALITY OF ITS CITIZENS BEFORE THE
COURT
A. ANTRANO’S STAND IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH 1
INTERNATIONAL LAWS
1. Stand by failing to resolve differences by means of 1
negotiation
2. Stand even if non-involvement by- Violation of international 2
Law
B. ANTRANO’S STAND OVERRIDES PRINCIPLE OF 2
NON-INTERVENTION
C. ANTRANO HAS LEGAL INTEREST TO STAND 4
THROUGH THE PRINCIPLE ERGA OMNES
1. Protecting Fundamental Values 4

i
 2. For Maintaining International Order 5
D. DEPRAVATION OF NATIONALITY – OFFENCE 5
AGAINST ALL MANKIND (SECURING ANTRANO’S
STAND)
II. REMISIA’S DEPRIVATION OF NATIONALITY OF THE 7
“STERREN FORTY,” RENDERING THEM STATELESS,
IS A VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
A. REMISIA'S DECLARATION TO RETAIN THE 8
POWER OF STATELESSNESS IS UNLAWFUL
BECAUSE THE ONLINE ZOOM COURT SETTING
WAS NOT CONDUCIVE TO A FAIR TRIAL.
1. Article 8.4 nullified the power of retention given under 8
Article 8.3
2. In contrast to widely accepted and established normal 9
court proceedings, online court proceedings can limit the
ability of defendants to fully present their case making it
an unfair hearing
i. Juror Disappears During Online Deliberations 9
ii. Juror Mutes Defendant on Zoom Court 9
iii. Juror Falls Asleep During Online Trial 9
B. REMISIA'S FAILURE TO PROVIDE THE STERREN 10
FORTY WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAL
THEIR- EXPULSION, VIOLATED THEIR RIGHT TO
AN EFFECTIVE REMEDY, A FUNDAMENTAL
PRINCIPLE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
1. Right to appeal if Expulsion given 10
2. Prohibition of revocation of nationality in order to 11
execute expulsion
3. Expulsion of an entire group is illegal 11
4. Fundamental principle of international law violation 11
C. REMISIA'S DEPRIVATION OF NATIONALITY OF 12
THE STERREN FORTY OUT OF POLITICAL
GROUNDS IS A VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL

ii
 HUMAN RIGHTS ENSHRINED IN INTERNATIONAL
LAW
D. REMISIA'S REVOCATION OF THE STERREN 13
FORTY'S CITIZENSHIP BASED ON A VAGUE AND
ARBITRARY STANDARD OF "DISLOYALTY TO
THE CROWN" IS A VIOLATION OF THEIR RIGHT
TO DUE PROCESS, AS ENSHRINED IN
INTERNATIONAL LAW
III. ANTRANO DID NOT VIOLATE INTERNATIONAL LAW 15
WHEN IT REFUSED TO PROVIDE REMISIA
CONSULAR ACCESS TO MS. SAKI SHAW DURING
HER TIME AS A PRISONER IN ANTRANO
A. ANTRANO OFFERED CONSULAR ACCESS OF 15
MOLVANIA WHICH FULFILLS THE DIPLOMATIC
DUTY CONFERRED BY THE INTERNATIONAL
CONVENTIONS
1. The Right to communicate the nationals by Consular officers 16
is a subject to the conformity with laws and regulations of
Antrano
2. By providing consular access to Molvania, the accepted 17
passport of Saki Shaw, Antrano fulfilled its obligation
regarding providing consular access
3. Ms Saki Shaw was allowed to have any counsel by her 17
choice through her Molvanian Consular Officer
B. ANTRANO DOES NOT RECOGNIZE 18
NATURALIZATION BY PURCHASE, SO
DISREGARDING MS SAKI SHAWS CLAIMED
CITIZENSHIP OF REMISSIA AND THE CONSULAR
ACCESS, DOES NOT VIOLATE INTERNATIONAL LAW
1. Genuine Link and Intent 19
2. Abuse of Nationality 20
3. Limits of diplomatic protection 20

iii
 IV. REMISIA VIOLATED INTERNATIONAL LAW BY 21
DENYING ANTRANAN NATIONAL DR. TULOUS
MALEX ENTRY TO REMISIA AS REQUIRED BY
SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 99997
A. DR. TULOUS MALEX BEFORE COMING TO REMISIA 22
HAS INFORMED REMISIA PROPER AUTHORITIES
B. BY REFUSING THE ENTRY OF TULOUS MALEX, 22
REMISIA VIOLATED THE INTERNATIONAL LAWS
RELATING TO PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF
THE UNITED NATIONS
1. Certificate issued for UN Officials creates special 23
obligations for the State, and denying them is a violation of
the Convention
2. Dr Malex shall enjoy the Special Rights of Immunity as an 23
Antranan Citizen
C. DENYING THE ENTRY OF DR. TULOUS MALEX 24
WHILE PERFORMING THE INSPECTION DUTY
ACCORDING TO THE RESOLUTION IS A VIOLATION
OF THE SPIRIT OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
D. DENIAL OF ENTRY OF DR MALEX TO REMISIA 26
INDICATES REMISIA'S DISINTEREST TO SOLVE THE
STATELESSNESS OF STERREN FORTY
PRAYER FOR RELIEF 28

iv
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

TREATIES AND CONVENTION PAGE

Charter of United Nations, 1945, 1 U.N.T.S. XVI 2,5, 21, 22, 23,24

Commentary on the Draft Articles on the Expulsion of Aliens’ (ILC 11

2014) Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 2011, Vol ii,
Part Two 13
Convention on Reduction of Statelessness 1961, 989 U.N.T.S. 175 1, 8, 10, 12, 13, 26

Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons, 1954, 360 1,11

U.N.T.S. 117

Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations 23, 24, 26
(CPI), 1946, 1 U.N.T.S. 15
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of 2
Genocide, 1948 78 U.N.T.S. 277
Draft Articles on Responsibility of States on Internationally Wrongful 6, 7, 16
Acts, with commentaries adopted by the ILC at its 53rd Sess. (2001)
UN Doc A/56/10,4
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966, 999 14, 27
U.N.T.S. 17

Universal Declaration on Human Right, G.A. res 217A (III), 1948 6, 7, 12, 14, 20,
U.N. Doc. A/810,1948 24, 27

Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 1963, 596 U.N.T.S. 261 16, 17

v
UNITED NATIONS DOCUMENT PAGE

Draft Articles on Responsibility of States on Internationally Wrongful 6, 7, 16

Acts, with commentaries adopted by the ILC at its 53rd Sess. (2001)
UN Doc A/56/10,4
Commentary on the Draft Articles on the Expulsion of Aliens’ (ILC 11
2014) Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 2011, Vol ii,
Part Two 13

UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION PAGE

Universal Declaration on Human Right, G.A. res 217A (III), 1948 U.N. 6, 7, 12, 14, 20,
Doc. A/810,1948 24, 27

UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION PAGE

Security Council Resolution 99997 24

S/RES/1593, 31 March 2005, on Sudan 3

S/RES/1970, 26 February 2011, on Libya 3

HUMAN RIGHT COUNCIL RESOLUTION PAGE

HRC resolution 41/44 5

HRC resolution 45/11 5

vi
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE CASES & ADVISORY PAGE
OPINIONS

Advisory Opinion on The consequences of Legal Obligations of the 5

Union of Myanmar under the 1948 Genocide Convention

Al-Skeini v. United Kingdom (2016) ECHR 711 (dissenting opinion of 14

Judge Al-Khawaja)

Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the 2

Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v Yugoslavia (Serbia and
Montenegro)) (Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures) [1993]
ICJ Rep 3

Andrea Marilyn Pragashini Immanuel, “The Gambia v Myanmar: Can the 6

ICJ Shy Away from the Nationality Question?” (Opinio Juris, October 6,
2022)

Estonia v. Germany (Non-Applicability Convention) (2003) ICJ Rep 147 7

Great Britain v France, Advisory Opinion, (1923) PCIJ Series B no 4, 3

ICGJ 271 (PCIJ 1923)

Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v. Azar (Materiality) 19

[2022] 97 ALJR 1

Nicaragua v. Colombia, ICJ Judgment (13 July 2023), ICJ GL No 191, 2

ICGJ 524 (ICJ 2023)

Questions relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v. 6

Senegal), Judgment of 20 July 2012, I.C.J. Reports 2012, p. 429
The Arab Contractors (Osman Ahmed Osman & Co.) and Elsewedy 27
Electric Company v. Bharya Engineering & Constracting Company
Limited (Becco) and Larrissa Leach, Ruling of the Commercial Division
of the High Court of Tanzania, TZHCComD 344, 4 November 2022

The Gambia v. Myanmar (Application of the Convention on the 6

Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide) 2022 ICJ Rep 1

vii
The Prosecutor v. Jean- Paul Akayesu ( Trial Judgement), ICTR- 96-4-T, 4
International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), 2 September 1998

United States v. Alfonso Lopez, Jr., 2 F.3d 1342 (5th Cir. 1993) US Court 9
of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

United States v. Smith 2022 WL 3091188 (D. Mass. July 19, 2022) 9

Urgenda v state of the Netherlands: District Court of the Hague, 24 June 12

2015, C/09/456689/ HA ZA 13-1396
1970 ICJ Reports 32 But see 3 Shabtai Rosenne, The Law and Practice of 4
the International Court,
1920-1966 1203 (1997)

OTHER INTERNATIONAL COURTS & TRIBUNALS PAGE

Michale P. Scharf ‘Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for 25

Rwanda’ (Audiovisual Library of International Law, May 2012)

The Prosecutor v. Jean- Paul Akayesu ( Trial Judgement), ICTR- 96-4-T, 4

International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), 2 September 1998

TREATISES, DIGESTS AND BOOKS PAGE

Black's Law Dictionary, 11th Edition (2019) 13

Haberfeld, L., & Weiland, R. (2017). The Right to Appeal in Expulsion 12

Cases: A Comparative Analysis. European Journal of Migration and Law,
19(4), 407-432

HEAD OF INVESTIGATION INTO RAFIQ HARIRI 25

ASSASSINATION BRIEFS SECURITY COUNCIL’ ( Press Release
Security Council , 5 December 2007) <
https://press.un.org/en/2007/sc9187.doc.htm > accessed 27 December
2023

viii
International Law Commission, ‘Commentary on the Draft Articles on the 11
Expulsion of Aliens’ (ILC 2014) Yearbook of the International Law
Commission, 2011, Vol ii, Part Two 13

International Law Commission, Yearbook, Vol. I, 1963-II, p. 213 13

Kerry Armstrong ‘The Five Worst Wrongful Conviction Cases in U.S. 27

History’ (Law Offices of Kerry L. Armstrong, APLC 28 July 20203)

Michale P. Scharf ‘Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for 25

Rwanda’ (Audiovisual Library of International Law, May 2012)

Principles of Public International Law, 7th Edition 5

The international minimum standard: Diplomatic protection and 18

protection of investments, in Brownlie's Principles of Public International
Law, Ninth Edition, p. 591

The ISDS Impact of Economic Sanctions: Lessons From the Korea-Iran 25

Investment Disputes, The American Review of International Arbitration
Vol. 33 No. 4, 2022, p. 419

Wood M and Sthoeger E, ‘The Security Council and Measures Not 3

Involving the Use of Force’, The UN Security Council and International
Law (Cambridge University Press 2022)

357 Ga.App. 347 (2021) 9

296 Cal.App.4th 841 (2021) 9

ARTICLES PAGE

Batts, D. A. (2020, November). Fairness Concerns in Online Trials: A 10

Judge's Perspective. The New York Law Journal

Schulman, E. (2020, October). The challenges of ensuring fair trials in the 10

zoom era. The National Law Journal

ix
There are two types of travel documents issued by the United Nations” 23
UK Visa and Immigration
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/what-are-acceptable-travel-
documents-for-entry-clearanceecb08/ecb08-what-are-acceptable-travel-
documents-for-entry-clearance#ecb81-why-a-passport-or-travel-
documentis-needed-and-what-constitutes-one accessed 26 December 2023

MISCELLANCEOUS PAGE

‘Two More Belarusians Sentenced For 'Insulting' Lukashenka’ (Radio 26

Free Europe Radio Library, 31 January 2022) <
https://www.rferl.org/a/belarus-prison-sentences-insulting-
lukashenka/31679926.html > accessed 27 December 2023

John Crace, ‘Kylic Moore-Gilbert granted meeting with Australian 17

ambassador to Iran’,The Guardian, 31
July,2020https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/31/kylie-moore-
gilbert-granted-meeting-with-australian-ambassador-to-iran

Lèsemajesté’’<https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/lese- 26
majeste > accessed 27 December 2023

Lèse-majesté < https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A8se- 26

majest%C3%A9#cite_note-23 > accessed 27 December 2023.

< https://sddefenseattorneys.com/blog/famous-wrongful-conviction- 27
cases/# > accessed 27 December 2023
https://www.irishtimes.com/tags/amanda-knox/ 17

x
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

By the submission of a special agreement Republic of Antrano (Applicant) and the Kingdom
of Remisia (Respondent) appear before the International Court of Justice pursuant to Article
40(1) of the Statute of the Court for resolution of the differences between them concerning the
Sterren Forty and other matters. Antrano and Remisial have referred the dispute to the Court,
granting it jurisdiction under Article 38 paragraph 1 of the Statute. On 15 September 2022, the
Parties reported that they had successfully negotiated the terms of the Special Agreement, in
The Hague, the Netherlands, to be submitted to the Registrar of the Court.

xi
 QUESTIONS PRESENTED

I. Whether Antrano has standing to bring the dispute concerning Remisia’s deprivation of
nationality of its citizens (Sterren Forty) before the Court;
II. Whether Remisia’s deprivation of nationality of the “Sterren Forty” according to DCA,
rendering them stateless, is a violation of international law;
III. Whether Antrano did not violate international law when it refused to provide Remisia
consular access to Ms. Saki Shaw during her time as a prisoner in Antrano; and
IV. Whether Remisia violated international law by denying Antranan national Dr. Tulous
Malex entry to Remisia as required by Security Council Resolution 99997

xii
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

Overview of the Parties

Republic of Antrano, consists of one large and sixteen smaller islands within Mahali
Archipelago and the Kingdom of Remisia approximately 11000 kilometers, a land-locked
country on Isidre Plateau, from the said Archipelago are two nations of this Archipelago.
Antrano is a country which still lives in the inspiration of their first President, Muna Songida
who committed his nation to plight of stateless people.

Remisia’s current head is Queen Khasat. Under their constitution the monarch appoints Prime
Minister and Commander-in-chief of the armed force. Insulting the crime is a serious crime
under the Disrespect to the Crown Act 1955. The punishment of such offence can extend up to
5 years of imprisonment. Also, it may render the guilty party off their citizenship.

The Mining Operation and Environmental Concerns

From the prehistory, Isidre Plateau has been a great site of copper and emerald mining. Due to
having potential impact on atmosphere and waters experts suggested small amounts of ore
processing and exporting of deposited cobalt in the northern provinces which the Geologist had
discovered in 1989.

To take Remisia among the leading nation within the region the Queen signed to Naturalization
by Investment Act 2008 (NIA), which grants citizenship to anyone who invests to their
economy of €500,000 or more and some other requirements.

The Queen’s long term friend Ms. Saki Shaw, born in Molvania, is the head of Lithos Limited,
a wholly owned subsidiary of ShawCorp which is the multinational minerals and mining
conglomerate, 50% controlled by the Shaw Family since its founding.

When in 2014, the Minister of Justice opened an inquiry into Shaw Corp’s Operation in
Molvania due to the reports of money laundering and tax evasion and issuing subpoenas to the
Shaw Family members, they failed to serve the subpoenas to MS. Saki as she purchased a
residence in Italy, and had not returned since 2012. In 2014, Ms. Saki proposed a joint venture
between Lithos and Remisia Ministry of Mines to the Queen. In November 2015, the PM of
Remisia and Ms. Saki signed the agreement of joint venture where Lithos transferred 5 million

xiii
Euros to Remisian Bank, and styled Lithos-Remisia Cooperative (LRC) Then Ms. Saki applied
for citizenship and had successfully granted in June 2016.

The mining operation soon began once it was approved that there would be no substantial
negative environmental consequences in 3 three sites. But in August 2019, the local started to
being concerned about the dust and emitted metallic minerals into the rivers, grumbling as the
Cobalt Curse. Then Remisia National university started lectures and railies to raise awareness
and within three months the leaders issued a manifesto, that was anonymously signed by the,
“Isidre League of Student Activists” (ILSA).

The Sterren Forty and Statelessness Controversy

After approving mining in 4 of the 5 proposed sites, chaos ensued as students and activists
accused the Queen of favoritism toward her friend, Ms. Saki. Protests erupted, reaching a peak
in February 2020 when 1000 students were detained, and 40 protesters were arrested at Strerren
Palace's gates.

The incident gained global attention, with 230 students facing charges and most receiving 1 to
3 years in prison. The Sterren Forty, however, were handed a five-year sentence and had their
citizenship revoked. In April 2021, the President of Iyali condemned the citizenship revocation,
offering talks with Remisia to avoid further statelessness. Remisia rejected, asserting the matter
as domestic, not subject to international intervention.

In January 2022, the Antranan Ambassador to the UN submitted a memorandum pursuant to

Article 35 of the Charter to Secretary General & Council. Antrano requested action from the
Council under the Article 34 & 36 of UN Charter and mentioned that Remisia had not
cooperated in resolving the dispute peacefully, as required by Article 33.

In March 2022, Attorney General of Molvania annulled the subpoena for Saki Shaw and issued
arrest warrant, and delivered a formal a letter to Antrano to request for her extradition since
Molvania has a treaty of extradition with Antrano and she had to attend to a meeting of Lithos
in Duniya, which is the Capital of Antrano.

On March 16, detained by Antrano, Saki Shaw's Remisian citizenship was rejected, passports
confiscated. Despite citing Vienna Convention rights, she was denied consul access. Antrano
invalidated Remisian entry, citing Molvanian status. Offered Molvanian Consul meeting, she
declined. Tragically, Ms. Saki Shaw succumbed to a heart attack in jail two weeks later.

xiv
The UN Inspection Mission and Remisia's Entry Denial

Dr. Tulous Malex, a world-renowned expert in matters relating to statelessness, who has been
selected to lead the UN Inspection Mission to Remisia (UNIMR) which is established by the
Resolution 99997 (Adopted by the UN Security Council) after the meeting held in the presence
of the representatives of the two countries.

On June, UNIMR began its preliminary research and on July 14, Dr. Malex submittwd a formal
request to meet the Sterren Forty to Remisia. The Remisian UN Ambassador told the UN SG
that Dr. Malex can't enter without proper paperwork, as they saw his visit as meddling in their
domestic affairs. The UN Secretary-General shared this with the Security Council.
Representatives of both countries were there. They didn't adopt any resolution but said Remisia
must follow UN rules as a state party and denying entry to the UNIMR chief would be a
violation of those obligations and of Resolution 99997.

Dr. Malex said he'd visit Remisia and hoped they wouldn't stop him. Remisia didn't respond
publicly. On August 3rd, Dr. Malex sent a message to PM of Remiisia, that him he'd arrive to
Remisia International Airport on August 10th. He wanted assurance that he'd be allowed into
the country with his United Nations laissez-passer (UNLP) and that the authorities would help
with his mission. He also wanted to visit the Sterren Forty prison and follow Remisian laws.

The Remisian Ambassador to the UN SG repeated that they didn't want Dr. Malex and would
deny him entry.

After hearing this, Dr. Malex met with the Secretary-General in New York on August 8th. The
Secretary-General's spokesperson released a statement, expressing disapproval of a UN
member's refusal to acknowledge a legitimate Security Council decision under Chapter VI of
the Charter. The UN Inspection Mission in Remisia will carry on, and if its leader is denied
entry, the Secretary-General will bring the issue back to the Security Council to decide on the
next steps.

Diplomatic Efforts and the Resolution Submission

On August 9th, Dr. Malex traveled to Remisia for an official assignment but was denied entry
by Remisian border agents. The Security Council discussed the issue on August 12th, and
Antrano criticized Remisia's actions. However, Antrano's resolution was vetoed. Antrano
recalled its ambassador to Remisia. On August 15th, the foreign ministers of Antrano and
Remisia agreed to resolve the dispute through the International Court of Justice. They

xv
negotiated and submitted a Special Agreement on September 14, 2023. Both countries are
parties to several international agreements, and Remisia had a reservation regarding the
deprivation of nationality for certain offenses to the Convention on the Reduction of
Statelessness.

xvi
 SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS

Pleading I
UN member countries are required to abide by the Statute under Article 93 of the UN Charter,
and any breach will be brought to the ICJ, which has jurisdiction over international disputes
and violations of international law. The ICJ has previously ruled that removing a person's
nationality is illegal and violates their human rights, as it renders them stateless. The act of
Remisia also infringes on human rights laws.The deprivation of Sterren Forty's nationality goes
against the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness and the new guidelines. This act is
considered arbitrary and violates Article 7 and Article 8(1). The principle of universal
jurisdiction aims to prevent international friction and maintain international peace and security.
All states may enforce obligations owed to the international community, regardless of injury,
as seen in The Gambia v Myanmar case.

Pleading II
Remisia’s deprivation of nationality of the “Sterren Forty,” rendering them stateless, is a
violation of international law primarily because of its inconsistencies with many funadamental
international laws. Firstly, Remisia's declaration to retain the power of statelessness is unlawful
because The Online Zoom court setting was not conducive to a fair trial. Secondly, another
principle of international law was violated when Remisia's failed to provide the Sterren Forty
with an opportunity to appeal their expulsion. Furthermore, Remisia's deprivation of nationality
of the Sterren out of political grounds violated international human rights. Also, violation of
due process was done by Remisia when it ordered revocation of the Sterren Forty's citizenship
based on a vague and arbitrary standard of "disloyalty to the crown". Ultimately, rendering
actions of Remisia to be violation of laws enshrined in the International law.

Pleading III
Antrano, while denying the Remisian Consular Access to Ms. Saki Shaw, followed the
regulations provided by the Conventions and applied reasonable restriction on exercising the
right of consular access, according to Article 36(2) of Vienna Convention on Consular
Relations (VCCR), where the receiving state is allowed to follow their own rules and
regulations while providing the consular access. Firstly, Antrano fulfilled the diplomatic duty
imposed by the conventions, by offering Molvanian Consular Access, and by this we can say

xvii
that there’s no violation of International Law by Antrano. Antrano denied the Remisian
Consular Access on the basis of its policy of not recognizing purchased citizenship, which is in
fact, a corrupted and unfair process of providing citizenship and mostly used for facilitating
criminals. Lastly, while Ms. Saki Shaw first arrived at the Airport, her Remisian passport was
sealed by the mistake of an immigration officer, which was later amended, and it does not
represents Antrano's view, also there's no record to Antrano that Ms Shaw is a Remisian citizen.

Pleading IV
While denying the entry of Dr. Tulous Malex, Remisia violated international laws and the
probable consequence of such violation is even worse, violating more international laws, human
rights, infringement of Justice. Firstly, after the formation of UNMIR, Dr. Tulous Malex wanted
to visit to Remisia to investigate about Sterren Forty. He sent proper documentation and
reasons, in accordance to resolution 999997. While unanimously the resolution was accepted,
Remisia didn’t show any objection and after adaptation, but later they did. Though a resolution
under Chapter 6 of The UN Security Council has no binding effect on state, the purpose of the
resolution is investigation of a violation of International Law, rendering sterren forty stateless
unlawfully, inhumanly. Again, they showed concern about state security which is a baseless
claim because Dr. Tulous Malex is a certified UN Agent, not any spy. Antrano believes, by
violating the resolution, Remisia not only violated the sprit of UN Charter but also violated the
principle of natural Justice “Audi ulteram Partem” and Human Rights of the Sterren Forty.

xviii
 PLEADINGS

I. ANTRANO HAS STANDING TO BRING THE DISPUTE CONCERNING

REMISIA’S DEPRIVATION OF NATIONALITY OF ITS CITIZENS BEFORE THE
COURT;
The trial court of Remisia imposed five-year sentences on each of the Sterren Forty and ordered
revocation of their citizenship. All 40 of the sterren forty appealed to the Supreme Court of
Remisia. The appeals were rejected in a unanimous opinion by the Supreme Court. 1 Also it is
to be noted that Under Remisian law, “citizenship” is legally equivalent to “nationality.” 2
At present, (A) Antrano’s stand is in accordance with international laws (B) Antrano’s stand
overrides principle of non-intervention (C) Antrano has legal interest to stand through the
principle of Erga Omnes (D) Depravation of Nationality – Offence against all mankind
(Securing Antrano’s Stand)
A. ANTRANO’S STAND IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL LAWS
Antrano sought action by the Council under Articles 34 and 36 of the Charter and asserted that
Remisia had rebuffed its attempts to resolve the dispute amicably as required by Article 33. 3
Antrano was an original party to the Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons in
1954 and the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness in 1959. Remisia ratified both
Conventions in 1967.4
1. Stand by failing to resolve differences by means of negotiation
Article 34 of the 1954 Convention on Stateless Persons states that disputes about interpretation
or application of the Convention, unresolved by other means, should be referred to the
International Court of Justice (ICJ) at the request of any party involved. 5 Article 14 of the 1961
Convention on Reduction of Statelessness similarly mandates that disputes between contracting
states concerning the Convention's interpretation or application, unresolved through other
methods, must be submitted to the ICJ upon the request of any party involved. 6 Antrano and

1
Statement of Agreed Facts [hereinafter, Compromis], 34
2
Clarifications, ¶ 2
3
Compromis, ¶ 39
4
Id., ¶ 62
5
Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons [hereinafter, “CRSSP”], 1954, 360 U.N.T.S. 117, art 34
6
Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness [hereinafter, “CRS”] CRS 1961, 989 U.N.T.S. 175, art 14

1
Remisia, unable to resolve their differences through negotiation, are obligated to refer the
matter to the ICJ according to these articles. This action supports Antrano's stance.
2. Stand even if non-involvement by- Violation of international Law
States can act against international law violations by other states indirectly, such as through
international organizations or legal actions, as seen when Serbia and Montenegro were held
responsible for failing to prevent genocide in Srebrenica in 2004.
In Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro7,
The ICJ Ruling (1993): Did not find Serbia and Montenegro directly responsible for the
genocide. However, found them guilty of violating their international obligation to prevent the
crime.8
Also In Nicaragua v. Colombia,
Nicaragua accused Colombia of Caribbean Sea maritime zone breaches. Despite no direct
territorial impact, the case focused on treaty-based claims for stability and international law. 9
Similarly, Antrano, like Bosnia and Herzegovina, has a stake in a case involving Remisia's
violations of ratified statelessness conventions. Both cases involve non-directly impacted
parties.
B. ANTRANO’S STAND OVERRIDES PRINCIPLE OF NON-INTERVENTION
Antrano overrides principle of non-intervention in this particular proceeding against Remisia’s
depravation of nationality before its court.
Article 2(7) of Charter of United Nations provides principle of non-intervention “Nothing
contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in domestic
jurisdiction of any state but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement
measures under Chapter VII. (ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THREATS TO THE PEACE,
BREACHES OF THE PEACE, AND ACTS OF AGGRESSION)” 10

7
Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and
Herzegovina v Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro)) (Request for the Indication of Provisional
Measures) [1993] ICJ Rep 3
8
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 1948 78 U.N.T.S. 277
9
Nicaragua v. Colombia, ICJ Judgment (13 July 2023) , ICJ GL No 191, ICGJ 524 (ICJ 2023)
10
Charter of United Nations [hereinafter, “UN Charter”] 1945, 1 U.N.T.S. XVI, art 2(7)

2
Article 39 of Charter of United Nations enumerates that Security Council shall determine
existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression. 11
Now On 11 April, the Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 99997, which
established the UN Inspection Mission to Remisia (UNIMR).12 Which is a clear indication that
there is some prior basis to the application of chapter VII which means that Antrano has under
Article 2(7) of Charter of United Nations right to override principle of non-intervention as
according to chapter VII of Charter of United Nations.
UN Security Council Resolution 1757 (2007) invoked Chapter VII to establish the Special
Tribunal for Lebanon, bypassing Lebanese consent for treaty ratification. This highlighted how
measures for global peace, under Chapter VII, can supersede non-intervention principles (UN
Charter, Article 2(7)), showcasing Council intervention in Lebanon's domestic affairs for peace
and security.13
The Council has twice referred situations to the ICC, acting in accordance with a provision in
the Rome Statute and granting the Court jurisdiction in situations in which it would otherwise
not be able to exercise it. 14
Interventions in matters which are essentially within their domestic jurisdiction. International
law defines what those matters are in – Great Britain vs France case-
In 1921, France issued decrees in its protectorates of Tunis and Morocco granting French
nationality to certain categories of individuals under its jurisdiction. Great Britain, concerned
about the impact on its own nationals living in these territories, challenged the decrees before
the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ).The PCIJ ruled in favor of Great Britain.
The case affirmed the principle that states cannot unilaterally alter the national status of
individuals in their territories if doing so violates existing treaties and agreements. 15

11
Id., art 39
12
Compromis, ¶ 48
13
Wood M and Sthoeger E, ‘The Security Council and Measures Not Involving the Use of Force’, The UN
Security Council and International Law (Cambridge University Press 2022)
14
S/RES/1593, 31 March 2005, on Sudan; S/RES/1970, 26 February 2011, on Libya.
15
Nationality Decrees Issued in Tunis and Morocco (French Zone) on November 8th, 1921, Great Britain v
France, Advisory Opinion, (1923) PCIJ Series B no 4, ICGJ 271 (PCIJ 1923), 7th February 1923, League of
Nations (historical) [LoN]; Permanent Court of International Justice (historical) [PCIJ]

3
So remisia cannot unilaterally alter the national status of individuals in their territories violating
existing treaties between Antrano and Remisia (Convention relating to the status of stateless
persons in 1954 and Convention on reduction of statelessness in 1961)16
C. ANTRANO HAS LEGAL INTEREST TO STAND THROUGH THE PRINCIPLE
ERGA OMNES
According to the Court, some international obligations concern all states. These include the
rules involving basic rights of the human person, such as the prohibitions against genocide,
slavery, and racial discrimination: "In view of the importance of the rights involved, all States
can be held to have a legal interest in their protection; they are obligations ERGA OMNES. 17
UDHR (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948) Article- 15 – “1. Everyone has the right
to a nationality. 2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to
change his nationality.”
So according to UDHR nationality being a basic rights of a person, any person arbitrarily if gets
deprived of it then any state on their behalf can have legal interest and invoke Principle of
ERGA OMNES. Similarly, Antrano secures their stand of legal interest in the court through
ERGA OMNES
The principle of erga omnes could also be relevant in several ways:
1. Protecting Fundamental Values
Certain provisions of customary international law are considered jus cogens, meaning they are
peremptory norms from which no derogation is permitted. Examples include the prohibition of
genocide, crimes against humanity, and torture.
Crimes against humanity -Stereotyping or dehumanizing individuals or groups can contribute
to discrimination and violence. In, (Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu) - Recognized
"dehumanization" as a key element in defining crimes against humanity, emphasizing the
dangers of stereotyping and group-based violence. 18

16
Compromis, ¶ 62
17
1970 ICJ Reports 32 But see 3 Shabtai Rosenne, The Law and Practice of the International Court, 1920-1966
1203 (1997) (noting that the International Court of Justice "has not introduced the conception of... actio
popularis into international law, even for the protection of what are sometimes regarded as obligations erga
omnes").
18
The Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu (Trial Judgement), ICTR-96-4-T, International Criminal Tribunal for
Rwanda (ICTR), 2 September 1998.

4
Remisia's statelessness policies 19 create conditions that could lead to such violations of jus
cogens giving Antrano a proper stand before the court against such actions from which no
derogation is permitted.
2. For Maintaining International Order
Antranan Ambassador to the UN submitted a memorandum It claimed that application of the
DCA to the ILSA protesters in Remisia gave rise to a “dispute … which might lead to
international friction” which, if allowed to continue, could “endanger the maintenance of
international peace and security.”20
In, Myanmar's Rohingya crisis: The denial of citizenship by the Myanmar government has
plunged the Rohingya Muslim minority into statelessness. This fueled persecution, violence,
and a mass exodus of refugees, creating a regional humanitarian crisis. In 2020, the ICJ issued
an advisory opinion in response to the Gambia's case against Myanmar alleging violations of
the Genocide Convention. 21 Multiple resolutions, particularly 41/44 (2019) and 45/11 (2020),
strongly condemned human rights violations against the Rohingya and pressed Myanmar for
accountability, citizenship, and return rights. 22
Statelessness and the denial of nationality can create instability and insecurity, potentially
leading to regional conflicts or humanitarian crises. Remisia's actions threaten the broader
international order and peace likewise of Myanmar Rohingya Crisis, thereby giving Antrano a
legal interest under Article 36(2) of Charter of United Nations 23 and also under the principle of
erga omnes to challenge them.
D. DEPRAVATION OF NATIONALITY – OFFENCE AGAINST ALL MANKIND
(SECURING ANTRANO’S STAND)
Prosecuting for crimes against the citizens of another state is an important way to uphold
international law and norms. This is because many of the most serious crimes are considered to
be crimes against humanity as a whole, not just against the citizens of a particular state.24

19
Compromis, ¶ 7
20
Compromis, ¶ 39
21
Advisory Opinion on the Consequences of Legal Obligations of the Union of Myanmar under the 1948
Genocide Convention
22
HRC resolution 41/44, HRC resolution 45/11
23
UN Charter 1945 n (10), art. 36(2)
24
Principles of Public International Law, 7th Edition (https://www.pbookshop.com/principles-of-public-
international-law-7th-edition-9780199217700.html)

5
According to Article 48 of Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts 2001 - 1.
Any State other than an injured State is entitled to invoke the responsibility of another State if:
(b) the obligation breached is owed to the international community as a whole.25
Deprivation of Nationality It is considered an offense against all mankind because it violates
fundamental human rights(UDHR Art.15)26 and threatens the international order, not just the
specific state where it occurs.
In (Gambia vs Myanmar),
The Gambia highlighted deprivation of nationality as a crucial element of Myanmar's alleged
genocide. By denying Rohingya citizenship and legal recognition, Myanmar rendered them
stateless and vulnerable to further persecution. And further took a stand for Rohingya citizens
who were not citizen of Gambia but still took a stand because depravation of nationality is
27
considered to be crimes against humanity as a whole securing a stand for Gambia.
And thus same way Antrano secures their stand for depravation of nationality of Remisian
citizens.
In Belgium vs Senegal (2012),
Belgium accused Senegal of violating UN obligations by not prosecuting or extraditing former
Chadian President Hissène Habré for torture allegations. The International Court of Justice
(ICJ) supported Belgium's claim, stating Senegal had a duty under the Convention against
Torture to prosecute Habré. This ruling established a crucial precedent for prosecuting torture
perpetrators.28
And the same way Antrano by following this decision can take a stand for Remisia’s deprivation
of nationality of its citizens before the Court29
In (Estonia v. Germany) (2003),

25
Draft Articles on Responsibility of States on Internationally Wrongful Acts [hereinafter RSIWA], with
commentaries adopted by the ILC at its 53rd Sess. (2001) UN Doc A/56/10,4 art 48
26
Universal Declaration on Human Right, G.A. res 217A (III), 1948 U.N. Doc. A/810, 1948 art. 15
27
Andrea Marilyn Pragashini Immanuel, “The Gambia v Myanmar: Can the ICJ Shy Away from the Nationality
Question?” (Opinio Juris, October 6, 2022) http://opiniojuris.org/2022/10/11/the-gambia-v-myanmar-can-the-
icj-shy-away-from-the-nationality-question/
28
Questions relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v. Senegal), Judgment of 20 July 2012,
I.C.J. Reports 2012, p. 429.
29
Compromis, ¶ 63

6
This case affirmed the ICJ's jurisdiction over disputes arising from human rights treaties, even
if not explicitly mentioned in the UN Charter. This case set a precedent that holding people
accountable for serious human rights violations. 30
Nationality being a fundamental human rights(UDHR Art.15) 31and which is deprived out of
sterren forty32 constituting violation towards mankind as a whole, Antrano secures their stand
for depravation of nationality of Remisian citizens(Article-48).33
II. REMISIA’S DEPRIVATION OF NATIONALITY OF THE “STERREN FORTY,”
RENDERING THEM STATELESS, IS A VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW;
Remisian Constitution provides Monarch in entitled to reverence and upon court’s satisfaction
of one’s disloyalty to the crown- revocation of citizenship, subject to Expulsion shall be given. 34
Remisia ratified Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons in 1954 and the
Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness in 1959 in 1967, but submitted a declaration (it
retains the right to deprive a person of his nationality in accordance with Article 8.3 of the
Convention) with the latter one. 35 The trial court of Remisia ordered revocation of their
citizenship (in online zoom court36 and further their appeals were rejected. 37
At present, (A) Remisia's declaration to retain the power of statelessness is unlawful because
The Online Zoom court setting was not conducive to a fair trial. (B) Remisia's failure to provide
the Sterren Forty with an opportunity to appeal their expulsion; violated their right to an
effective remedy, a fundamental principle of international law. (C) Remisia's deprivation of
nationality of the Sterren out of political grounds is a violation of fundamental human right
enshrined in international law. (D) Remisia's revocation of the Sterren Forty's citizenship based
on a vague and arbitrary standard of "disloyalty to the crown" is a violation of their right to due
process, as enshrined in international law.

30
Estonia v. Germany (Non-Applicability Convention) (2003) ICJ Rep 147.
31
UDHR 1948 n (26), art 15
32
Compromis, ¶ 34
33
RSIWA 2001 n (25) art 48
34
Compromis, ¶ 7,8
35
Id., 62
36
Id., 33
37
Id., 34

7
A. REMISIA'S DECLARATION TO RETAIN THE POWER OF STATELESSNESS IS
UNLAWFUL BECAUSE THE ONLINE ZOOM COURT SETTING WAS NOT
CONDUCIVE TO A FAIR TRIAL.
Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness in 1959.Remisia ratified the convention in 1967,
but submitted a declaration with its instrument of ratification. Remisia declares that it retains
the right to deprive a person of his nationality in accordance with Article 8.3 of the Convention
if such person has been convicted of an offense under the Disrespect to the Crown Act of 1955
and satisfies such other criteria as are laid out in that statute. 38 Even after such retention,
Remisia’s Declaration of statelessness to the Sterren Forty was unlawful because
(1) Article 8.4 nullified the power of retention given under Article 8.3
From 27th February to end of March 2021 trial for sterren forty were held all in online
zoom court but further appeal were rejected. 39
(2) In contrast to widely accepted and established normal court proceedings, online
court proceedings can limit the ability of defendants to fully present their case making
it an unfair hearing
(1) Article 8.4 nullified the power of retention given under Article 8.3
Article 8.3 of Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness in 1959 says a Contracting State
may retain the right to deprive a person of his nationality, if at the time of signature, ratification
or accession it specifies its retention of such right on one or more of the specified grounds
But subsequent Article 8.4 of Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness in 1959 says
A Contracting State shall not exercise a power of deprivation permitted by paragraphs 2 or 3 of
this article except in accordance with law, which shall provide for the person concerned the
right to a fair hearing by a court or other independent body.40
So unless a fair hearing is ensured under article 8.4 of Convention on the Reduction of
Statelessness in 1959 no state can effectively exercise article 8.3 meaning that if exercised
without ensuring requirements in article8.4 it will lead to the violation of international law-
Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness in 1959. The same is done by Remisia which is
discussed below-

38
Compromis, ¶ 62
39
Id., ¶ 30,33,34
40
CRS 1961 n (6) art 8.3,8.4

8
(2) In contrast to widely accepted and established normal court proceedings, online court
proceedings can limit the ability of defendants to fully present their case making it an unfair
hearing.
Generally in a case proceeding defendants to confront their accusers face-to-face and arguments
and other proceedings take before in a court room full of judges and other witnesses and
peoples. And this proceeding is not generally is in question because time immemorial this type
of proceeding is held throughout the world. In Landmark Case of (Lopez v. U.S) - the U.S.
Supreme Court recognized the right of defendants to confront their accusers face-to-face which
is a fundamental principle that may be challenged in online court environments. 41 The violation
of this fundamental principle carries out a mean of unfair trial. Furthermore, online court trials
directly set many case precedents as to it being unfair-
i. Juror Disappears During Online Deliberations
During online deliberations in a case(State v. Williams), a juror abruptly disconnected
from the Zoom call and could not be reached. The court recognized the potential for
unfairness and ordered a mistrial.42
ii. Juror Mutes Defendant on Zoom Court
During an online Zoom court hearing in a criminal case(People v. Jones), a juror accidentally
muted the defendant, preventing them from cross-examining a witness. The court recognized
the potential for prejudice and ordered a retrial. 43
iii. Juror Falls Asleep During Online Trial
During an online fraud trial, a juror was observed sleeping multiple times on camera. The court
declared a mistrial, finding that the juror's conduct raised concerns about their ability to
participate fully and impartially in the proceedings. 44
Also Fairness of Online trials and also potential for bias and prejudice in online trials were
in question by many judges as seen in journals e.g-

41
.”US Reports: United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995)“ U.S. Library of Congress
”United States v. Alfonso Lopez, Jr., 2 F.3d 1342 (5th Cir. 1993)“ US Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
42
357 Ga.App. 347 (2021)
43
296 Cal.App.4th 841 (2021)
44
United States v. Smith 2022 WL 3091188 (D. Mass. July 19, 2022)

9
Judge Schulman discusses the potential for unfairness in online trials, particularly due to
technological glitches, security concerns, and difficulties in assessing juror demeanor. 45
• Judge Batts raises concerns about the potential for bias and prejudice in online
trials, particularly in cases involving complex legal issues or highly emotional
matters.46
From above case precedents, journals we can come to a fair conclusion that the whole trial
period which was held in online zoom court is really in question of its fairness in comparison
to widely accepted and established normal court proceedings. So, Article 8.4 of Convention
on the Reduction of Statelessness in 1959 nullified the power of retention given under
Article 8.3 to Remisia. Ultimately violating Article 8.1 – (A Contracting State shall not
deprive a person of its nationality if such deprivation would render him stateless) and thus
violating International Laws. 47
(B) REMISIA'S FAILURE TO PROVIDE THE STERREN FORTY WITH AN
OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAL THEIR- EXPULSION, VIOLATED THEIR RIGHT TO
AN EFFECTIVE REMEDY, A FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF INTERNATIONAL
LAW.
The trial court of Remisia ordered revocation of Sterren forty’s citizenship and further their
appeals were rejected. The defendants were immediately taken to the national penitentiary,
where they were issued non-citizen identity cards and where they remain to this day. 48 The
convicted person, considered a non-citizen while serving any custodial term, is subject to
expulsion 60 days following completion of the sentence. 49 So after serving sentences they will
be subjected to expulsion without having a chance to appeal their cases.
Remisia ratified in 1967 Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons in 1954 50 It is
stated in-
1. Right to appeal if Expulsion given

45
Schulman, E. (2020, October). The challenges of ensuring fair trials in the zoom era. The National Law
Journal.
46
Batts, D. A. (2020, November). Fairness Concerns in Online Trials: A Judge's Perspective. The New York
Law Journal.
47
CRS 1961 n(6) art 8(1, 3, 4)
48
Compromis, ¶ 33,34
49
Id., 8
50
Id., 62

10
Article 31(2) of Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons in 1954 that - the
stateless person shall be allowed to submit evidence to clear himself, and to appeal to and be
represented for the purpose before competent authority or a person or persons specially
designated by the competent authority. 51
It is evident from the article that a person who has been expelled and rendered stateless should
be granted the right to appeal. Remisia's being a party to the convention- failing to provide
appeal opportunity to the Sterren Forty constitutes a clear violation of international law.
2. Prohibition of revocation of nationality in order to execute expulsion
Article 8 of the ILC Articles on the Expulsion of Aliens clearly states that “a state shall not
make its national an alien, by deprivation of nationality, for the sole purpose of expelling him
or her”.52 By observing this Article depriving nationality to give a person expulsion is
prohibited and furthermore Remisia by also not giving appeal constitutes major violation of
International Law Commission Articles.
3. Expulsion of an entire group is illegal
Sterren Forty is a group of 40 students in protest of mining activities within Remisia 53
According to Article 3 – Protocol no.4 of Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms (1963)- Convention prohibits the collective expulsion of aliens. This
means that a country cannot expel all members of a particular group in case of any offence. But
Remisia gave in the group of 40 student of sterren all sentence of conviction revoking
citizenship subject to expulsion. 54
So It is a clear violation of international law (Article 3 – Protocol no.4 of Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1963) which prohibits expulsion of all
group members in its entirety.
4. Fundamental principle of international law violation
Also right to appeal is a FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW as seen
in Landmark case of the (Urgenda v state of the Netherlands)- This landmark case, decided by

51
CRSSP 1954 n (5) art. 31
Commentary on the Draft Articles on the Expulsion of Aliens’ (ILC 2014) Yearbook of the International Law
52

Commission, 2011, Vol ii, Part Two 13, art 8

53
Compromis, ¶ 30
54
Id.,. 8,34

11
the European Court of Human Rights in 2010, established the right to appeal in expulsion cases
as a fundamental principle of international human rights law.55
Also seen in the Article - "The Right to Appeal in Expulsion Cases: A Comparative Analysis"
by the European Journal of Migration and Law: This article provides a comparative analysis of
the right to appeal in expulsion cases in different countries and concludes by recognizing right
to appeal in expulsion to be a fundamental principle of international law. 56
So, Remisia rejecting the Appeal of Sterren Forty violated key principle of international law
which is the right to appeal to a stateless person soon in expulsion.
(C) REMISIA'S DEPRIVATION OF NATIONALITY OF THE STERREN FORTY
OUT OF POLITICAL GROUNDS IS A VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN
RIGHTS ENSHRINED IN INTERNATIONAL LAW.
40 of them of the Sterren Forty none of them were citizens of any country other than Remisia 57
Remisia retained the power of deprivation while ratifying Convention on the Reduction of
Statelessness 1959 in aligned with article 8.3 of it. 58
Now, Article 7(1a,1b) of Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness 1959 states that- (1a)If
a state has retained the power of renunciation of nationality, such renunciation cannot be
exercised unless the convicted persons has another nationality or (1b)their actions are
inconsistent with Article 13,14 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 59
Article 14 (2) of UDHR - right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising
from non-political crimes 60
Now as Sterren forty does not have nationality of another country and also their offence being
a political one because-

55
Urgenda v state of the Netherlands: District Court of the Hague, 24 June 2015, C/09/456689/ HA ZA 13-1396
56
Haberfeld, L., & Weiland, R. (2017). The Right to Appeal in Expulsion Cases: A Comparative Analysis.
European Journal of Migration and Law, 19(4), 407-432.
57
Compromis, ¶ 34
58
Id., 62
59
CRS 1961 n(6), art 7
60
UDHR 1948 n(26) art 14 (2)

12
Political offence means - A political offense is a crime that is committed against the state or its
authority.61 It is often distinguished from ordinary crimes because they are committed against
the government.62
Forty protesters were arrested at the gates of Sterren Palace (in which the queen resides), where
they had formed a human chain blocking entrances and exits. 63
Their offenses were clearly against the Remisian government and from above definitions it is
clear that sterren forty had committed a political offence
Thus not being inconsistent with Article 13,14 of UDHR and sterren forty not being a national
of another country, It is evident that Remisia’s Depravation of nationality to sterren forty is a
violation of Article 7 of Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness 1959 of which Remisia
is also party to.64
Also, Article-9 of Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness 1959 which states that- A
Contracting State may not deprive any person or group of persons of their nationality on
Political Grounds.65 And because Sterren forty were prosecuted under political offence
rendering them stateless is Constituting a violation of this International law.
(D) REMISIA'S REVOCATION OF THE STERREN FORTY'S CITIZENSHIP BASED
ON A VAGUE AND ARBITRARY STANDARD OF "DISLOYALTY TO THE
CROWN" IS A VIOLATION OF THEIR RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS, AS ENSHRINED
IN INTERNATIONAL LAW.
Remisia’s Constitution provides that the monarch is entitled to reverence and that insulting the
monarch is a crime. In 1955, the legislature adopted the Disrespect to the Crown Act (DCA),
which provides: Whoever defames, insults, or threatens the reigning monarch shall be punished
with imprisonment of up to five years. In addition if court is satisfied revocation of citizenship
be given.66 But Sterren forty were given guilty verdict and futher their appeals were rejected on
the basis of disloyalty to the crown 67

61
International Law Commission, Yearbook, Vol. I, 1963-II, p. 213.
62
Black's Law Dictionary, 11th Edition (2019).
63
Compromis, ¶ 30
64
Id., 62
65
CRS 1961 n(6) art 9
66
Compromis, ¶ 7
67
Id., 33,34

13
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article-15) –
Everyone has the right to a nationality,No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality
nor denied the right to change his nationality. 68
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article-9) –
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile. 69
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Article 12.4)-
No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country. 70
Factual analysis- From factual point of view we can deduce that if defamation, insult or threat
were done to the crown then DCA could have been invoked but Remisia based upon disloyalty
exercised DCA which is against their own laws and is a vague and Arbitrary stand. Which is
also against International laws mentioned above because of this arbitrary decision of Remisia.
Judge Al-Khawaja's Dissenting Opinion
He argued that the deprivation of nationality was a serious measure that should only be used in
exceptional circumstances. Judge Al-Khawaja also argued that the United Kingdom's standard
of "disloyalty" was vague and ambiguous, and that it was therefore open to misinterpretation
and abuse. He argued that this lack of clarity made it impossible for Al-Skeini to know what
actions or beliefs would lead to the deprivation of his nationality, and that it made it impossible
for him to defend himself against such allegations.71
The ambiguity of the term "disloyalty" had adverse outcomes as also seen in the above
mentioned case, as evidenced inside the Sterren Forty case. If the Sterren Forty were conscious
that disloyalty should result in the revocation in their citizenship, they might have kept away
from such movements. Additionally, the Defense of the Crown Act of 1955 most effectively
specifies defamation, insults, or threats as grounds for revoking citizenship, except for
disloyalty.
Remisia's arbitrary revocation of citizenship based on the idea of "disloyalty" flagrantly
violates the standards of international law, trampling upon the fundamental rights and
undermining the very essence of due process of law.

68
UDHR 1948 n (26), art 15
69
Id., art 9
70
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [hereinafter ICCPR], 1966, 999 U.N.T.S. 17, art 12.4
71
Al-Skeini v. United Kingdom (2016) ECHR 711 (dissenting opinion of Judge Al-Khawaja)

14
III. ANTRANO DID NOT VIOLATE INTERNATIONAL LAW WHEN IT REFUSED
TO PROVIDE REMISIA CONSULAR ACCESS TO MS. SAKI SHAW DURING HER
TIME AS A PRISONER IN ANTRANO.
Antrano's denial of Remissian consular access to Saki Shaw during her imprisonment adheres
to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (1963) due to doubts about Shaw's Remisian
citizenship, disregarding Remisia's investment-based naturalization. Antrano offered consular
access to Molvania, Shaw's recognized citizenship, and facilitated legal representation. This
aligns with Antrano's laws, drawing from legal cases like Nottebohm (Liechtenstein v.
Guatemala), emphasizing genuine citizenship ties and limitations on exploiting nationality.
Antrano's stance asserts compliance with international laws, justifying the denial of Remissian
consular access to Shaw in pursuit of justice without breaching its obligations.
At present, (A) Antrano provided consular access of Molvania, fulfilling its diplomatic duty as
per international conventions, and (B) Antrano's non-recognition of citizenship obtained
through purchase, such as Shaw's claimed Remissian citizenship, means that disregarding her
access to Remissian consular services does not constitute a violation of international law.
A. ANTRANO OFFERED CONSULAR ACCESS OF MOLVANIA WHICH FULFILLS
THE DIPLOMATIC DUTY CONFERRED BY THE INTERNATIONAL
CONVENTIONS
International law governing consular functions,and ratified by Antrano and Remissia is the
Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (1963) and the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic
Relations (1961).72 As Antrano has no official record of Ms. Saki Shaw’s citizenship of
Remissa,73 Antrano does not recognize the corrupted process of naturalization, so by refusing
consular access, Antrano did not violate any of the conventions. Also Antrano has provided
consular access to Molvania, which fulfills the Diplomatic duty of Antrano.
On 7 March 2022, the Attorney-General of Molvania, issued an arrest warrant charging Ms.
Saki Shaw with bank fraud, money laundering, and obstructing the course of justice. Antrano
has a treaty of extradition with Molvania, and Ms. Shaw would shortly attend an upcoming
meeting of the Lithos Board of Directors in Duniya, the Molvanian Attorney-General delivered
a formal request for her extradition. 74

72
Compromis, ¶ 62
73
Id., ¶ 43
74
Id., ¶40

15
On the request made by Molvania, after the arrival of Ms. Saki Shaw, Antrano arrested her. As
she presented her Remisian passport at immigration checkpoint, her entry wasn’t interrupted
mistakenly. It's an error made by the immigration officer, and as soon as it was revealed,
Antrano placed a proper stamp on Molvanian passport, canceling her previous stamp. A mere
mistake of an immigration officer does not represent Antrano's views on recognition of a
citizen.
According to Article 2 of the Responsibility of States for internationally wrongful Acts, defined,
what are the elements to constitute an internationally wrongly act. They are, 75
● When an action or omission is attributable to the State under international law
● Constitutes a breach of international obligation of a state
To constitute an internationally wrongful act, Antrano has to do a breach of obligation. But the
obligation that are imposed by the international Conventions weren’t violated by Antrano.
1. The Right to communicate the nationals by Consular officers is a subject to the conformity
with laws and regulations of Antrano
Antrano recognized the right to communicate with the nationals by consular officers mentioned
in the Article 36 of Vienna Conversation on Consular Relations, 1963. In the paragraph 1, 76 It
is mentioned that “consular officers shall have the right to visit a national of the sending State
who is in prison, custody or detention, to converse and correspond with him and to arrange for
his legal representation. They shall also have the right to visit any national of the sending State
who is in prison, custody or detention in their district in pursuance of a judgement.”
But Article 36(2) referred a limitation towards exercising this right which is “The rights referred
to in paragraph 1 of this article shall be exercised in conformity with the laws and regulations
of the receiving State,by this part of the article, it gives clear indication that Antrano can impose
its laws and regulations while providing consular access. So while Antrano denied the consular
access of Remisia, it imposed some of its regulations:
● Antrano provided consular access according to its national policy and record regarding
citizenship of Ms. Saki Shaw.
● Antrano responded and explained to Ms. Saki Shaw about its disagreement in the matter
of her Remisian citizenship.

75
RSIWA 2001 n(25) art.(2)
76
Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (hereinafter VCCR), 1963, 596 U.N.T.S. 261,Article (36)

16
So, While following the article of the Convention, Antrano no way did violate any International
law.
2. By providing consular access to Molvania, the accepted passport of Saki Shaw, Antrano
fulfilled its obligation regarding providing consular access.
Article 36 (1) (a) Vienna Conversation on Consular Relations, 1963 imposes obligation to
Antrano, about providing the Consular Access. It says, consular officers shall be free to
communicate with nationals of the sending State and to have access to them. Nationals of the
sending State shall have the same freedom with respect to communication with and access to
consular officers of the sending State;77
As per the record of Antrano, Ms. Saki Shaw is a Molvanian citizen, and after cancelling the
mistakenly accepted Remisian passport, Antrano stamped her Molvanian passport. The
obligation imposed by Article 36(1) is fulfilled in following way:
● Antrano informed the Consul General of Molvania of Ms Shaws rdetention, and she has
indicated a willingness to meet with her.
● Ms Shaw rejected to meet her. The next morning, a guard informed Ms. Shaw that she
had a visitor, but when she realized the person was a Molvanian consular official, Ms.
Shaw refused to meet her. 78
The decision of not meeting might be a strategical move of Ms Shaw, as she was charged in
Criminal offences in Molvania. Similar scenerio is noticed in 2014, American journalist
Amanda Knox, imprisoned in Italy for murder, initially declined consular visits citing concerns
about privacy and potential interference with her legal team. 79 In 2017, Australian academic
Kylie Moore-Gilbert, detained in Iran on espionage charges, declined consular access for
several months due to fears of jeopardizing her safety and negotiations for release. 80
3. Ms. Saki Shaw was allowed to have any counsel by her choice through her Molvanian
Consular Officer
Another right of Ms. Saki Shaw was right to have any counsel, Article 14(3)(b) of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) states:

77
VCCR 1963 n (76) Article 36 (1)(a),
78
Compromis, ¶44
79
Jessica Bennett, Ten years after being cleared of murder, ‘Foxy Knoxy’ hopes to tell her story on her own
terms, 2021 <https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/amanda-knox-i-don-t-want-to-keep-living-the-
worst-time-of-my-life-so-we-can-pay-the-mortgage-1.4717057> accessed 19 November, 2023
80
John Crace, ‘Kylie Moore-Gilbert granted meeting with Australian ambassador to Iran’, The Guardian, (31
July 2020)

17
Everyone charged with a crime shall have the right to have adequate time and facilities for the
preparation of his defence and to communicate with counsel of his own choosing. By accessing
the consular access of Molvania, Ms shaw could have a counsel of her own choice. Antrano did
not make any hindrance regarding such access. But as Antrano does not recognize her
citizenship of Remisia, she is not allowed to have any consular access from the Remisia and
any counsel through Remisian Consular officer.
Antrano had communicated its clear stand on the recognition of citizenship, and provided all
the facilities she was supposed to attain, as a Molvanian citizen.
B. ANTRANO DOES NOT RECOGNIZE NATURALIZATION BY PURCHASE, SO
DISREGARDING MS. SAKI SHAWS CLAIMED CITIZENSHIP OF REMISSIA AND
THE CONSULAR ACCESS, DOES NOT VIOLATE INTERNATIONAL LAW.
The base of denial of providing consular access of Remisia to Ms shaw is, Antrano does not
recognize the purchased citizenship of Remisia.
The basis of such obligation, providing consular access is dependent on functional citizenship. 81
In the context of investment-based naturalization, Antrano believes that granting citizenship
solely on the basis of investment could be seen as arbitrary and discriminatory.
The Nottebohm (Liechtenstein v. Guatemala) case, decided by the International Court of Justice
(ICJ) in 1955, centered on the nationality of Friedrich Nottebohm and whether Liechtenstein
had the right to take up his case against Guatemala. In this Case, Mr. Nottebohm, who was
originally a German national, had settled in Guatemala in 1905 and continued to reside there.
In October 1939 — after the beginning of the Second World War — while on a visit to Europe,
he obtained Liechtenstein nationality and returned to Guatemala in 1940, where he resumed his
former business activities until his removal as a result of war measures in 1943. On the
international plane, the grant of nationality is entitled to recognition by other States only if it
represents a genuine connection between the individual and the State granting its nationality.
However, the court delved into the legitimacy of Nottebohm's naturalization. They found that:
● Nottebohm had no prior connection to Liechtenstein and only sought citizenship to
escape potential consequences as a German national during the war.
● He lacked any genuine intention to reside in Liechtenstein, remaining in Guatemala
throughout the process.

81
The international minimum standard: Diplomatic protection and protection of investments, in Brownlie's
Principles of Public International Law, Ninth Edition, p. 591.

18
 ● The entire naturalization process seemed solely motivated by Nottebohm's desire to
benefit from Liechtenstein's neutrality.
The court's opinion, while unanimous on the outcome, included distinct commentaries from
judges highlighting the problematic nature of Nottebohm's naturalization:
● Judge Lauterpacht: "Nationality [...]is not a mere technical device; it is a political and
social fact..." Nottebohm's case served as "an extreme example of the abuse of the
institution of nationality."
● Judge Read: "Nationality [...]is not a thing that can be conferred like a garment and put
off again at will." He emphasized the importance of genuine links and intent as crucial
elements of nationality.
● Judge Guggenheim: "It cannot be admitted that a State may create rights for itself by
conferring its nationality upon an individual in circumstances such as those of the
present case." He warned against recognizing such artificial acquisitions of nationality.
From this case it has clearly been seen that, we have come to 3 key factors, in recognizing a
citizenship regarding naturalization. They are:
1. Genuine Link and Intent:
A substantial, bonafide connection is needed to grant a Nationality. But Ms. Saki Shaw has no
genuine link or intent with Remisia. After Remisia declaring their Naturalization by Investment
82
Act, 2008, with only one condition, £500000 of investment, it is indeed a questionable
process. Such process is questionable and many country does not recognize such citizenship.
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v. Azar (2018) 83: In this case, a High Court of
Australia ruled that the Australian government could deny recognizing investment-based
citizenship from Cambodia.
The NIA Act eliminates residency requirements for Remisia citizenship, enabling criminals to
launder money and seek refuge. This loophole facilitates illicit financial activities, undermining
the law's credibility and intent, posing risks for global crime proliferation through investment-
based protection in Remisia.
The similar view is referred by:

82
Compromis, ¶ 10
83
Azar v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 1175; 261 FCR 1

19
● MPI (Migration Policy Institute) warned in 2018: Investment-based naturalization may
establish a dual citizenship system favoring the wealthy, contrasting with stricter
requirements for others.
● ECRI (European Commission Against Racism and Intolerance) highlighted in 2017:
"Golden visa" programs granting citizenship or residency based on investment can breed
discrimination and social tensions.
● UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees) cautioned in 2016:
Investment-driven naturalization fosters a perception of inequality, undermining
citizenship's foundation on a genuine connection to a country, potentially eroding its
principle.
Ms. Saki Shaw bought her Remisian citizenship, without any genuine link with Remisia.
2. Abuse of Nationality:
In the Nottebohm Case, another view was established that a state cannot manipulate nationality
solely for benefit or to shield individuals from rightful consequences. But Remisia is trying to
manipulate the nationality to stop the extradition to be executed. On 7 March 2022, Attorney
General of Molvania issued an arrest warrant against Ms Shaw in the charge of bankfraud,
money laundering and obstructing the court of Justice. Remisia, by claiming that Ms. Saki Shaw
is their national, is trying to manipulate the Justice and the consequence of the legal procedure.
3. Limits of diplomatic protection:
Antrano adheres to Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations but deems
Remisia's pursuit of Ms. Shaw's case unjustified. Ms. Shaw's nationality is seen as artificial,
lacking genuine ties, and defending a foreign national implicates biased alignment. Antrano
asserts that denying Remisian Consular Access isn't an international law breach; it's a fair step
toward justice. Ms. Shaw was granted diplomatic and human rights under Articles 5, 6, and 10
of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Antrano holds that safeguarding justice takes
precedence over ungrounded national affiliations, emphasizing the validity of denying Consular
Access in this context for the sake of fairness and integrity in legal proceedings. 84 But she didn’t
accept it to get rid of the criminal charge, by utilizing her purchased Nationality. Antrano does
not recognize such citizenship. So we can come to the conclusion that, as Antrano did not
violate any provision of any International law, according to Article 2 of Responsibility of a
State for its Internationally wrongful Act, Antrano did not violate International Law.

84
UDHR 1948 n (26), art.5

20
IV. REMISIA VIOLATED INTERNATIONAL LAW BY DENYING ANTRANAN
NATIONAL DR. TULOUS MALEX ENTRY TO REMISIA AS REQUIRED BY
SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 99997.
The Security Council 28 and 29 March meeting where representatives of both Antrano (as a
member of the Council) and Remisia were heard. On 11 April, the Council unanimously
adopted Resolution 99997, which established the UN Inspection Mission to Remisia
(UNIMR).85 The Remisian Ambassador to the UN responded to the Secretary-General:
“Resolution 99997 did not impose any legal obligations on us and the decision to allow or deny
entry into our territory remains our sovereign prerogative.”86 But while adopting the resolution,
Remisia didn’t express any demurral or remonstrance 87 and later, after the resolution took
effect, the denial is a violation of international law.
Also Article 2588 the United Nations Charter, 1945 says “The Members of the United Nations
agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the
present Charter.”
Remissia's initial refusal to meet Sterren Forty, citing inadequate documentation and
interference in domestic affairs 89, was countered by Antrano invoking the 1956 Convention on
Statelessness, highlighting the global impact. Dr. Tulous Malex's reluctance to engage with 190
other imprisoners facing similar charges under the DCA underscores the specific focus on
Sterren Forty's stateless predicament, a lawful concern. This refusal to engage solely due to
their statelessness constitutes a clear breach of international law. Sterren Forty's case transcends
domestic boundaries, meriting attention and resolution under the spirit of global obligations
outlined in international conventions, challenging Remissia's denial as unjustifiable.
At present, (A) Dr. Tulous Malex before coming to Remisia has informed Remisia proper
authorities, (B) By refusing the entry of Tulous Malex, remisia violated the international laws
relating to privileges and immunities of the united nations, (C) Denying the entry of Dr. Tulous
Malex while performing the inspection duty according to the resolution is a violation of the
spirit of international law, (D) Denial of entry of Dr. Malex to Remisia indicates Remisia's
disinterest to solve the statelessness of Sterren Forty.

85
Compromis, ¶ 48
86
Id., ¶ 56
87
Id., ¶ 48
88
UN Charter 1945 n (10) art. (25)
89
Compromis, ¶ 52

21
A. DR. TULOUS MALEX BEFORE COMING TO REMISIA HAS INFORMED
REMISIA PROPER AUTHORITIES
On 3 August 2022, Dr. Tulous Malex wrote to Prime Minister Sezan, informing him that he
would arrive at Remisia International Airport on a commercial flight at around noon local time
on 10 August.90 Also he declared at the airport that he was on an official assignment endorsed
by the Security Council and presented his UN documentation. 91 On 9 August, Dr. Malex
boarded a flight to Remisia but Remisia border agents denied him entry and placed him on the
next plane back to New York. 92 By knowing that he was coming on a mission UNIMR which
was adopted by the Security Council of UN, they intentionally refused him entry into Remisia
and violated international law.
Article 3493 the United Nations Charter states “ The Security Council may investigate any
dispute, or any situation which might lead to international friction or give rise to a dispute, in
order to determine whether the continuance of the dispute or situation is likely to endanger the
maintenance of international peace and security.” Dr.Tulous Malex was on a mission to inspect
Remisia about human rights of people being stateless and the mission was authorized by the
UN Security Council. He sent proper documentation as well and the cause that Remisia has
shown is irrelevant and it is visible they are lacking the principal of principle of good
conscience..
B. BY REFUSING THE ENTRY OF TULOUS MALEX, REMISIA VIOLATED THE
INTERNATIONAL LAWS RELATING TO PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF
THE UNITED NATIONS
On 3 August, Dr. Malex wrote to Prime Minister Sezan, informing him that he would arrive at
Remisia International Airport on 10 August and also asked for assurances that he would be
admitted without hindrance on the basis of his United Nations certificate and that the relevant
authorities would cooperate in making the mission a success.94 So he delivered the notification
but at the airport they refused him entry. He declared that he was on an official assignment
endorsed by the Security Council and presented his UN documentation. 95

90
Id., ¶ 55
91
Id., 55
92
Id., 58
93
UN Charter 1945 n (10) art. 2(2)
94
Compromis, ¶ 55
95
Id., ¶ 58

22
1. Certificate issued for UN Officials creates special obligations for the State, and denying
them is a violation of the Convention
UN officials enjoys special rights in immigration and Visa and Remisia is obliged to maintain
those. The objects of UN charter, mentioned in Article 2(2), “All Members, in order to ensure
to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the
obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.” 96
When Dr Malex entered Remisia, he showed his certificate of UN Officials, the certificate
creates a severe legal obligation and Remisia violated it. Section 25 97 of the Convention on the
Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations requires prompt visa processing for United
Nations laissez-passer holders traveling on UN business. Article 2698 extends similar expedited
travel facilities to non-laissez-passer holders with a UN business certificate. Both sections
emphasize timely visa processing and quick travel arrangements for individuals representing
the UN.
So as Dr Malex had rights similar to Laissez-passer holder, Remisia violated this international
convention about UN passport by stopping Dr.Tulous Malex to enter in Remisia. For example:
In ECB8.15.11899 UN Laissez-passer this allows the holder to travel to the United Kingdom on
official business without a national passport or entry clearance. However, when holders travel
to the UK for any other reason, they should use their national passports (and visas will be
required by visa nationals). So as he was in mission authorized by UN and he was not travelling
for his personal business. As a result he was carrying the Laissez-Passer (UNLP) and his bar to
entry in Remisia in violation of international law.
2. Dr Malex shall enjoy the Special Rights of Immunity as an Antranan Citizen
According to his showed documrntation, He shall enjoy the immunity ensured by Convention
on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations (CPI) 1946100. Section 23 of CPI grants

96
UN Charter 1945 n (10) art. (2)
97
Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations [hereinafter CPI], 1946, 1 U.N.T.S. 15, s.
(25)
98
Id., s.25
99
“There are two types of travel documents issued by the United Nations” UK Visa and
Immigration<https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/what-are-acceptable-travel-documents-for-entry-
clearanceecb08/ecb08-what-are-acceptable-travel-documents-for-entry-clearance#ecb81-why-a-passport-or-
travel-documentis-needed-and-what-constitutes-one >accessed 26 December 2023
100
CPI 1946, n (97) s.(23)

23
privileges to UN experts for the organization's benefit, not personal gain. The Secretary-General
can waive immunity if it obstructs justice without harming UN interests.
So Dr Malex will enjoy the immunity as he was on an investigation as an UN official, not any
personal benefit. But Remisia placed him on the next plane back to New York, which was a
violation of the immunity he was supposed to enjoy. And as an Antranan Citizen, he also
possesses special right which was an accession upon to the treaty in 1958: 101
“The application of the principles set out in Section 23102 of the Convention is without prejudice
to Antrano’s right under customary law to exercise diplomatic protection on behalf of its
nationals for any injury inflicted upon them, even those which concern the interests of the
United Nations.”
Dr Malex also enjoys the diplomatic rights as an Antranan and as Remisia had no objection on
it, the infringement of the right is a violation of International law.
C. DENYING THE ENTRY OF DR. TULOUS MALEX WHILE PERFORMING THE
INSPECTION DUTY ACCORDING TO THE RESOLUTION IS A VIOLATION OF
THE SPIRIT OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
Dr. Tulous Malex embarked on a critical task inspecting the Sterren Forty case, where students
faced imprisonment and were rendered stateless, and a stark violation of Article 15103 - denying
individuals their nationality. The situation warranted scrutiny, as outlined in Article 34 104,
empowering the Security Council to investigate disputes potentially threatening global peace.
Dr. Malex operated under Security Council authorization, avoiding interference in internal
affairs or sovereignty. Article 15 emphasizes the right to nationality, safeguarding against
arbitrary deprivation. His mission, guided by international law, aimed to assess and address the
situation's impact on international peace and security, aligning with the Security Council's
mandate to resolve disputes and prevent conflicts within the boundaries of established legal
frameworks. According to Annex A 105 is a legal background of Dr. Tulous Malex activity in
Remisia which was adopted by Remisia presence, that means that the investigation by him in

101
Correction [11]
102
CPI 1946, n (97) s. (23)
103
UDHR 1948 n (26), Art. (15)
104
UN Charter 1945 n (10) art. (34)
105
Security Council Resolution 99997

24
Remisia is supported by them and they don’t consider it as against their sovereign integrity or
interference.
But is an obligation to sate to abide by the Security Council resolution for maintenance of
international peace and security 106
The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda is the first international court of law
established to prosecute high-ranking individuals for massive human rights violations in Africa.
The purpose of this court is to prosecute those allegedly responsible for the 1994 Rwandan
Genocide and this court was established by UN Security Council. 107 In 2005, the UN Security
Council established the International Independent Investigation Commission (UNIIIC) to
investigate the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. The investigation
ultimately led to the establishment of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL). 108 By this we
can understand that the Security council has the power to investigate other countries' matters
which are related to human rights, international security and peace.
Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations (1946). Specifically, Article
21 of the Convention states:
The officials and experts referred to in this Section, as well as members of the families of such
officials and experts, shall be granted facilities for travel and residence. In particular, they shall
be exempt from visa fees and passport regulations and entitled to receive visas, together with
their families, from the Contracting States on application and without cost. 109
Remisia violated this article because, Firstly,
● as Dr Tulous Malex was an expert in matters relating to statelessness 110, he fulfills the
first criteria
● Secondly where he was entitled to have visas, the denial of entry is a clear violation of
the Convention.

106
The ISDS Impact of Economic Sanctions: Lessons From the Korea-Iran Investment Disputes, The American
Review of International Arbitration Vol. 33 No. 4, 2022, p. 419.
107
Michale P. Scharf ‘Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda’ (Audiovisual Library of
International Law, May 2012 ) < https://legal.un.org/avl/ha/ictr/ictr.html > accessed 27 December 2023
108
‘HEAD OF INVESTIGATION INTO RAFIQ HARIRI ASSASSINATION BRIEFS SECURITY COUNCIL’
( Press Release Security Council , 5 December 2007) < https://press.un.org/en/2007/sc9187.doc.htm > accessed
27 December 2023
109
CPI 1946, n (97) art (21)
110
Compromis, ¶ 51

25
D. DENIAL OF ENTRY OF DR MALEX TO REMISIA INDICATES REMISIA'S
DISINTEREST TO SOLVE THE STATELESSNESS OF STERREN FORTY
According to Article 7(6) of the 1961 Convention on the reduction of statelessness states,
Except in the circumstances mentioned in this Article, a person shall not lose the
nationality of a Contracting State, if such loss would render him stateless, notwithstanding
that such loss is not expressly prohibited by any other provision of this Convention.111
Rendering the 40 citizens of Remisia stateless is a violation of that article but in special criteria
of the treason, according to the DCA, Remisia wants to legalize it. The Sterren Forty were
sentenced to Imprisonment and their citizenship were revoked as they disrespect the queen and
also their appeals were rejected by the Supreme Court in an unanimous opinion. 112 There is a
concept named ‘Lèse-majesté’ which means an offence of defamation against the dignity of a
ruling head of State and the state itself. 113 The head of the state may be a queen, king , the
prime minister or the president But the punishment of Lese majesty in different countries are
explained here:
● For example In Belarus114 On 31 January 2022, a woman in was handed an 18-month
prison sentence for “insulting” the country’s authoritarian ruler, Alexander Lukashenko
and other authorities after pictures mocking the officials were found on her phone.
● In Netherlands, in 1966,115 Dutch cartoonist Willem depicted Queen Juliana of the
Netherlands as a prostitute in a cartoon published in Provo magazine, “God, Nederland
en Oranje”. He was sued for lèse-majesté, but the judge eventually acquitted him from
the charge. But here the sterren forty was sentenced with Imprisonment and also they
were made stateless in allegation of disrespecting the queen.

111
CRS 1961 n (6) art. 7(6)
112
Compromis, ¶ 34
‘ Lèse-majesté’’ < https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/lese-majeste > accessed 27
113

December 2023
114
‘Two More Belarusians Sentenced For 'Insulting' Lukashenka’ ( Radio Free Europe Radio Library, 31
January 2022) < https://www.rferl.org/a/belarus-prison-sentences-insulting-lukashenka/31679926.html >
accessed 27 December 2023
115
Lèse-majesté < https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A8se-majest%C3%A9#cite_note-23 > accessed 27
December 2023

26
Article 15116 grants everyone the right to a nationality and prohibits arbitrary deprivation or
denial of changing nationality. Article 7 117 ensures equality before the law and protection
against discrimination, disallowing any incitement to discriminatory actions. Article 26 118
guarantees equal protection without discrimination based on race, color, sex, religion, etc.,
under the law. Article 9119 forbids arbitrary arrest, detention, or exile. But they are punished
arbitrarily and based on a vague concept of disrespect of the queen and also lost their
citizenship.
In The Central Park jogger case120, also known as the Central Park Five case, resulted in
the wrongful convictions of five young men. They were alleged of attacking and sexually
assaulting a white woman who was jogging in New York City’s Central Park. Ultimately, the
scenarios turned to wrongfully convicted cases. The boys served sentences of many years before
the judicial system finally exonerated them after someone else confessed to the crimes.
Similarly sterren forty is convicted arbitrarily. Dr.Tulous Malex was to inspect this matter. But
Remisia knew their fault and that led them to denial to justice and to stop Dr.Tulous Malex to
enter Remisia.
The violation of Natural justice is also a violation of international law,
In The Arab Contractors and Elsewedy v. Becco and Leachcase, it was held that Ignorance
of the rules of natural justice cannot be defended 121.

116
UDHR 1948 n (26) Art. (15)
117
Id., Art. (15)
118
ICCPR n (70) Art. (26)
119
UDHR 1948 n (26) Art (9)
120
Kerry Armstrong ‘The Five Worst Wrongful Conviction Cases in U.S. History’ ( Law Offices of Kerry L.
Armstrong, APLC 28 July 20203) < https://sddefenseattorneys.com/blog/famous-wrongful-conviction-cases/# >
accessed 27 December 2023
121
The Arab Contractors (Osman Ahmed Osman & Co.) and Elsewedy Electric Company v. Bharya Engineering
& Constracting Company Limited (Becco) and Larrissa Leach, Ruling of the Commercial Division of the High
Court of Tanzania, 4 November 2022

27
 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

For the aforementioned reasons, the Republic of Antrano, the Applicant, respectfully prays that
this Honourable Court:
I. DECLARE that, Antrano has standing to bring the dispute concerning Remisia’s
deprivation of nationality of its citizens (Sterren Forty) before the Court.
II. DECLARE that, Remisia’s deprivation of nationality of the “Sterren Forty” according to
DCA, rendering them stateless, is a violation of international law.
III. DECLARE that, Antrano did not violate international law when it refused to provide
Remisia consular access to Ms. Saki Shaw during her time as a prisoner in Antrano.
IV. DECLARE that, Remisia violated international law by denying Antranan national Dr.
Tulous Malex entry to Remisia as required by Security Council Resolution 99997.

Respectfully submitted,
12 January 2024
Agents for Antrano

28