- •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
B. Ardenia was obliged to provide legal assistance but did not respond to Rigalia's mla request
Alleged accusations of bribery of foreign public officials need to be investigated lawfully. According to the article 9 para.1 of the OECD Convention:
Each Party shall, to the fullest extent possible provide prompt and effective legal assistance to another Party for the purpose of criminal investigations and proceedings brought by a Party concerning offences within the scope of this Convention. The requested Party shall inform the requesting Party, without delay, of any additional information or documents needed to support the request for assistance and, where requested, of the status and outcome of the request for assistance.68
Therefore taking into consideration that Respondent's interests were undoubtedly infringed and that MDI is an Ardenian state-owned corporation, Rigalia demanded to provide proper information and initiate an inquiry by the Ardenian officials and its NCP.
Ardenia did not provide the information and dropped the investigation on the following announced grounds. First, Ardenian legislation did not allow the authorities to access certain information on bank records. This excuse is not valid because the para.2 of article 9 of the OECD Convention states that "[a] party shall not decline to render mutual legal assistance for criminal matters within the scope of this Convention on the ground of bank secrecy.”69 Therefore Ardenia should not elude the obligations to provide the requested information on bank records and should examine its legislation for compliance to the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention.
Second, National security reasons and a concern over the cost of the investigation could have resulted in the loss of hundreds of jobs and millions of dollars for Ardenian industry as an Ardenian prosecutor Sam Strong and president Arwen explained.70 Article 5 of the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention states that investigations shall not be influenced “[b]y considerations of national economic interest, the potential effect upon relations with another State or the identity of the natural or legal persons involved.”71 Although this treaty has no explicit national security exception this issue seems to have the “multitudinous and constrained character.”72 Therefore under the Convention it is rather clear that the investigation could not be dropped on the grounds of economical, political or any related interest, although national security exception is quite arguable especially pertaining to this case.
Besides it became known that influential judges, members of parliament, and officials of the Ardenian government were strongly influenced by MDI, were invited to lavish receptions and other events in order to drop the inquiry.73 Consequently the investigation was officially dropped so as to “for national security reasons.”74 However this reason does not correspond to the facts and in this case national security considerations are being replaced by concerns of a political nature. Therefore the statements alleged by the Ardenian government officials are either invalid.
Third, the applicant did not respond to Rigalia’s MLA request to provide the information regarding MDI’s activities in support of the ZRF or any possible financial transactions with Clyde Zangara and the members of the tribal councils, the correspondence between Clyde Zangara or other ZRF high level officers and Leo Bikra (the President of MDI), the correspondence between ZRF representatives and members of the provincial tribal councils.75 This constitutes a breach of the article 9 of the OECD Convention according to which "[e]ach Party shall, to the fullest extent possible under its laws ... provide prompt and effective legal assistance to another Party for the purpose of criminal investigations ... brought by a Party concerning offences within the scope of this Convention... against a legal person."76 The requested information was relevant and necessary for the investigation so it was the Applicant's obligation to provide it and the Applicant unfairly failed to do so.
Therefore those requests comply with the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention, which states that "[e]ach Party shall, to the fullest extent possible under ... relevant treaties and arrangements, provide prompt and effective legal assistance to another Party for the purpose of criminal investigations and proceedings brought by a Party concerning offences ... The requested Party shall inform the requesting Party, without delay, … of the status and outcome of the request for assistance."77 That obliges Ardenia to provide the MLA because this information can prove or disapprove the bribery charges.