TC URN 2191 R3

URN NO.
2191
THE KK LUTHRA MOOT COURT
BEFORE
THE HONBLE SUPERIOR COURT OF KRET
IN THE MATTER OF
J.J CROOK...................................................................................................... PETITIONER

VERSUS
STATE OF KRET ............................................................................................ RESPONDENT
WRIT OF CERTIORARI
UPON SUBMISSION
TO THE HONBLE JUSTICES OF THE HONBLE COURT OF KRET
- MEMORENDUM ON THE BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT –

K.K LUTHERA MEMORIAL MOOT COURT, 2024
TABLE OF CONTENT
LIST OF ABBRIVIATION 2
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 3
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 4
STATEMENT OF FACT 5
STATEMENT OF ISSUE 6
SUMMARY OF AGRUMENT 6
ARGUMENT IN ADAVANCED 7
PRAYER 18
LIST OF ABBRIVIATION
AIR ALL INDIA REPORTER
SCC SUPREME COURT OF CASES
ICJ INTERNATIONAL COURT OF

JUSTICES
PCJ PERMANENT COURT OFJUSTICES
U.S.A UNITED STATE OF AMERICA
DETECTIVE INSPECTOR
D. I
UNITED KIGDOM SUPREME COURT
UKSC
INTERNATIONAL LAW REPORT
ILR
UNITED NATION
U. N
ENGLAND AND WALES COURT OF
EWCA APPEAL CIVIL DIVISION
UNITED KINGDOM
UK
2
-MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT-
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CONSTITUTION AND STATUTES

1 VIENNA CONVENTION ON DIPLOMATKIC RELATION 1961
2 VIENNA CONVENTION ON CONSULOR RELATION 1963
3 VIENNA CONVENTION ON CONSULOR RELATION 1963
BOOKS
1 INTERNATIONAL LAW MALCOLM N SHAW
COMMENTRIES BY EILEE DENZA 2ND EDITION

2
RESEARCH ARTICLES
1
ILSA JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE LAW
2 REPORT ON DIPLOMATIC AND STATE IMMUNITY IN RESPECT OF CLAIMS

OF EMBASSY.
BY – M. GOGNA, S. HLOBIL, M. PODSIEDLIK
3 NONE OF TEHRE BUSINESS DIPLOMATIC INVILVEMNET IN HUMAN RIGHT

BY- PAUL BEHRENS
THE PLAINTIFF DILEMMA ILLEGALLY OBTAINED EVIDENCES AND
4 ASMISSIBLILTY IN INTERNATIONAL ADJUDICATION.
BY W. MICHAEL REISMAN AND ERIC E FREEDMAN
3
CASES
(UK v. Alb.), 1949 ICJ REP. 4 (Judgment of April 9) .......................................................................... 18

1947] 3 D.L.R. 618; 1946 D.L.R. LEXIS 831 ....................................................................................... 12
1965 EWCA Civ J0526-1 ENGLAND & WALES ............................................................................... 10
787 F Supp. 389 S.D.N.Y.................................................................................................................. 9, 15
Awrie v. Muir [1950] J. C. 19 (1949) .................................................................................................... 16
BS and KG v AR and AR (n 28) [74] ..................................................................................................... 15
Marckx v Belgium (App no 6833/74) Series A no 31 ............................................................................ 15
Ms Era Drdavoka v. M/S.Khemka Exports pvt ltd................................................................................ 10
Opuz v Turkey (App no 33401/02) 50 EHRR 28 [128-130 ................................................................... 15
Osman v United Kingdom (App no 23452/94) Reports 1998-VIII [115].............................................. 14
Osman v United Kingdom (n 183) [116] ............................................................................................... 16
Portugal v. Gonclaves Europe) International law reports 1990 vol 82 pg. 115 ..................................... 10
R. v. Tyler Kent [1941] 1 KB 45 London .............................................................................................. 13
Skeen v. Federative 66 F Supp. 1414 D.D.C 1983 Brazil ....................................................................... 9
Z and Others v UK (App. No. 29392/95) ECHR 2001-V. ..................................................................... 15
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The counsel humbly submits that respondent has appeared before this Hon'ble court in
response to the writ petition filed by the petitioner.
4
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. Kret is a country located in the heat of Europe it is boarder by Germany to the north
Austria to the south and Czech Republic to east the country covers an area of 125000
square kilometre and has a population of approximate 50 million people. The capital of
kret is emerald city. Ferrwa is a vibrant diverse county situated in the northern region
of Africa but berber and French are also widely spoken.
2. Both the country is the founding member of the united nation and are signatory to the
various treaties and convention on the diplomatic relation of 1961 and the Vienna
convention on the consular relation of 1963. On 24.1 informed to the police that his
wife had gone to the work at the freeway embassy on the night of 23.12.2023 but never
returned home and suspect that she has been kidnapped. Her cell phone is unreachable
and her car is still parked outside the ferrwa embassy. The police registered the crime
report under the section 265 kretan penal code and started investigating was assigned
to detective Inspector P.V Bain. Detective inspector P.V Bain sought police custody of
Mr. JJ Crook for a period of 15 days from the court of learned metropolitan magistrate,
emerald city court complex emerald city which was granted for 15 days on 25.12.2023
despite various legal objection raised by Mr.J. J Crook lawyers. Meanwhile the DI
investigated the case and filed a police investigation report after concluding the
investigation against Mr. JJ Crook. The magistrate has taken a view that offence under
section 202, 103, and 88 KPC are made out and is proceeding to try the case. Mr Crook
continue to in the custody of the police.
3. Writ petition criminal no. 4/2024 Mr Crook has moved the Superior court of kret by the
way of writ petition inter alia seeking his immediate release and challenging the
proceeding pending against him including the crime report police investigation report
and the order dated 25.12.23 passed by the court of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate
emerald city court complex emerald city.
5
STATEMENT OF ISSUE
ISSUE 1: Is Mr J.J Crook entitled to Diplomatic Immunity
ISSUE 2: Could the D.I. have conducted an investigation into the offences committed
inside the premises of the Ferrwan embassy without the prior consent of Ferrwan
authorities?
ISSUE 3: Was the evidence collected by the D.I from the embassy including CCTV
footage
ISSUE 4 Were the further recoveries made including of remains of Mrs. Watts liable to
be rejected and excluded from the reliance by the police on the account of objection as to
the illegal search at the embassy and the of the arrest of Mr. JJ Crook
6
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ISSUE 1: Is Mr J.J Crook entitled to Diplomatic Immunity
The counsel humbly submits that Mr. J.J Crook is not entitled to Diplomatic immunity as the
act committed by him is a criminal act that endangers human life it is alleged that he murdered
Mrs. Sean Watts the act of Mr.J. J Crook does not come within the ambit of diplomatic
immunity because his act was not in the official capacity.
authorities?
The counsel humbly submits that that the investigation of D.I inside the premises of the
Ferrwan embassy without consent of Ferrwan authorities shall not considered a violation of
principles of International because D.I found something suspicious happening inside the
Ferrwan Embassy it was the responsibility of the authorities of Kret to protect the consular
premises.
ISSUE 3: Was the evidence collected by the D.I from the embassy including CCTV footage
It is most humbly submitted that D.I from the embassy including CCTV footage excluded from
the Magistrate has not been illegally obtained by D.I P. V Bain also it is important to note this
image of illegality is seen because whole case is seen with the tunnel vision apart from
obligation which sending state impose on the receiving state, the receiving state has also
obligation under international human right also a culture of impunity cannot be supported
7
ISSUE 4 Were the further recoveries made including of remains of Mrs. Watts liable to
be rejected and excluded from the reliance by the police on the account of objection as to
the illegal search at the embassy and the of the arrest of Mr. JJ Crook
It is most humbly submitted that recoveries made including remains of Mrs.Wats was not
Liable to be rejected and excluded from the reliance by the police and shall be not be considered
as illegal search and arrest of Mr.J. J Crook because the remains dos not come under the
preview of archives and documents which are only protected under Vienna convention on
diplomatic relation
ARGUMENT IN ADVANCED
ISSUE 1: Is Mr.J.J Crook entitled to Diplomatic immunity
1.1 Mr.J. J Crook is not entitled to Diplomatic immunity
1. The counsel humbly submits that Mr. J.J Crook is not entitled to Diplomatic immunity as the
act committed by him is a criminal act that endangers human life it is alleged that he murdered
Mrs. Sean Watts the act of Mr.J.J Crook does not come within the ambit of diplomatic immunity
because his act was not in the official capacity his immunity shall be waived because his act is
endangering the human life and all the evidences are against Mr.J.J Crook which will be
approved by my co-counsel in issue no 3 and 4 in the present counsel will be explaining that
why Mr.J.J Crook is not entitled to diplomatic immunity.
2. The counsel humbly submits that there is an abuse of diplomatic immunity given to Mr.J.J
Crook because he is misusing the immunity provided to him as it is alleged that he has
committed the offense of Murder and his act was not in the official capacity but was for his
benefit his or it is also raising a suspicion that what was his intention and motive behind doing
this act so giving him immunity and privilege in this matter he is not entitled to any immunity
because his act against the state without any revisions of diplomatic immunity law, innocent
8
victims would continue to bear the burden of delinquent diplomats1 the main issue which needs
to be addressed that immunity given to diplomats is more than the lives of the people or in the
lieu diplomatic immunity can Mr. J.J Crook kill anyone.
3. The counsel humbly submits that in recent years, many reforms to various diplomatic
immunities have been suggested and implemented, but none concerning mission
inviolability.73 The court agrees that reform is in order and even suggests taking a second look
at the Vienna Convention, but the court is of the opinion that it is not the courts' terrain to take
a second look at the Convention.2 " Instead, the court avidly points to Congress for action. 5
Although the outcome of this case does not incite any enthusiasm, one must agree with the
court's position, particularly after reviewing the government's foreign affairs policy on the issue
of diplomatic immunity.
4. The counsel humbly submits that any act which is endangering the life of the person and
amounting to comes within the exception of criminal jurisdiction of the diplomats or
administrative staff the diplomats have invoked immunity to avoid service of process on a
diplomatic mission or a diplomat himself3 the Republic of Brazil in this matter also Mr.J.J
Crook wants to invoke diplomatic immunity and avoid service of the process all the evidence
are against Mr.J.J Crook and he is not entitled to diplomatic immunity.
5 The counsel humbly submits that Section 4 of the Diplomatic Relations Act,1972 clearly
states that the central government has the power to withdraw the immunity and, in this case,
Mr.J. J Crook is not entitled to diplomatic immunity because his act was not the official capacity
and state of Kret has right to withdraw his immunity Only an immunity is given vis a vis certain
proceeding in Court and this immunity cannot be equated with an express bar of the
jurisdiction. Even this immunity is not permanent and can always be withdrawn if reciprocal
immunity is not given and in such a case, the Central Government is empowered to decline to
grant immunity and also empowered under section 4 of the 1972 Act to withdraw privileges or
1
787 F Supp. 389 S.D.N.Y
2
(ILSA Journal of International & Comparative Law)
3
Skeen v. Federative 66 F Supp. 1414 D.D.C 1983 Brazil
9
immunity.4 India case Civil revisionApplication No 262 of 2010
6. It is most humbly submitted that the court made it clear that on termination of diplomatic
status for whatever reason any subsisting action that had to stay on the grounds of the
defendant's immunity could be revived at the same time the trial of the diplomatic agent after
the dismissal from his post-loss of immunity does not violate the prohibition of retroactive
application of criminal laws5 the counsel humbly submits that in this matter also Mr.J. Crook
shall be prosecuted and if his immunity shall be waived for the trial and if heis found innocent
his immunity shall be revived.
7. The counsel humbly submits that Article 3(b) of the Vienna Convention clearly states that
protecting receiving state the interests of sending state the interests of the sending state and of
its nationals within the limits permitted by international law a Portuguese court once held that
Article 3 sets out the general framework for diplomatic functions and must be interpreted also
covering all other incidental actions which are indispensable for the performance of those
general functions as enumerated in Article 3.6
● PRINCIPLE OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY
9. The doctrine of sovereign immunity is based on international law. It is one of the rules of
international law that a sovereign state should not be impleaded in the courts of another
sovereign state against its will. Like all rules of international law, this rule is said to arise out
of the consensus of the civilized nations of the world. All nations agree upon it. So, it is part
of the law of nations."Trendtex Trading Corporation vs. Bank of Nigeria [(1997) 1 Q.B. 529],
the present matter of the state of kret will be answerable because the act of Mr.J.J Crook was in
the
4
India case Civil revision Application No 262 of 2010
5
Empson v Smith 1965 EWCA Civ J0526-1 ENGLAND & WALES
6
(Portugal v. Gonclaves Europe) International law reports 1990 vol 82 pg. 115
10
not in official capacity and the state of kret will answerable to ferrwan for the act of Mr.J.J
Crook is affecting the sovereignty of the state of kret so it is important to prosecute Mr.J.J
Crook and he shall not be entitled to Diplomatic immunity.
10. The counsel humbly submits that in this matter there has been a violation of basic principles
of international law as it is a well-established fact that kret and ferrwa are in diplomatic
relations with each other and this act of Mr. J.J Crook has affected the diplomatic relations of
the state of Kret and Ferrwa if they would not prosecute Mr.J.J Crook it would affect the
international status of State of Kret it is the principle of international law and even greater
conception of law, and that any breach of an engagement involves an obligation to make
reparation.7
● Scope of State Responsibility in the present matter.
11. It is most humbly submitted that in this matter it is the sole responsibility of the state to
prosecute Mr.J. J Crook as his act is inhumane and it cannot be justified by contending that he
is entitled to immunity as it is a well-established fact that both the countries are signatories
Vienna convention on diplomatic and consular relations all rights of an international character
involve international responsibility.8
authorities?
2 PREMISES OF THE EMBASSY CAN BE INVESTIGATED WITHOUT IF SOME URGENCY

TAKES PLACE
7
(Chorzow factory case)
8
(Spanish Zone of Morroco claims 2RIAA P 641)
11
12. The counsel humbly submits that the investigation of D.I inside the premises of the Ferrwan
embassy without consent of Ferrwan authorities shall not considered a violation of principles
of International because D.I found something suspicious happening inside the Ferrwan
Embassy it was the responsibility of the authorities of Kret to protect the consular premises as
it is well-established fact that inside the embassy they found remains of Mrs.Sean Watts and
Mr.J.J Crook was erasing the evidence and the act of authorities is to protect the embassy.
13. It is most humbly submitted that Article 45(a) of the Vienna Convention clearly receiving
state must protect the consular premises from armed conflict this Article clearly states that the
protection of consular premises is the responsibility of the State of Kret according to the report
of foreign affairs committee. On 17 April 1984, a peaceful demonstration took place in the
Libyan Embassy in London. Shots from the embassy were fired resulting in the death of a
Police Woman After the siege the Libyans left inside the embassy were searched and weapons
and forensic evidence were found similarly in this matter Mr. J.J Crook was present inside the
embassy and the dead body of Mrs.Sean Watts was found so it is evident that search of the
embassy was important because it raised the question that how such an act inside the premises
and it was responsibility of state of Kret to protect the Ferwaan embassy.
14. It is pertinent here to take into account the case Rose v. King 9 in which the court held that:
while the documents might otherwise be held privileged, the question of the immunity to be
granted them was strictly a matter for executive determination. Thus, not only the nature of the
documents but, more importantly, their legal incidents are deemed issues improper for judicial
consideration.
15. The counsel humbly submits that once there has been direct evidence tending to prove the
existence of a conspiracy, hearsay evidence as to things said and done by one conspirator in
furtherance of the common design becomes admissible evidence against all the other
9
[1947] 3 D.L.R. 618; 1946 D.L.R. LEXIS 831
12
conspirators, and may be used to support proof of the actual existence of the conspiracy. Where,
therefore, there is ample direct evidence that the accused agreed with other persons to obtain
information for communication to a foreign power, contrary to the Official Secrets Act, 1939
evidence of another witness as to what was done with the information, and documents proved
to have been written by another of the conspirators which showed certain acts done in
furtherance of the intention, are admissible to prove the conspiracy. The general rule that the
direct evidence should be submitted prior to the indirect evidence in such cases is not absolute.
Where the reverse occurs, the effect of the indirect evidence is suspended until the direct
evidence has been adduced. The question as to the admissibility of the hearsay evidence being
a question of law, and the evidence having been properly admitted, it became circumstantial
evidence, and it was proper for the trial Judge to deal with it as such in his charge to the jury.10
16. The counsel humbly submits that in this case also evidence directly proves the conspiracy
so the relevancy of this evidence cannot be denied by the court as the search of ferrwan was
for the protection of the Ferrwan embassy and in this matter it is clearly established that how
Mrs.Sean Watts Employee Ferrwan embassy and her body is found in this matter so Mr.J.J
Crook cannot escape in this matter as this incident took place in the embassy it is responsibility
of state of kret to ensure protection of embassy and its officers.
17. The counsel would like to conclude this issue by contending that it was necessary for the
D.I to enter the premises of the Ferrwan embassy because this is a criminal act has been
committed in the embassy so it is important for the protection embassy is located in the state
of kret and its state responsibility protect the premises of the mission.
Was the evidence collected by the D.I. from the Embassy including CCTV footage to be
excluded from consideration by the Magistrate, being illegally obtained?
10
R. v. Tyler Kent [1941] 1 KB 45 London
13
1) It is submitted before this court that NO, the evidence collected by the D.I. from the Embassy
including CCTV footage cannot be excluded from consideration by the Magistrate, being
illegally obtained.
2) It is most humbly submitted before this court that the petitioner presumes the image of
illegality based on two things a) inviolability of mission premises under article 22 of the Vienna
Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961, b) inviolability of the ‘archives and documents of
mission, that is CCTV footage.
Tunnel vision
3) It is most humbly submitted before this image of illegality is seen because this whole case
is seen with tunnel vision, it is important to note that apart from following the obligation given
in the Vienna Convention on diplomatic relations the receiving state (kret) also have greater
obligations towards human rights states have a customary international law obligation to
respect and ensure the human rights of all persons within their jurisdiction and to provide for
effective remedies in case of a breach11 as Article 3 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights
(UDHR) says that,
“Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of a person.”
4) Human rights do not only entail the (negative) obligation to refrain from human rights
abuses; States also have the positive obligation to ensure the effective enjoyment of a human
right or fundamental freedom. This means that States have the obligation to protect individuals
from human rights abuses by other individuals. (Osman v United Kingdom)12; Opuz v
Turkey13; Z and Others v UK 14 So it can be concluded that Kret also has obligations toward
Mrs. Wats in order to enforce her human rights, as s under human rights law it is the duty of
the state to adopt and effectively implement national (criminal) law provisions which penalize
violations of human rights. (Marckx v Belgium15 and X and Y v The Netherlands16.
A culture of impunity cannot be supported.
6) It is most humbly submitted that this present case is a very special case for understanding the
incline of the nation, A culture of impunity may exist where States repeatedly turn a blind eye
to human rights violations. when the D.I. went to investigate the premises of the Embassy on
11
Fransisco Forrest, International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law: Treaties, Cases, and Analysis, (CUP
2008) 172
12
Osman v United Kingdom (App no 23452/94) Reports 1998-VIII [115]
13
Opuz v Turkey (App no 33401/02) 50 EHRR 28 [128-130
14
Z and Others v UK (App. No. 29392/95) ECHR 2001-V.
15
(Marckx v Belgium (App no 6833/74) Series A no 31
16
X and Y v The Netherlands (App no 8978/80) Series A no 091)
14
24.12.2023. The Embassy guards did not allow the D.I. to enter. Even after an official
communication and formal request were sent by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the
Ministry of Internal Affairs of Kret to the Ambassador, the request was denied. While the D.I.
was waiting outside the Embassy, he heard sounds of electrical sparking emanating from inside
the Embassy premises. Upon closer inspection, he suspected that a fire might be imminent.
Concerned about the safety of the occupants of the building, to prevent a fire as also evidence
of the crime from being destroyed the D.I. arranged to gain entry into the Embassy and
investigate the offence through the service entrance. While in the embassy, the D.I. found the
Ambassador’s bodyguard using a wet wipe to clean the furniture in the room. When the D.I.
stepped into the room – the bodyguard was taken by surprise and his face turned white with
fear. He immediately put the wet wipe in his pocket. (moot para 8,9,10 of page 11and 12)
7) Now it is important to note when D.I P. V BAIN entered the premises all pieces of evidence
regarding the murder of Miss. Wats were there, not taking that evidence would be a clear-cut
example of a culture of impunity with this it is very pertinent here to mention the case of BS
and KG v AR and AR17 where the court held that
“Even where there is immunity, the receiving State may still undertake steps to investigate
incidents. Failure to do so may contribute to a culture of impunity”
And perpetrators of these abuses are not brought to justice. (Oleynikov v Russia)
8) It is most humbly submitted before this court in the case of Awrie v. Muir( ( 1950] J. C .
19 (1949)18. a case related to illegally obtaining evidence, in this case, certain guidelines to
admit the illegally obtained evidence were laid by the court one of those guidelines are
“Could the irregularity be condoned or excused as being of a trivial kind or one that
was dictated by urgency or other circumstances”?
It is submitted before the court that. While in the embassy, the D.I. found the Ambassador’s
bodyguard using a wet wipe to clean the furniture in the room. When the D.I. stepped into the
room – the bodyguard was taken by surprise and his face turned white with fear. He
immediately put the wet wipe in his pocket. (para 10, page 12 of moot problem), The Ferrwan
Ambassador – H. E. Mr. Kamrun Hadwan has since left Kret on a chartered flight from a private
airstrip located outside Emerald City, (para 7-page 11 moot problem) and is also involved in
the murder of Miss Wats and only a few bones and skull of Miss Wats found during the
17
BS and KG v AR and AR (n 28) [74]
18
Awrie v. Muir [1950] J. C. 19 (1949)
15
investigation (para 12 page 12 of the moot problem). Now slowly all evidence was destroyed
by them. That is why it was a matter of urgency to collect all evidence. Also, it is important to
note before discovering the body remains of Miss Wats even D.I P. V Bain was suspicious that
Miss Wats might be held hostage inside the embassy which is why D.I P. V Bain was in more
hurry to enter the premises.
9) Now this act cannot be said to it was violation of Article 22 of the Vienna Convention on
diplomatic relations as prof Eileen DENZA concluded in his commentaries that
In the last resort, however,
“It cannot be excluded that entry without consent of the sending state may be justified in
international law by the need to protect human life”
Moreover, States have the obligation to take measures within the scope of their powers if they
‘knew or ought to have known at the time of the existence of a real and immediate risk to the
life of an identified individual or individuals from the criminal acts of a third party [and] these
measures might have been expected to avoid that risk.’19
4. Were the further recoveries made including the remains of Mrs. Wats
liable to be rejected and excluded from reliance by police on account of
objections as to the illegal search at the Embassy and the arrest of Mr. J. J.
Crook?
It is submitted before this court that the breach of inviolability of the premises and why the act
of D.I.P.V Bain is justified is already been discussed in the previous issue. For this issue, the
question is whether the remains of Miss. Wats come under the protection as it was founded
inside the embassy.
What includes ‘archives and documents’ under the meaning of Viena Convention on
Diplomatic relation 1961.
It is submitted before the court that not all things that come from the embassy are given
protection under diplomatic law.
1. It is most humbly submitted before this court that Article 24 of the Vienna
Convention on Diplomatic relation 1961, the archives and documents of the mission
19
Osman v United Kingdom (n 183) [116].
16
are inviolable at any time and wherever they may be it is to be noted that the terms
‘archives and documents’ are not defined but that definition can be drawn from Vienna
Convention on consular relation 1963 as Article 1(1)(K) of Vienna Convention on
consular relation 1963 which says that “consular archives” includes all the papers,
documents, correspondence, books, films, tapes and registers of the consular post,
together with the ciphers and codes, the card-indexes and any article of furniture
intended for their protection or safekeeping’’.
The terms as used in diplomatic relations conventions cannot be less than this (Denza,
Diplomatic law, p.160)
So, it is clearly understood that the remains of Miss Wats do not come under the purview
of any protection thus, it cannot be asked to exclude that from the evidence.
One question is whether illegally obtained evidence can be admissible in international law
or not
2. It is very pertinent here to take an account of the case of "The Corfu Channel Case20.
The court dealt with the question of the admissibility of evidence obtained by unlawful
intervention raised, in a rather sharp fashion, in the merits phase of the Corfu Channel
case4 " in 1949. British ships transiting the Straits of Corfu in a claimed right of
innocent passage struck mines whose presence had not been made known by the
Albanian Government. Thereafter, British minesweepers swept the Channel without
securing Albanian permission. Later, in the International Court, the United Kingdom
sought to use the mines that had been collected in the sweeping operation as evidence
of Albanian responsibility. The United Kingdom justified its action on two grounds.
One related to an agreement among the United Kingdom, France, the Soviet Union, and
the United States, allocating competence for mine clearance. The Court dismissed it
summarily. The second justification is related to the gathering of evidence. As the Court
phrased it, the main defense of the United Kingdom was that "the corpora delicti must
be secured as quickly as possible, for fear they should be taken away, without leaving
traces, by the authors of the minelaying or by the Albanian authorities." The court
20
(UK v. Alb.), 1949 ICJ REP. 4 (Judgment of April 9)
17
admitted evidence concerning the mines that had been unlawfully swept by the United
Kingdom.
3. For precedential purposes, one may say that unlawfully gathered evidence may at least
on the facts of the Corfu Channel case be deemed admissible. (W Michael Reisman
and Eric E. Freedman, The Plaintiff's Dilemma: ILLEGALLY OBTAINED
EVIDENCE AND ADMISSIBILITY IN INTERNATIONAL ADJUDICATION)
PRAYER
WHEREFORE IN LIGHT OF THE FACTS STATED, ISSUES RAISED, ARGUMENTS
ADVANCED, AUTHORITIES CITED, SUBMISSIONS MADE HERETO ABOVE AND
THOSE TO BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING,
1. To declare that JJ Crook is not entitled for diplomatic immunity.

2. To declare that the act of D.I investigating inside the premises without the consent of
the ferrwan authorities was right
3. To declare that the evidences collected from the embassy can be included irrespective
of illegally obtained by the D.I.
4. To declare that for the recoveries made including the remains of Mrs watts shall be not
rejected and excluded from the reliance on account of objection to illegal search and
arrest of Mr J.J Crook.
AND PASS ANY OTHER ORDER, DIRECTION, OR RELIEF THAT THIS

HON’BLE
COURT MAY DEEM FIT AND APPROPORIATE IN THE INTERESTS OF
JUSTICES, EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCES.
ALL WHICH IS HUMBLY PRAYER,
URN: 2191
COUNSELS FOR THE RESPONDENT
18
19

TC URN 2191 R3

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

TC URN 2191 R3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

URN NO.

THE KK LUTHRA MOOT COURT

J.J CROOK...................................................................................................... PETITIONER

- MEMORENDUM ON THE BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT –

AIR ALL INDIA REPORTER

SCC SUPREME COURT OF CASES

ICJ INTERNATIONAL COURT OF

U.S.A UNITED STATE OF AMERICA

CONSTITUTION AND STATUTES

2 VIENNA CONVENTION ON CONSULOR RELATION 1963

3 VIENNA CONVENTION ON CONSULOR RELATION 1963

1 INTERNATIONAL LAW MALCOLM N SHAW

COMMENTRIES BY EILEE DENZA 2ND EDITION

2 REPORT ON DIPLOMATIC AND STATE IMMUNITY IN RESPECT OF CLAIMS

3 NONE OF TEHRE BUSINESS DIPLOMATIC INVILVEMNET IN HUMAN RIGHT

(UK v. Alb.), 1949 ICJ REP. 4 (Judgment of April 9) .......................................................................... 18

ISSUE 1: Is Mr J.J Crook entitled to Diplomatic Immunity

ISSUE 1: Is Mr J.J Crook entitled to Diplomatic Immunity

ISSUE 1: Is Mr.J.J Crook entitled to Diplomatic immunity

1.1 Mr.J. J Crook is not entitled to Diplomatic immunity

immunity.4 India case Civil revisionApplication No 262 of 2010

● PRINCIPLE OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY

● Scope of State Responsibility in the present matter.

2 PREMISES OF THE EMBASSY CAN BE INVESTIGATED WITHOUT IF SOME URGENCY

WHEREFORE IN LIGHT OF THE FACTS STATED, ISSUES RAISED, ARGUMENTS

ADVANCED, AUTHORITIES CITED, SUBMISSIONS MADE HERETO ABOVE AND

THOSE TO BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING,

1. To declare that JJ Crook is not entitled for diplomatic immunity.

AND PASS ANY OTHER ORDER, DIRECTION, OR RELIEF THAT THIS

You might also like