TC-32314A

3rd TIB-DUMCS ANTI-CORRUPTIONMOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023

IN THE INTERNATIONAL ANTI-CORRUPTION COURT

CASE CONCERNING KALINGA SEA

IN THE CASE OF

THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF GAURO (APPLICANT)

v.

PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF HARIKELA (RESPONDENT)

(APPLICANT)

___

____________________________________________________________

Memorial for Applicant

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Contents
LIST OF ABBREVIATION................................................................................................................................. 3
LIST OF SOURCE ............................................................................................................................................... 4
STATEMENT OF THE JURISDICTION ........................................................................................................... 6
STATEMENT OF THE RELEVENT FACT ....................................................................................................... 7
QUESTION PRESENTED ................................................................................................................................ 10
ARGUMENTS ................................................................................................................................................... 14
1. THE DISPUTES ARE MAINTAINABLE IN COURT ............................................................................ 14
1.1.The Shukla Company breached the rules of the Constitution of Gauro ....................................................... 14
1.2.Violation of International Law and Treaties................................................................................................. 14
1.3.Doctrine of Negligence................................................................................................................................. 16
1.4.The Shukla Company Breached The Consumers Rights under United Nations .......................................... 17
1.5.Harikela wanted to take benefits of their relationship with Gauro ............................................................... 19
2. THE CURRENT GOVERNMENT OF GAURO IS LEGITIMATELY ENTITLED TO FILE THE
DISPUTE UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW. ................................................................................................ 21
2.1. Harikela and Shukla Company violated the code of contract in International Law and Treaties: .............. 21
2.2.Negligence of Shukla Company: .................................................................................................................. 22
2.3.Illegally requested Political Asylum in Harikela:......................................................................................... 23
2.4 .Harikela being accused of Bribery: ............................................................................................................. 24
3. HARIKELA AND/OR SHUKLA COMPANY HAS/HAVE VIOLATED INTERNATIONAL LAW
INCLUDING UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION AGAINST CORRUPTION ON COMBATING
BRIBERY OF FOREIGN PUBLIC OFFICIALS IN INTERNATIONAL BUSSINESS TRANSACTIONS. . 25
3.1 Shukla Company violated the code of contract in international law : .......................................................... 25
3.2.Harikela accused of Bribery and violated the (UNCAC) ............................................................................. 26
3.3 Shukla Company aware of their medicine factual circumstances ................................................................ 28
3.4 Harikela Violates the International Law....................................................................................................... 29
4.THE HARIKELA VIOLATED INTERNATIONAL LAW BY NOT RETURNING AVIONOR TO
GAURO AUTHORITIES. ................................................................................................................................. 30
4.1. The Harikela violated sovereignty ............................................................................................................... 30
4.2 The Harikaela violates international Extradition Laws. ............................................................................... 31
4.3.The Harikela violates the law of Diplomatic Immunity ............................................................................... 31
4.4.The Harikela violates the UN Convention against Corruption. .................................................................... 32
PRAYER FOR RELIEF ..................................................................................................................................... 34
 LIST OF ABBREVIATION

➢ ICJ - International Court of Justice.

➢ ICC - International Criminal Court.

➢ UN - United Nation.

➢ UNCAC - United Nation Convention Against Anti-corruption

➢ UNGA - United Nation General Assembly.

➢ UHCR - United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

➢ ICESCR - International Covenant on Economics, Social and Cultural Rights.

➢ UDHR - Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

➢ OHCHR - Office of the High commissioner for Human Rights.

➢ ICCPR - International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

➢ CUP - Committee of Union and Progress.

3
 LIST OF SOURCE

Cases :

1. Devis V. Liverpool [1949] 442 F. Supp.3d 714…………………………………………..18

2. The prosecutor V.Georges Ruggiu(Rwandan genocide[1994]) ICTR-97-32-I………..…22

3. Farrugia V. Gant Western Railway[1947] 2 AII ER 565………………………… ……..18

4. Hansel V Gritel (the Gürtel case)[1992] 86 A.D.2d 858……….………..……………….20

5. Gupta family case………………………………………………...……………………….22

6. Siemens Corruption Scandal case [2008] 707-032-1……………………………………..25

7. Peru V.Colombia [1950] ICJ REP 266,ICGJ……………………………………………..32

8. Corfu Chanel ,United Kingdom V Albania [1949] (Churfu chnnel case) ICJ Rep 244,ICGJ

201(ICJ 1949)……………………………………………………………………...……..33

9. United states V. Iran [1980] 12 V 81……………………………………………………..34

10. Equatorial V. France [2016] ICJ 513 (ICJ 2016) GL.NO 163……………...…………….36

Statutes and Statutory Instruments:

1. Article 6(a) of the International Criminal Court,1998 ……………….…..........................17

2. Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human rights,1948………..………..………..17

3. Article 12 of the International Covenant on Economics, Social and Cultural Rights……17

4. Article 12 of the United Nation Guideline Consumer Protection,1985………..…………18

5. Article 3 of the United Nation Guideline Consumer Protection,1985……………………31

6. Article 8(b)(iv) of the International criminal court,1998………………………………....30

7. Rule 38 of Customary International Humanitarian Law………………….………………32

4
Convention and Treaties:

1. Article 3 of the United Convention against Corruption,2003…………………...………. 21

2. Article 8(1) of the United Convention against Corruption,2003…………………………21

3. Article 12 of the United Convention against Corruption,2003…………….……………..21

4. Article 9 of the United Convention against Corruption,2003…………………….………25

5. Article 15 of the United Convention against Corruption,2003………………….………..29

6. Article -1 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of

genocide………………………………………………………………………………….15

7. Article -2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of

genocide……………………………………………………………….………………….15

8. Article 85(3)(b) of Additional Protocol 1 to the Geneva Convention, 1977……..………30

9. Article 29 of the Viena Conventions 1961……………………………………..…………34

10. Article 31 of Additional Protocol (I) to the Geneva Conventions 1949…..……………. 26

11. Article 2 of The Charter of United Nations,1945…………………………...…………………… 32

Books:

1. .M Rafiqul Islam, International Law –Current Concepts and Future Direction(First

edition).p:369

2. .Molclom N.Shaw ,International Law (Sixth edition)

3. Dr.S.k.Kappor,International Law and Human Rights (Nineteen edition).p:763

5
 STATEMENT OF THE JURISDICTION

Statement of this Jurisdiction - All the crimes charged in the following were committed after the

entry into force of UN Convention Against Corruption. All the crimes charged fall within Article

15 of this Convention. Also, the case was referred by the Security Council, thus the preconditions

to exercise of jurisdiction have been satisfied under Article 42 of the Convention.

6
 STATEMENT OF THE RELEVENT FACT

Overview of the parties

The four nations situated around the area of the Kalinga Sea Region are The People’s Republic of

Gauro, Democratic Republic of Kuru, The People’s Republic Harikela and The Democratic

Republic of Kadampa. Both Gauro and Harikela had develop strong trade relationships, which

accounts more than 70% of the foreign in Gauro belonged to the foreign companies of Harikela.

Gauro’s growing GDP captured worldwide attention. It was praised by world leaders for its fast

economic progress despite the pandemic.

The Role of Kalinga Sea

Kalinga sea played vital roles in global geopolitics due to strategic geographical location.

Harikela, Kuru and Kadampa had fierce competition over the exercise of power over international

maritime trade and business around the area of the Kalinga Sea Region. Its coastline was dotted

with more than 10 seaports. Among these seaports, Chitrangada the largest port was situated

located in Gauro. Harikela used the seaports of Kuru and Gauro for maritime trade purposes.

Although, there was strong rumors about that Harikela had set up a hidden military base in Kuru

and wanted to transfer Gauro’s resources outside.

Treaties and Conventions signed by State Parties

Because of international pressure, especially from Harikela and Kuru, Gauro signed the United

Nations Convention against Corruption and the Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign

Public Officials in International Business Transactions. Gauro also became a signatory to the

International Anti-Corruption Court which was effective from 2018.

7
 Allegations of Corruption and Discrimination

The government of Gauro were repeatedly alleged about taking bribes and “undue advantage”

from Harikela to prioritize their company over other foreign and national companies. Due to

COVID-19 situations, Harikela government and the Shukla Company were accused for bribing

the officials of Gauro which resulted a disaster. Gauro officials were once again accused of lack

of knowledge about health and medical science and infringing the citizens right to life as well as

the non-discrimination and equality principles in the conduct of public procurement procedures. It

was also emphasized how the administration had mismanaged the taxpayer's money.

Political Disputes in Gauro

The Matsya political and military leaders in Gauro split over internal conflict. Which results

protests and the laws and orders completely broke out. Thousand protestors protest against

corruption. They demanded democracy and to eradicate corruption in Gauro. Avinor The

president of Gauro ran away in his chopper and headed to Kuru and then travelled to Harikela.

Then the major leader of Orindom, Kishtigarva proclaimed himself as the nation's president.

There was sporadic protests against Kishtigarva, which the military suppressed through barbaric

attacks on civilians. Kishigarva’s administration started arbitrarily detaining numerous

government officials on charges of corruption. An arrest warrant was issued against him.

Kishtigarva refused about establishing any naval bases at Harikela and Kuru that might

compromise the sovereignty of Gauro. Soon all the companies in Harikela and Kuru began to

wrap up their businesses in Gauro, leading to high unemployment, lack of health service

providers and increased robbery, violence and theft increased dramatically. Kishtigarva’s

government went into an agreement with Kadampa to get access in Gauro’s seaports and

territories for their military base. Kadmpa started to build undersea optical submarine cable

systems for high-speed internet systems and planned to build a system with a landing point

8
around Kuru and Kalinga Sea, which was considered as threat to Kuru. With in few months

insurgent attack was reported against Kuru. Kuru’s military also reported that the insurgents use

artificial intelligence-based weapons. Instead of negotiation with Kuru, Kishtigarva’s government

provoked the military and the people into preparing for war if there was any direct or indirect

attack on Gauro’s interests from neighbouring Kuru. All these drastic changes led to the

bankruptcy of sevaral major banks of Gauro, financial crisis and price hike in Gauro.

Relevant conversations

Both of the states are parties to the United Nations Convention against Corruption, Convention on

Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions, United

Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime, International Covenant on Civil and

Political Rights, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Vienna

Convention on Diplomatic Relations, Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, and Vienna

Convention on the Law of Treaties.

9
 QUESTION PRESENTED

A. Whether the dispute is maintainable before the present court.

B. Whether the current government of Gauro is legitimately entitled to file the dispute under

international law .

C. Whether Harikela and/or Shukla Company has/have violated international law including

United Nations Convention against Corruption and Convention on Combating Bribery of

Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions.

D. Whether the Harikela violated international law by not returning Avinor to Gauro

authorities.

10
 SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS

Pleading 1: Human rights and international humanitarian law violations are prohibited by Article

2. "Right to Life” and “Right to Health’ is an integral part of the article 21 of the constitution of

the Peoples Republic of Gauro which was violated by Harikela's the Shukla Company. During

COVID-19, the Shukla company got the tender for delivering vaccines and establishing a hospital

for the benefits of civilians But after giving the vaccines which was made by the Shukla

Company, the elders faced major adverse effects such as skin diseases and weak heart with in a

month. Few peoples also claimed that they lost their loved ones after taking the vaccines. On July

7, 2021 during the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic the hospital ran out of oxygen which

leds a massacre in the COVID ward of the hospital at midnight. Article I and II of the Convention

on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide states about the definition of

genocides. By not taking initiative steps for the COVID-19 outbreaks in Gauro, The Shukla

Company failed to save several lives because of their medical negligence. The case of DAVIES v.

LIVERPOOL CORPN.,(1949) it was held that the defendants were liable, as the conductor was

negligent in not remaining on the platform. Article 12 of The United Nations Guidelines for

Consumer Protection gives direction about making policies to ensure that goods produced by

manufacturers are safe for the consumers. The Shukla Company also breached the contracts with

Gauro and brought damaged vaccines which affected the elder people. By this way they also

breached the international conventions relating to Humanitiran Laws and treaties and World

Health Organizations protocols. Harikela bribed few officials of Gauro to strong their place in

Gauro. Harikela violated the United Nations Conventions against Corruption. Article 15 of the

conventions which specifies about. Bribery of national public officials clearly states that, each

State Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to establish as

criminal offenses, when committed intentionally.

11
Pleading 2: The Current government of Gauro came into power when Avinor abscond from the

Gauro. Because of allegations and rumors, Gauro government faced initial conflicts between

them. Protests started against the Avinors government because the protestors wanted democracy

and eradicated corruption in Gauro. Kishitigarva, current president of Gauro promised to control

over the situation and make everything good as it was before. Article-25 of Universal Declaration

of Human Rights, 1948 (UDHR) which assures the right to a standard living adequate for the

health and well-being of himself and of his family including housing and medical care and

necessary social services. As Gauro signed the United Nations Conventions against Corruption,

Article 9 assures about the state parties should take necessary steps to establish appropiate

systems of procurement based on transparency and competition and objective critaria in decision

making that are effective in preventing corruption. Kishitigarva and his government started to

follow the international guidelines to establish peace in Gauro. When Kishitigarva's

administration started arbitrarily detaining numerous government officials on charges of

corruption, Avinor's property was seized. An arrest warrant was issued against him. Harikela

refused to send Avinor to Gauro and other officials although they were suspected for political

offence in their country. In leading case of Recastioni, The Queen's bench of England held that,

Castioni had committed a political crime and therefore, he could not be extradited.

Pleading 3: Shukla Company violated the code of contract in international law and they are

violating the article 46 of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale

of Goods.This article states that ,If the goods do not conform with the contract, the buyer may

-require the seller to remedy the lack of conformity by repair, unless this is -unreasonable having

regard to all the circumstances, and also they breach the article 28 which states that If, in

accordance with the provisions of this Convention, one party is entitled to require performance of

any obligation by the other party. According to Additional Protocols I and II of 1977 the concepts

of “wounded,” “sick” and “shipwrecked” were finally defined as including all persons

irrespective of their military or civilian status. But in case of shukla company provide spoiled
12
medicine which side effect attack on the civilan. Harikela violates the International law by giving

asylum and not to return Gauro. Avinor and his miniters cause they all are corrupted and they are

not enjoying asaylum casue which the direct violation of Article 3 of the United Nation Human

Rights Commission. Also, Harikela is accused of bribery and they violates the Chapter 3 of the

convention and the article 15 of (UNCAC).

Pleading 4: Harikela violated Gauro’s sovereignty by not returning Avinor to Gauro. Cause

Gauro had their own sovereign policy and they formally requested Harikela to send Avinor. But

Harikela declined to do so.The principle of sovereignty which codified the UN Charter article

2(1) and they also violates the article 2(4) and (7) of UN charter, which also related the freedom

intervention and sovereignty. Harikela was the one of the strongest allies of the people’s Republic

of Gauro. Harikaela used the seaports of Gauro, so that Kalinga Sea played a vital role in global

geopolitics and diplomatic relations but when Kishtigarva’s government was empowered

Harikela said it is illegitimate government. That’s why diplomatic relations broke down between

the two countries which is a violation of Article (29) of the Vienna convention which said that

Inviolability of diplomatic agents: “The person of diplomatic agent shall be inviolable.

13
 ARGUMENTS

1. THE DISPUTES ARE MAINTAINABLE IN COURT

1.1.The Shukla Company breached the rules of the Constitution of Gauro

According to the Constitution of The Peoples Republic of Gauro, Article-21 states “Right to Life”

and “Right to Health’ is an integral part of the article1. The right was breached by the Shukla

company during the wave of COVID-19. The former president Avinor and his officials went into

a contract with Shukla company about providing COVID-19 vaccines and establishing a hospital

for the victims. After providing the vaccines, many patients, particularly the elderly, reported

major side effects such as skin disease and weakness of heart2. Numerous posts of social media

claimed that after taking the vaccines provided by the Shukla Company, many family lost their

loved ones. Again, Because their negligence, several academics and members of Yadu tribe lost

their lives due to lack of oxygen. Later it was discovered that the local doctors of the hospitals

had urgently sought help from the hospital officials and from the hospital administration which

was basically run by the Shukla Company appointees, but they had been turned down because the

patient belonged to Yadu tribe.

1.2.Violation of International Law and Treaties

According to the Article-I of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of

Genocide states that,The contracting parties confirms that genocide, whether committed in time

of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and

punish.3

Article-II of Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide also gives

some acts which confirms that the following incidents may call genocide or not. It states that, In

the present convention, genocide means killing members of the group, causing serious or badly

1
Moot proposition [24]
2
Moot proposition [17]
3
Article 1, The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG), 1948
14
harm to members of the group.4

In the Armenian genocide was the systematic destruction of the Armenian people and identity in

the Ottoman Empire during World War I. Spearheaded by the ruling Committee of Union and

Progress (CUP), it was implemented primarily through the mass murder of around one million

Armenians during death marches to the Syrian Desert and the forced Islamization of others,

primarily women and children. The Ottoman authorities arrested and deported hundreds of

Armenian intellectuals and leaders from Constantinople. Leading doctors were among the

decision makers responsible for a million or mo In Rwandan genocide,1994 case, Hutu political

and military extremists orchestrated the killing of approximately three quarters of Rwanda’s Tutsi

population, leaving more than half a million people dead. Many Hutu who attempted to hide or

defend Tutsi and those who opposed the genocide were also killed. Hutu doctors led killings of

Tutsis in Rwanda. The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR or the IRMCT as its

successor) convicted 61 individuals: 26 of whom are currently serving sentences, 22 of whom

have completed their sentences, and 13 of whom died while serving their sentences. The Tribunal

acquitted 14 individuals and transferred the cases against 10 individuals to national jurisdictions.5

In Bosnian war, more than 100,000 people and the displacement of 2 million men, women and

children’s were done by the Serbians. A campaign of war crimes, ‘ethnic cleansing’ and genocide

was perpetrated by Bosnian Serb troops under the orders of Slobodan Milošević. It is estimated

that between 20-50,000 women were raped during the war in Bosnia, as part of a strategy of

ethnic cleansing. Serbian doctors have been indicted by the International Criminal Tribunal at

The Hague for their part in massacres in Bosnia and Croatia. Armenians dying in Turkey in 1915.

Doctors admitting to these crimes blamed “loss of control ... collective madness” or that “traitors

had found a niche for themselves in the bosom of the fatherland; they were dangerous microbes.

Isn't it the duty of a doctor to destroy these microbes?”6

4
Article 2, The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG), 1948
5
The Rwandan Genocide, 1994
6
Baron JH. Genocidal doctors. J R Soc Med. 1999;92:590–593.
15
As the Shukla Company killed many people by giving their vaccines and causing serious side

effects and also killing few members from Yadu tribe who were the competent members of

Harikela and Kuru by not providing oxygens on time indicates to genocide according to the

convention. This is a serious violation of international law. The Shukla Company also violated,

Article 6 (a) of the International Criminal Court states The following elements of Genocide by

killing. Namely,

1. The perpetrator killed one or more persons.

2. Such person or persons belonged to a particular national, ethnical, racial or religious group.

3. The perpetrator intended to destroy, in whole or in part, that national, ethnical, racial or

religious group, as such,

4. The conduct took place in the context of a manifest pattern of similar conduct directed against

that group or was conduct that could itself effect such destruction.7

Article-25 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 (UDHR) which assures the right to

a standard living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family including

housing and medical care and necessary social services.8

Article-12 (1) of International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)

states that, The state parties to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and

mental health.9

1.3.Doctrine of Negligence

Negligence is a failure to exercise appropriate and/or ethical ruled care expected to be exercised

amongst specified circumstances. The area of tort law known as negligence involves harm caused

by failing to act as a form of carelessness-possibly with extenuating circumstances. The core

concept of negligence is that people should exercise reasonable care in their actions, by taking

account of the potential harm that they might foreseeably cause to other people or property.

7
Article 6 (a) , International Criminal Court ,1998
8
Article 25, Universal Declaration of Human Rights,1948
9
Article 12, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), 1966
16
Someone who suffers loss caused by another's negligence may be able to sue for damages to

compensate for their harm. Such loss may include physical injury, harm to property, psychiatric

illness, or economic loss. The law on negligence may be assessed in general terms according to a

five-part model which includes the assessment of duty, breach, actual cause, proximate cause, and

damages.

After not taking initiative steps for the COVID-19 outbreaks in Gauro, The Shukla Company

failed to save several lives because of their medical negligence. Not making proper vaccines to

prevent COVID-19 outbreak and not providing Oxygens to their renowned hospitals was the

main reason10. In the case of DAVIES v. LIVERPOOL CORPN.,(1949)it was held that the

defendants were liable, as the conductor was negligent in not remaining on the platform. He

should have foreseen that any unauthorised person might start the tram11.

In another case named FARRUGIA v. GRANT WESTERN RAILWAY, (1947) it was held that the

defendant company was carrying a potential source of danger and owed a duty of care to anyone

who might be on the highway, whether lawfully or unlawfully.12

1.4.The Shukla Company Breached The Consumers Rights under United Nations

According to the Article 12 of The United Nations Guidelines for Consumer Protection states

that, Appropriate policies should ensure that goods produced by manufacturers are safe for either

intended or normally foreseeable use13. Those responsible for bringing goods to the market, in

particular suppliers, exporters, importers, retailers and the like (hereinafter referred to as

"distributors"), should ensure that while in their care these goods are not rendered unsafe through

improper handling or storage and that while in their care they do not become hazardous through

improper handling or storage. Consumers should be instructed in the proper use of goods and

should be informed of the risks involved in intended or normally foreseeable use. Vital safety

information should be conveyed to consumers by internationally understandable symbols

10
Moot proposition [18]
11
442 F.Supp.3d 714
12
[1947] 2 AII ER 565
13
Article 12, The United Nations Guidelines for Consumer Protection,1985
17
wherever possible.

The Coronavirus has put in place the need to reflect on a new definition of the current contractual

remedies in order to find a balance between the right of consumers in case they are in a position

to give up the purchase of goods and services to protect the primary right to health, and the rights

of companies in case they are forced to issue refunds. In this case, the rules that apply require that

the consumer who see the event cancelled due to the health emergency can exercise the right to

have returned the amount paid or even part of the cost of the subscription or ticket purchased. In

the light of the emergency we are experiencing, it is necessary to rethink the protection of

consumers or contractors by paying special attention to business, users and consumers.

In Working draft of Human Rights principle for a Pandemic Treaty, which was prepared by ICJ

and GHLC in consultation with an experts is intended to provide guidance to the INB and WHO

Member States to incorporate human rights into the negotiation of the proposed "Pandemic

Treaty" from the outset and establish clear mechanisms for meaningful civil society consultation.

Principle 4 of the treaty states that, The Pandemic Treaty should expressly prohibit any State or

third party action or omission that serves to prevent or cause undue impediments to equitable

access to quality diagnostics, medications, vaccines, therapeutics and other relevant health

products and services, and reaffirm the positive obligation of States, individually and collectively,

to guarantee equitable access to quality diagnostics, medications, vaccines, therapeutics and other

relevant health products and services in the context of pandemics.14

The Shukla Company did not went through a tender process as Harikela is already investing in

Gauro, despite that there was numerous local and foreign company who were interested in

providing the COVID-19 vaccines at the lowest price.15 The Kedara Company from Kadampa

was one of them. They were already renowned for providing vaccines for various diseases all

over the world. They also provided a copy of a formal interest for providing vaccines in Gauro

but Harikela induced the officials of Gauro and took the opportunity and provided outdated

14
Principle 4, Human rights principle for penamic Treaty, 2021
15
Moot proposition [20]
18
vaccines with higher cost and established a malfunctioned hospital for the COVID-19 patients

which took lives of several people rather saving them from COVID-19 pandemic.

1.5.Harikela wanted to take benefits of their relationship with Gauro

Harikela wanted to develop strong trade relationships by investing in various sectors of Gauro

including health care, communication, IT, banking, food and beverage and most importantly in

the power plants for electricity.16 Harikela wanted Gauro to depend on themselves for the basic

needs and make a way to transfer Gauro’s resources outside. As Harikela bribed few senior

officials from the beginning, when Gauro introduced a policy requiring foreign companies to

have 70% local content participation and 40% of the grand profit of all multinational companies

to be invested for the development of Gauro, The senior government officials of Gauro termed

this political Demand ‘unreasonable and demotivating.”17 As Gauro signed the United Nations

Convention against Corruption under international pressure, Article 3 of the Convention specifies

about the scope of application of the convention It clarifies;

1. This Convention shall apply, in accordance with its terms, to the prevention, investigation and

prosecution of corruption and to the freezing, seizure, confiscation and return of the proceeds of

offenses established in accordance with this Convention.

2. For the purposes of implementing this Convention, it shall not be necessary, except as

otherwise stated herein, for the offenses set forth in it to result in damage or harm to state

property.18

According to Article 8 (1) of the conventions, In order to fight corruption, each state party shall

promote, inter alia, integrity, honesty and responsibility among its public officials, in accordance

with the fundamental principle of its legal system.19

16
Moot proposition[4]
17
Moot proposition[7]
18
Article 3,United Nations Convention against Corruption,2003
19
Article 8(1),United Nations Convention against Corruption,2003
19
Article 12 (3) of the conventions also states that, In order to prevent corruption, each State Party

shall take such measures as may be necessary, in accordance with its domestic laws and

regulations regarding the maintenance of books and records, financial statement disclosures and

accounting and auditing standards, to prohibit the following acts carried out for the purpose of

committing any of the offenses established in accordance with this Convention:

(a) The establishment of off-the-books accounts;

(b) The making of off-the-books or inadequately identified transactions;

(c) The recording of non-existent expenditure;

(d) The entry of liabilities with incorrect identification of their objects;

(e) The use of false documents; and

(f) The intentional destruction of bookkeeping documents earlier than foreseen by the law20.

Chapter 3 of the conventions clearly states about criminalization and law enforcement against

corruption. According to Article 15 of the conventions, which specifies about Bribery of national

public officials clearly states that, each State Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures

as may be necessary to establish as criminal offenses, when committed intentionally:

(a) The promise, offering or giving, to a public official, directly or indirectly, of an undue

advantage, for the official himself or herself or another person or entity, in order that the official

act or refrain from acting in the exercise of his or her official duties;

(b) The solicitation or acceptance by a public official, directly or indirectly, of an undue

advantage, for the official himself or herself or another person or entity, in order that the official

act or refrain from acting in the exercise of his or her official duties.21

By bribing the senior officials of Gauro, Harikela Violated the UN Conventions against

Corruption.

‘The Gürtel case’ has grown into to the biggest corruption scandal in Spain's democratic history,

reaching all the way up to the president's office. At the centre, the complex scheme funneled

20
Article 12(3).ibid.
21
Article 15.ibid
20
illicit donations and bribes to the then-ruling party in exchange for rigged government contracts22.

the heart of the scandal, Francisco Correa eventually received a 51-year jail sentence, while a

close ally and former treasurer of former president Mariano Rajoy was fined nearly

US$50million.

‘The Gupta Family case’ is one of the leading case in the world for bribery and corruption. the

Gupta family took control of South Africa. Through allegedly bribing politicians, giving lucrative

jobs to President Zuma's children and other ways of buying influence, Ajay, Atul, and Rajesh

Gupta captured the state23.The Gupta family took as much as US$7 billion in government funds,

including a US$4.4 billion supply contract with South Africa's rail and port company. The Guptas

also hired and fired government ministers, while the president fired tax officials and intelligence

chiefs to protect them from investigation.

2. THE CURRENT GOVERNMENT OF GAURO IS LEGITIMATELY

ENTITLED TO FILE THE DISPUTE UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW.

2.1. Harikela and Shukla Company violated the code of contract in International Law
and Treaties:

According to the Article-I of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of

Genocide states that, The contracting parties confirms that genocide, whether committed in time

of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and

punish.24

Article-II of Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide also gives

some acts which confirms that the following incidents may call genocide or not. It states that, In

the present convention, genocide means killing members of the group, causing serious or badly

harm to members of the group. As the Shukla Company killed many people by giving their

vaccines and causing serious side effects and also killing few members from Yadu tribe who were

22
[1992]86 A.D.2d 858
23
[1980] AR 52
24
Article 1, The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG), 1948
21
the competent members of Harikela and Kuru by not providing oxygens on time indicates to

genocide according to the convention. This is a serious violation of international law. The Shukla

Company also violated.25

Article-25 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 (UDHR) which assures the right to a

standard living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family including

housing and medical care and necessary social services26 and Article-12 (1) of International

Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) states that, The state parties to the

enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.27

The Constitution of Gauro recognized the Right to Health as an integral part of the Right to Life

under Article 21 of the Constitution. The right to health care and protection has been recognized

since the independence of the country. The Constitution of Gauro recognizes that the people of

the country are the right holders.

2.2.Negligence of Shukla Company:

Negligence is a failure to exercise appropriate and/or ethical ruled care expected to be exercised

amongst specified circumstances. The core concept of negligence is that people should exercise

reasonable care in their actions, by taking account of the potential harm that they might

foreseeably cause to other people or property. Someone who suffers loss caused by another's

negligence may be able to sue for damages to compensate for their harm. Such loss may include

physical injury, harm to property, psychiatric illness, or economic loss. The law on negligence

may be assessed in general terms according to a five-part model which includes the assessment of

duty, breach, actual cause, proximate cause, and damages. After not taking initiative steps for the

COVID-19 outbreaks in Gauro, The Shukla Company failed to save several lives because of their

medical negligence. Not making proper vaccines to prevent COVID-19 outbreak and not

providing Oxygens to their renowned hospitals was the main reason. In the case of DAVIES v.

25
Article 2, The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG), 1948
26
Article 25, Universal Declaration of Human Rights,1948
27
Article 12, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR),1966
22
‘LIVERPOOL CORPN’ (1949) it was held that the defendants were liable, as the conductor was

negligent in not remaining on the platform. He should have foreseen that any unauthorized person

might start the tram. In another case named ‘FARRUGIA v. GRANT WESTERN RAILWAY’

(1947) it was held that the defendant company was carrying a potential source of danger and

owed a duty of care to anyone who might be on the highway, whether lawfully or unlawfully.

At the beginning of 2020, Avinor, under international pressure, especially from Harikela and

Kuru, signed the UN Convention against Corruption and the Convention on Combating Bribery

of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions.28 At the request of Harikela,

Gauro also became a signatory to the International Anti-Corruption Court, which was effective

from 2018. Gauro's economic progress and stance against corruption were highly praised in the

international media, especially in the newspapers in Harikela. Soon, Avionor declared that Gauro

would establish a policy and transparent system for public procurement. He promised to introduce

new laws against bribery and corruption in line with international conventions.

Article 9 of the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC), which is also

applicable to Gauro as a state party: Each State Party shall, in accordance with the fundamental

principles of its legal system, take the necessary steps to establish appropriate systems of

procurement based on transparency, competition, and objective criteria in decision-making that

are effective, inter alia, in preventing corruption.29

2.3.Illegally requested Political Asylum in Harikela:

When Kishitigarva's administration started arbitrarily detaining numerous government officials

on charges of corruption, Avinor's property was seized. An arrest warrant was issued against him.

In several public events, Avinor was portrayed as a villain by Orindom's leaders, who repeatedly

asked for Avinor's punishment without trial. Many Gauro officials and ministers fled the nation

28
Moot proposition[12]
29
Article 9, United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC),2003
23
and sought refuge in Kuru and Harikela. They shared information regarding the detention of

hundreds of government officials who were barred from seeing attorneys. Avinor and many other

ministers, including those in charge of health and communication, requested political asylum in

Harikela.30 They were granted a temporary visa to remain in the country while the government

considered their request for political asylum in light of the political climate of the nation. A press

release by the officials of Gauro stated that this was a blatant infringement of internal affairs of

Gauro. Harikela, on request of Gauro, refused to return Avinor and other officials to Gauro for

facing justice regarding extraditable offenses, which was considered a blatant violation of

international law by Gauro.

According to Article-31 of The Geneva Convention Related to the Status of Refugees is the main

source of legal protections.31 According to the International Humanitarian Law, refugees are

primarily considered as civilians who have lost the protection of their government. IHL therefore

interprets the concept of refugees more broadly to the protection of civilians and of population

displacements caused by armed conflict. So any person or refugees can seek asylum but not as

illegally to escape from own state or for concealing thyself.

2.4 .Harikela being accused of Bribery:

Gauro and Harikela are State Parties to the Statute of the International Anti-Corruption Court

which was effective from 2018. Both states are parties to the United Nations Convention against

Corruption, Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International

Business Transactions, United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime,

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, International Covenant on Economic, Social

and Cultural Rights, Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, Vienna Convention on

30
Moot proposition [28]
31
Article 31, The Geneva convention,1949
24
Consular Relations, and Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties32.

Harikela and Kuru, signed the UN Convention against Corruption and the Convention on

Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions. At the

request of Harikela, Gauro also became a signatory to the International Anti-Corruption Court,

which was effective from 2018. So, Herikela was a certified country of this convention and they

violated the UN Convention against Corruption by bribing the senior officials of Gauro. ‘Siemens

Corruption Scandal case’ where Siemens has a company and they want to get a contract from

united nation oil-food-program, and his company to pay bribes to get the contract 33. So, in this

scenario, Harikela pay the bribes Gauro government to trafficking natural resource.

3. HARIKELA AND/OR SHUKLA COMPANY HAS/HAVE VIOLATED

INTERNATIONAL LAW INCLUDING UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION
AGAINST CORRUPTION ON COMBATING BRIBERY OF FOREIGN
PUBLIC OFFICIALS IN INTERNATIONAL BUSSINESS TRANSACTIONS.

3.1 Shukla Company violated the code of contract in international law :

The Gauro government and the Shukla Company having a contract in 2021 to supply the

COVID-19 vaccine. Additionally, it was given a contract to build a hospital for COVID-19

patients and to provide Gauro with oxygen .After receiving the initial dosage of the vaccine

supplied by the Shukla Company, many patients, particularly the elderly, reported major adverse

effects such as skin diseases and weak hearts within a month and the second wave of the

COVID-19 pandemic started in Gauro in July 2021. Despite receiving the initial dose, several

academics and members of the Yadu tribe's civil society were admitted to the Shukla Company-

owned hospital. Unfortunately, at midnight on July 7, 2021, the hospital ran out of oxygen.34

Many of the Yadu tribe's scholars and civil society participants who were admitted to the COVID

32
Moot proposition[12]
33
[2008] 707-032-1
34
Moot Proposition[18]
25
ward died at midnight reportedly due to lack of oxygen support.

According to the international law, A contract is international when it has certain links with more

than one states. So, in the fact Shukla company has link with the Gauro and they are having a

contract and this contract is international contract. According to the, article 46 of the United

Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods states that ,If the goods do

not conform with the contract, the buyer may -require the seller to remedy the lack of conformity

by repair, unless this is -unreasonable having regard to all the circumstances,35 and also article 28

of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods states that If,

in accordance with the provisions of this Convention, one party is entitled to require performance

of any obligation by the other party.36 So, the fact was Shukla company are not performing in this

case which Gauro want his contract cause after receiving the initial dosage of the vaccine the side

effect such as skin diseases and weak hearts and because of their negligence Many of the Yadu

tribe's scholars and civil society participants who were admitted to the COVID ward died at

midnight reportedly due to lack of oxygen support.

3.2.Harikela accused of Bribery and violated the (UNCAC)

Harikela was well develop nation in his all sector and they want to invest in Gauro for spreading

his business and develop the Gauro social economic structure.37 But their intention was not like

that, their intention was guro was a natural resourceful country, if they invest more they get more

benefit and for their investment to secure in Gauro their health sector famous ‘Shukla’ CEO of

the company company got married to the youngest daughter of Avinor , and they give vast

amount of property was registered in Harikela in the name of Avinor’s daughter. Also, some

newspaper and media reported that these properties were actually given as a bribe to Avinor to

35
Article 46, United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods ,1980
36
Article 28, ibid.
37
Moot Prposition[4]
26
secure their investment in Gauro.38 Because of bribery Gauro government given the tender to

shukla and violating the practice of giving to the lowest price bid.

Chapter 3 of the convention clearly states about criminalization and law enforcement against

corruption. According to article 15 of the United nation convention against anti-corruption

(UNCAC) specifies about the Bribery of national public officials and clearly states that Each

State Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to establish as

criminal offences, when committed intentionally:

(a) The promise, offering or giving, to a public official, directly or indirectly, of an undue

advantage, for the official himself or herself or another person or entity, in order that the official

act or refrain from acting in the exercise of his or her official duties;

(b) The solicitation or acceptance by a public official, directly or indirectly, of an undue

advantage, for the official himself or herself or another person or entity, in order that the official

act or refrain from acting in the exercise of his or her official duties.39

Harikela and Kuru, signed the UN Convention against Corruption and the Convention on

Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions. At the

request of Harikela, Gauro also became a signatory to the International Anti-Corruption Court,

which was effective from 2018.40 So, Herikela was a certified country of this convention and they

violated the UN Convention against Corruption by bribing the senior officials of Gauro. ‘Siemens

Corruption Scandal case’ where Siemens has a company and they want to get a contract from

united nation oil-food-program, and his company to pay bribes to get the contract. So in this

scenario, Harikela pay the bribes Gauro government to trafficking natural resource.

38
Moot proposition[11]
39
Article 15, United nation convention against anti-corruption (UNCAC),2003
40
Moot proposition[12]
27
 3.3 Shukla Company aware of their medicine factual circumstances

In 2021 Gauro and Shukla company agree with a contract that Shukla company Supply the

COVID-19 Vaccine and also build a hospital COVID-19 patients to provide Gauro with

oxygen.41 For this contract, they give bribery Gauro government and that’s why violating the

practice of giving to the lowest price bid. This circumstances indicate that their product are not

secure and it has some defeat. After receiving the initial dosage of the vaccine supplied by the

Shukla Company, many patients, particularly the elderly, reported major adverse effects such as

skin diseases and weak hearts within a month and the second wave of the COVID-19 the initial

dose, several academics and members of the Yadu tribe's civil society were admitted to the

Shukla Company-owned hospital and some people are died.42 So, they intentionally do this crime

and it’s a part of Crime against humanity and intentionally killing or wounding people.

According to Additional Protocols I and II of 1977 that the concepts of “wounded,” “sick” and

“shipwrecked” were finally defined as including all persons irrespective of their military or

civilian status. Thus, according to Additional Protocol I: ‘wounded’ and ‘sick’ mean persons,

whether military or civilian, who, because of trauma, disease or other physical or mental disorder

or disability, are in need of medical assistance or care and who refrain from any act of hostility

and also the ICC statutes Article 8 (2)(b)(iv) and 14 Rule of the CIHL study states that,

Launching an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of life, injury to civilians,

damage to civilian object, or a combination thereof ,which would be excessive in relation to

concrete and direct military advantage anticipated is prohibited.43 Article 85(3)(b) of Additional

protocol I also states the same recommendation.44 So, Shukla company intentionally attack Gauro

civilian by using harmful medicine, As a result huge damage and injury happened. For the fact

indicate that shukla company violated the all international legislation.

41
Moot proposition[14]
42
Moot Proposition[20]
43
Articlen8(2)(iv), Internatinal Criminal Court,1998
44
Article 85(3)(b), Additional Protocal I,1977
28
 3.4 Harikela Violates the International Law

In the beginning of 2023, Avinor quickly took of from the presidential residence in a chopper and

headed for Kuru and then he travelled to Harikela because of the investigation ensure that Gauro

government is corrupted.45 After some times, Avinor and many other ministers, including those in

charge of health and communication, requested political asylum in Harikela and they were

granted a temporary visa to remain in the country while the government considered their request

for political asylum in light of the political climate of the nation. Harikela, on request of Gauro,

refused to return Avinor and other officials to Gauro and again requested that Harikela to convict

the Shukla Company for breaching the UN Convention against Corruption. They also said that

Harikela to send Avinor and other officials back to Gauro so that they could be prosecuted in the

local courts. Harikela declined to do so, saying that they did not recognize the government of

Gauro as a legitimate government.46

Article 3 of the United Nation Human Rights Commission States that, No one seeking or

enjoying asylum in accordance with the Universal declaration of the Human Rights, should,

except for overriding reasons of the population, be subjected, to measures such as rejection at the

frontier, return or explusion which would result in compelling him to return to or remain in a

territory if there is a well-founder fear of prosecution endergering his life, physical integrity or

liberty in that territory.47 So in this fact Avinor and his ministry is fully corrupted and by taking

bribery they access the sukla company medicine and this use of medicine causing serious damage

also death. So, in this provision Avinor and his ministry are not eligable to claim asylum. By

giving asylum Harikela violated the rules and regulation of Asylum.

45
Moot proposition[27]
46
Moot proposition[30]
47
Article 3, United Nation Human rights Commission,1946
29
In the famous case of asylum ‘Peru Vs Colombia’ (1950) states that if any person are granted to

asylum if he fulfill the rules and regulation of asylum. But in this case Avinor is corrupted person

and his intention was to escape from the country 48.So he did not fulfill the condition of asylum.

4.THE HARIKELA VIOLATED INTERNATIONAL LAW BY NOT RETURNING

AVIONOR TO GAURO AUTHORITIES.

4.1. The Harikela violated sovereignty

Some Countries may prioritize their own sovereignty and national interests over international

agreements or conventions. They may argue that granting asylum is a matter of their own national

discretion. Harikela violated Gauro’s sovereignty by not returning Avinor to Gauro. Cause Gauro

had their own sovereign policy and they formally requested Harikela to send Avinor.49 But

Harikela declined to do so.

The principle of ‘sovereign’ equality of its member states as guaranteed in Article- 2(1) of the UN

charter, provided states have supreme authority within their territory, the plenitude of internal

jurisdiction, their immunity from other states own jurisdiction, and their freedom from other

states intervention on their territory.50 Art 2(4) and (7) of UN charter, but also their equal rank to

other sovereign states are consequences of their sovereignty.51

In thee Corfu Channel Case (1949), between UK and Albania in relation to violate in

international law: ICJ said, “No state has got any right to use its territorial sovereignty to the

detriment of other country. Harikela violates the rule of law of territorial sovereignty by not

returning Avinor to Gauro.

48
[1950]ICJ Rep266
49
Moot proposition[33]
50
Article 2, United Nation Charter 1945
51
Article 7,ibid.
30
 4.2 The Harikaela violates international Extradition Laws.

The Harikela violated international Extradition Law by not returning Avinor to Gauro

Authorities. The Gauro formally requested Harikela to send Avinor to Gauro so that they could be

prosecuted in the local courts. But the Harikela declined to do so and said that they could not

return people who were asking for political asylum from prosecution.

Extradition is a cooperative effort that uses international law to hand over a suspected or

convicted international criminal from one state or country to another for criminal prosecution.

Asylum is when a person, who is afraid of being prosecuted in his home state, runs away to

another state for protection.

In the case of ‘Colombia Vs Peru’ (1950), it was held by the court that they are exclusive. There

is either extradition or asylum. Many ask the question of why it is important to bring him back to

the country where he has committed the crime. Why can’t he just be tried in the country he has

been caught in? The reason it is important to bring him back is because there are different legal

proceedings in different countries. This case related to Harikela violates international extradition

laws because Harikela did not return Avinor to Gauro. Cause Gauro wanted to bring Avinor to

the country to trial the legal proceedings the corruption he had done.

4.3.The Harikela violates the law of Diplomatic Immunity

The Harikela was the one of the strongest allies of the people’s Republic of Gauro.Harikaela

used the seaports of Gauro, so that Kalinga Sea played a vital role in global geopolitics and

diplomatic relations.52 Harikela’s minister praised Avinor for bringing stability and peace to

Gauro. But when Kishtigarva’s government was empowered Harikela said it is illegitimate

government. That’s why diplomatic relations broke down between the two countries.

The law on diplomatic immunities is double edged that encompasses both privilege for diplomat

and consular officials and obligations for receiving state to protect the diplomat and his property
52
Moot Proposition[3]
31
in order that he may carry out his functions effectively. Article-29 of the Vienna convention said

that Inviolability of diplomatic agents: “The person of diplomatic agent shall be inviolable. He

shall not be liable to any form of arrest or detention. The receiving state shall treat him with due

respect and shall take all appropriate steps to prevent any attack on his person, freedom, or

dignity.”53

The ICJ in United States Diplomatic and Consular staff in Tehran ‘United States Vs Iran’ Case,

(1980) has characterized the diplomatic immunity law in the Vienna convention as constituting:

self-contained regime, which on the one hand, lays down the receiving states obligations

regarding the facilities, privileges, and immunities to be accorded to diplomatic missions and on

the other hand, forces their possible abuse by members of the mission. In its judgment of 24 May

1980, found that Iran had violated and was still violating obligations owned by it to the United

States under conventions in force between two countries and rules of general international law54.

So, as per this judgment, Harikela destroyed international friendly relations between the Gauro by

not returning Avinor to Gauro. On the other hand, harikela called Kishtigarva’s government

illegitimate. As a result of which the diplomatic relations of the two countries have been

damaged. So, we can say Harikela violates the law of diplomatic immunity on the grounds of

international law.

4.4.The Harikela violates the UN Convention against Corruption.

The Harikela’s government gave political asylum to Avinor in violation of UN convention

against corruption. One of the major companies in Harikela that was investing in the health sector

of Gauro was “Shukla”. The Gauro government awarded the Shukla company a contract in 2021

to supply the Covid-19 Vaccine.55 But the Shukla company resorted to corruption. Shukla

company sends adulterated medicine to Gauro. That’s why after receiving the initial dosage of the

vaccine supplied by the Shukla company many patients are feel sick.

53
Article 29, Viena convention ,1961
54
[1980] 12 V 81
55
Moot proposition[14]
32
United Nation Convention against Corruption concerned about the seriousness of problem and

threats posed by corruption to the stability and security of societies, undermining the institutions

and values of democracy, ethical values and justice jeopardizing sustainable development and the

rule of law. Article-1 of the United Nation Convention says the purpose of this convention are:

(a) To promote and strengthen measures to prevent and combat corruption more efficiently and

effectively.

(b) To promote, facilitate and support international cooperation and technical assistance in the

prevention of corruption, including asset recovery.56

Article -5 of this Convention says, each state party shall, in accordance with the fundamental

principles of its legal system, develop and implement or maintain effective, coordinated anti-

corruption policies that promote the participation of society and reflect the principles of the rule

of law, proper management of public affairs and public property integrity, transparency and

accountability.57

In the case of ‘Equatorial Guinea Vs France’ (2016), the Republic of Equatorial Guinea

instituted proceedings against the French Republic before the ICJ, the principle judicial organ of

the United Nations, with regard to a dispute concerning the alleged violation by France, of its

Obligations under the United Nations convention against corruption of 31 October, 2003 on the

grounds that France has not returned to Equatorial Guinea property which “constitutes the

proceeds of a crime of misappropriation of public funds committed against it58. This case related

to the Harikela and Gauro issues. Here, Harikela commits corruption by supplying adulterated

medicine to Gauro. Again, it gives political shelter to the Avinor who helps to the corruption.

Harikela is not returning Avinor to Gauro as a form of corruption because Avinor is a citizen of

Gauro, Gauro’s public resource. So, Harikela violates the law of UN Convention against

Corruption.

56
Article-1 , United nation convention against anti-corruption (UNCAC),2003
57
Article-5, ibid.
58
[2016]ICJ 513
33
 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

In light of the legal precedents and principles cited; and in light of the pursuant to the Order of the

Court, and the agreement of the parties; and pleadings advanced, the prosecutor, respectfully

requests and most humbly prays that the International Criminal Court to adjudge and declare that:

a) Harikela wanted to priorities their businesses in Gauro and take as much as

possible commissions from the Government of Gauro for their service.

b) Herikela intention was smuggling to all Gauro natural resource not to developed

diplomatic economic Condition.

c) Shukla Company intentionally supply the spoiled medicine to kill the people.

d) Shukla Company willfully violates people of Gauro Constitutional right.

AND/OR

Pass any other order that it deems fit in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.

34