- •Table of contents
- •III. Rigalia’s limited ban of the Mavazi for Zetian women and girls is consistent with international law 9
- •IV. Ardenia’s failure to investigate and prosecute the alleged corruption and to provide legal assistance to Rigalia constitute breaches of the oecd Anti-Bribery Convention 16
- •Index of authorities
- •I. International materials
- •II. Jurisprudence
- •III. Secondary materials: monographs
- •IV. Secondary materials: articles
- •V. Other materials
- •Statement of jurisdiction
- •Questions presented
- •Statement of facts
- •Summary of pleadings
- •Pleadings
- •A. Rigalia’s Predator Drone strikes against Zetian terrorists in Rigalia and Ardenia were in accordance with the provisions of international law
- •1. Unlawful Zetians’ actions countenanced by Ardenia infringed some international provisions
- •I. Zetian terrorists violated some provisions of the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings
- •II. Ardenia supported Zetian terrorists in committing the act of aggression
- •2. Predator Drone launching was a self-defense act of Rigalia
- •B. The Court has no prerogative to stop the drone attacks
- •A. Rigalia does not have to bear the responsibility to hold an inquiry into the attack or to make up for it since the attack on the Bakchar Valley hospital was not related to Rigalia
- •1. Rigalia is not responsible for the attack on the Bakchar Valley hospital
- •2. Rigalia is not obliged to scrutinize the attack and to compensate Ardenia for it
- •B. The act of Rigalia should be considered as a part of a legal and balanced antiterrorism operation
- •1. Actions of Rigalia were consistent with international law
- •2. Actions of Rigalia and Morgania were adequate to the situation
- •III. Rigalia’s limited ban of the Mavazi for Zetian women and girls is consistent with international law
- •A. Rigalia’s ban of the Mavazi for Zetian women and girls does not violate their rights under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
- •B. Rigalia’s ban of the Mavazi for Zetian women and girls does not violate their rights under the Convention on the Rights of the Child
- •C. Rigalia’s ban of the Mavazi for Zetian women and girls protects their rights
- •1. “Mavazi ban” terminates the women discrimination and provide gender equality
- •2. Zetians girls and women wear Mavazi because they are threatened with beatings
- •3. Zetian girls and women wear Mavazi because they are may be punished by being confined to their homes for long periods of time if they refused to wear this garment
- •4. If Rigalian women refused to wear this full-veil, they are forced to leave the Zetian Provinces
- •IV. Ardenia’s failure to investigate and prosecute the alleged corruption and to provide legal assistance to Rigalia constitute breaches of the oecd Anti-Bribery Convention
- •A. Ardenia has been unfairly subtracting from its obligations to initiate a corruption inquiry
- •1. Rigalian authorities suspect mdi of bribery surrounding the renewal of the Moria Mine exploration contract
- •2. Rigalian authorities suspect mdi of bribing members of the provincial tribal councils in the Northern Provinces of Rigalia
- •B. Ardenia was obliged to provide legal assistance but did not respond to Rigalia's mla request
- •C. Ardenia breached the oecd Decision on mne Guidelines
- •Conclusion and prayer for relief
A. Ardenia has been unfairly subtracting from its obligations to initiate a corruption inquiry
1. Rigalian authorities suspect mdi of bribery surrounding the renewal of the Moria Mine exploration contract
The Respondent considers that there are sufficient grounds for the investigation of bribery of foreign public official to be initiated. Seeing the media report the renewal of contract between RRI (Rigalian state-owned enterprise) and MDI (Ardenian state-owned corporation) was secured through MDI’s offer of support to the ZRF (Ardenian Zetian Refugees Fund founded by Clyde Zangara) and through cash payment of money and shares in MDI held in trust for Clyde Zangara. Moreover some of these monies were allegedly funneled through the ZRF to support the ZDP (Zetian Democratic Party). The same allegations were presented in police report by a former MDI employee’s who substantiated the media allegations of corruption implicating Leo Bikra, Clyde Zangara.52 Those facts could not be left unexamined. In addition there might be a connection between RRI officials and ZDP activity in view of current events. Specifically that Leo Bikra – the President and Director General of RRI - and Clyde Zangara are relatives and that Leo Bicra’s wife is Zetian.53 Moreover many of ZRF’s board members are known supporters of the ZDP.54 Then it could explain the motive for bribery.
These abovementioned actions constitute the corpus delicti of bribery provided by national laws of both Ardenia and Rigalia, in accordance with OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions implemented by them.55 In particular the MDI officials intended to give any undue pecuniary or other advantage, to a foreign public official56 of RRI or illegal contributions to candidates for public office or to political parties or to other political organizations, like ZDP members , whether directly or through intermediaries57 like ZRF , for that official or for a third party 58 in order that the official renew the contract for an additional ten years,59 which means that made the official duties were performed in order to obtain business or other improper advantage in the conduct of international business.60
2. Rigalian authorities suspect mdi of bribing members of the provincial tribal councils in the Northern Provinces of Rigalia
The transporters for MDI paid mandatory undocumented fees to members of the provincial tribal councils, exercising public functions in the Northern Provinces,61 in order to ensure the protection of the extraction site and the smooth delivery of the product to RRI’s plant in Rigaliaville,62 which was sustained by a former MDI employee in his report to the police.63 Those fees are not allowed by the Rigalian law but may be considered as so called "facilitation" payments by the Ardenian law.64 The Respondent considers that this contradictory situation must be decided according to Rigalian and international laws.
However they do not formally constitute an offence as payments made “to obtain or retain business or other improper advantage.”65 However "[f]acilitation payments are a major problem in many developing countries and place a heavy burden on their poorest citizens. They are often part of widespread extortion schemes organized from the top down, and not isolated acts by low-level officials. Corporate compliance experts have learned that it is difficult to draw a line between facilitation payments and other bribes.”66 “Such payments, which, in some countries, are made to induce public officials to perform their functions, are generally illegal in the foreign country concerned.”67 Although the permission of those payments in Ardenian law does not directly violate the Convention, but the fact of such payments occurred in the Northern Provinces of Rigalia, while Rigalian law prohibits them, needs assessment. That is why this case should be investigated properly in cooperation with Ardenia. Therefore Rigalia asked for the mutual legal assistance and supposed that the principle of "dual criminality" does not prevent Ardenia for providing such assistance.