
- •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. 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
Mavazi is traditional religious attire and should therefore be protected as a religious right. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights recognizes that “Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.”27 However this right can be limited in accordance with this Covenant. It declares that “Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.”28 Consequently the enactment of “Mavazi ban” is legitimate as non-violating the human rights.
“Mavazi ban” is a legitimate public safety measure imposed to protect the rights of Zetian women and girls and protect Rigalian citizens from terrorism. This traditional religious attire should be banned because it poses criminal and terrorist danger. It presents a security risk by making the identification of a person difficult because such clothing covers the entire head including the face. It is important to note that the suicide bombings at a government school in 2009 occurred for the reason that one of the suicide bombers was a man wearing a Mavazi.29 He approached the school without being questioned because of the garment he was wearing.30 Actually anyone can lurk under these shrouds. That seriously undermines the security measures. It is necessary to note that the Report made by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe concerning islamophobia noted that “(l)egal restrictions to the freedom of religion may be justified where necessary in a democratic society, in particular for security purposes or where public or professional functions of individuals require their religious neutrality or that their face can be seen.”31
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
Rigalia adhered to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. This convention establishes that “States Parties shall respect the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion”32, although the “[f]reedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals, or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.” 33 So as Mavazi could represent the danger to the public safety and could affect the rights of girls and women the child right to manifest its religion beliefs is not abused. For this reason the Respondent acted in compliance with this Convention and did not violate the international law.
C. Rigalia’s ban of the Mavazi for Zetian women and girls protects their rights
The "Mavazi ban" was enacted not only due to security-related reasons but also in order to respect women’s rights and rights of the child. Tribal councils force women and girls over the age of 14 to wear a "Mavazi” in accordance with Zetian religion.34 It is not a free choice but some kind of forced obligation. Therefore such situation is unacceptable regarding the provisions of international law which are aimed to equalize the rights of men and women and forbid the discrimination against women.35