Memorial On Behalf of Petitioner

CLEA (ASIA-INDIA) MOOTING COMPETITION, 2016
TEAM CODE- CLEA007
CLEA (ASIA-INDIA) MOOTING COMPETITION 2016
IN THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
THE PEACE PALACE,

THE HAGUE, THE NETHERLANDS
CASE CONCERNING THE DISPUTE IMMUNITIES AND CRIMINAL

PROCEEDINGS
REPUBLIC OF ANDORRA
(APPLICANT)
V.
UNITED REPUBLIC OF ASIAN
(RESPONDENT)
MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF APPLICANT
Page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBRIVIATION........................................................................v
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES.......................................................................viii
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION............................................................xii
STATEMENT OF FACTS...........................................................................xiii
QUESTION PRESENTED........................................................................xvi
SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS..................................................................xvii
PLEADINGS..............................................................................................1-25
I. ISSUE 1: WHETHER URA HAS BREACHED ITS OBLIGATION TO RESPECT
THE PRINCIPLES OF SOVEREIGN EQUALITY OF STATES AND NONINTERFERENCE IN THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF ANDORRA?...................1
1.1 URA has breached its obligation under Customary International Law......................1
1.1.1 URA has breached its treaty obligations...............................................................2
(A) URA has breached its treaty obligations under UNCTOC........................................2
(B) URA has breached its treaty obligations under VCDR..............................................2
(C) URA has breached its treaty obligations under VCLT...............................................3
(D) Sovereign Equality of State under general International law.....................................3
1.2 The offences fall solely within the jurisdiction of courts of Andorra........................5
1.2.1 URA cannot exercise universal jurisdiction............................................................7
Page ii
II.ISSUE 2: WHETHER URA HAS BREACHED ITS OBLIGATION UNDER

INTERNATIONAL LAW BY PROSECUTING MR. TTK GANZARD? .............8
2.1 Mr. TTK Ganzard is a Diplomatic agent.......................................................................8
2.1.1 He is the Second Vice President of Andorra.............................................................9
2.1.2 He is Deputy Permanent Delegate to UNESCO..........................................................11
2.1.3 Immunity of TTK Ganzard as Diplomatic Agent did not come to an end...................11
2.1.4 Immunity of Mr. TTK Ganzard as a family member of head of state.........................12
2.2 Diplomatic agent has immunity under VCDR................................................................12
2.2.1 Mr. TTK Ganzard has immunity ratione personae ......................................................13.
2.2.2 A Diplomatic Agent is Immune from Criminal Jurisdiction under VCDR..................14
2.2.3 Diplomatic Agents are Inviolable under VCDR............................................................14
2.3 Diplomatic agent has immunities under customary International laws.............................14
2.3.1 TTK Ganzard has immunity under treaty of extraterritoriality......................................16
2.3.2 TTK Ganzard has immunity under theory of representative character..........................17
2.3.3 TTK Ganzard has immunity under theory of functional necessity................................17
2.3.4 Mr. TTK Ganzard has immunity under theory of personal representation................18
2.3.5 Mr. TTK Ganzard has immunity under law of state immunity.....................................18
2.3.6 Mr. TTK Ganzard has immunity ratione personae underInternational Customary
Law.........................................................................................................................................19
Page iii
III.ISSUE 3: WHETHER URA HAS VIOLATED ITS OBLIGATION UNDER THE

GENERAL AND TREATY INTERNATIONAL LAW WHEN THE GOVERNMENT
OF URA SEARCED SEIZED AND OCCUPIED THE BUILDING?..........................20
3.1 Building is Diplomatic Premise under VCDR.................................................................20
3.1.1 Premise is inviolable under VCDR...............................................................................21
3.1.2 Building is not diplomatic mission still it is inviolable.................................................21
3.1.3URA should carry out its treaty obligations Pacta Sunt Sarvanda. ..............................22
3.2 URA should recognise the building as premise of mission under general International
law..........................................................................................................................................22
3.3 Diplomatic Premise is inviolable under general International law...................................23
3.3.1 Inviolability restricts entry into premise without consent.............................................24
3.3.2 Premise is inviolable under theory of extraterritoriality................................................24
3.4 Search and Seizure may be conducted only with consent................................................25
PRAYER................................................................................................................................26
Page iv
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Paragraph
Paragraphs
Section
Copyright
Art.
Article
Annex.
Annexure
AI
Accountability International.
Building
Palatial House at 18, Rose Avenue Manhattan,

URA
Div.
Division
DRC
Democratic republic of Congo
Edn/Ed.Edition
E.g.
Example
Govt.
Government
Honble
Honourable
ICJ
ICLQ
International Court of Justice

International and Comparative law Quarterly
Page v
Intl
International
I.L.M
International Legal Materials
LJ
Law Journal
Mar.
March
No.
Number
PCIJ
Permanent Court of International justice
p.
Page
pp.
Pages
Rep.
Report
Ser.
Serial
UN
United Nations
UNCTOC
United Nation Convention against Transnational

Organised Crimes
UNTS
United Nation Treaty Series
UK
United Kingdom
UNESCO
United Nations educational, scientific and cultural

Organization
US
United States
V.
Versus
Page vi
Vol.
Volume
VCDR
Vienna Convention on diplomatic Relation,

1961
VCLT
Vienna Convention on Law of Treaties, 1969
Page vii
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
AGREEMENTS, TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS

Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States and the
Protection of Their Independence and Sovereignty.
United Nation Convention against Transnational Organised Crimes, 2000.
United Nations charter, 1945.
Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relation, 1961.
Proposal by the United Kingdom (A/AC.119/L.8), 1965 American Society of International
Law, Washington, D.C. International Legal Materials > Volume 4, Number 1, REPORTS
U.N. COMMITTEE CONSENSUS ON SOVEREIGN EQUALITY OF STATES.
Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations 1946.
UN Convention on Special Missions 1969.
ACTS, REGULATIONS AND CODES
The Lieber Code, 1863.
The Diplomatic Relations Act of 1978.
Hague Regulation, 1907.
Code of Criminal Procedure, Soviet Criminal Law and Procedure
Page viii
INTERNATIONAL CASES
Equatorial Guinea v France, ICJ, 14th June, 2016(press release).
S.S. Lotus (France v. Turkey), [1927] PCIJ.
Arrest Warrant case of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of Congo v. Belgium) [2002]
ICJ Rep 3.
Djibouti v France, Judgment, ICJ GL No 136, [2008] ICJ Rep 177, ICGJ 1 (ICJ 2008), 4th
June 2008.
Tehran case (United States of America v. Iran) [1980] ICJ Rep 3, at Para. 91
Germany v. Poland, (1928) PCIJ Series A No 17, ICGJ 256 (PCIJ 1928).
Public Prosecutor v. N.N (Rwanda v. France), Judgement High court (Ostre Landsrets) 3rd
Div, 1994.
Rose v. R. (1947) 3 DLR 618 at 645.
Gadaffi case (2001) 125 ILR 456.
Castro case (Spain: Audiencia Nacional,) (1999) 32 ILM 596.
Mike Campbell (pvt) Ltd v. Zimbabwe (2/2007)[2008] SADCT 2. Reproduced in Colin
Warbrick, Immunity and International Crimes in English Law (2004) 53 ICLQ 769.
Jacques Hartmann, The Gillion Affair (2005) 45 ICLQ 745.
Trochanoff Case: 1910 Journal De Droit International Prive 551; Munir Pacha v. Aristarchi
Bey: 1910 Journal de Droit International Prive 549; Couhi Case: 1922 Journal de Droit
International Prive 193; Angelini case : Annual Digest 1919-22 No. 206; Legation Building
(turnover tax) case: Ibid. No. 207; Immunities (Foreign State in private contracts) case Ibid
Page ix
no. 79; Status of Legation building case: Annual Digest 1929-30 No. 197; Gnome and Rhone
Motors v. Cattaneo: Ibid. No. 199; Afghan Embassy case, 64 Journal du Droit International
(1937) 561, annual Digest 1933-34 no. 166; Basiliadis Case: 1922 Journal Du Droit
International Prive 407 ; Conul Barat v. Ministere Public : A.D. 1948 no. 102; Regele v.
Federal Ministry of Social Administration : 26 I.L.R. 544. Tietz et al. v. Peoples Republic
Bulgaria: 28 I.L.R at 379.
BOOKS/TREATIES/ARTICLES/JOURNALS
Oppenheim,International Law A Treaties vol.1, third edition, 2005.
An Introduction to International Criminal Law and Procedure, 2nd ed., Cambridge University
Press, 2010.
I.L.C. Yearbook, pp. 9495 Vol. II 1958,
Wilson E Clifton, Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities, 1967
Fox Hazal and Philippa Webb, The Law of State Immunity, 3rd Ed., Oxford Press 2013,.
Satows Guide to Diplomatic Practise, Cambridge University Press 3rd Ed.
Eileen Denza, Diplomatic Law (commentary on the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic
Relations), 1976, Dobbs Ferry, N. Y.: Oceana Publications.
The Harvard Research in International Law, Law of Treaties states.
Watts, Some Reflections on the Immunity of Individuals for Official Acts, 41 ICLQ (1992)
848; Tomonori, The Individual as Beneficiary of State Immunity: Problems of the
Attribution of Ultra Vires Conduct, 29 Denver J Intl L and Policy (2001) 261; H. Fox, The
Law of State Immunity (2nd edn, 2008), at 455-464 and Ch. 19; Watts, The Legal Position in
International Law of Heads of States, Heads of Governments and Foreign Ministers, 247
Page x
Recueil des Cours (1994-III) 13; Wickremasinghe, Immunities Enjoyed by Officials of

States and International Organizations, in M. Evans (ed.), International Law (3rd edn, 2010),
at 380.
Tunks, Diplomats or Defendants? Defining the Future of Head-of-State Immunity, 52 Duke
LJ (2002) 651, at 656:
Watts, Whomersley, Some Reflections on the Immunity of Individuals for Official Acts, 41
ICLQ (1992) 848
Hurst: Les Immunities Diplomatiques: 1926 Recueil des Cours II p. 145
H Steinberger, Sovereignty, in Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and
International Law, Encyclopaedia for Public International Law, vol. 10 (North Holland,
1987) 414
Amnesty International, Universal Jurisdiction: A Preliminary Survey of Legislation around
the World (2012) at 14.
Open Society Foundation Report in Equatorial Guinea v. France on UNESCO, February,
2012.
Speech by, Minister of Foreign Affairs o Guatemala, United Nations General Assembly, 47 th
session, September 29, 1992.
Page xi
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
United Republic of ASIAN (hereinafter URA) and Republic of Andorra (hereinafter

Andorra) have submitted their difference concerning the Immunities and Criminal
proceedings to the International Court of Justice pursuant to the special agreement
(compromise). The courts jurisdiction is invoked under Article 36(1) read with Article 40(1)
of the statute of the International Court of Justice, 1950. The parties shall accept any
judgement of the court as final and binding upon them and shall execute it in entirely and in
the good faith.
Page xii
STATEMENT OF FACTS
URA is developed nation whereas Andorra is a developing nation and both are the founding
members of UN. Both the countries are parties to the statute of the International Court of
Justice and Vienna Convention on the law of treaties.
In last some decade Andorra has became leading oil exporter because of discovery of oil
reserves.
The eldest son of President Kian Ganzard, his possible successor, Mr TTK Ganzard was
elevated to the post of second Vice-President of Andorra in 2007. Beside his post of second
Vice President of the country, he was holding the countries portfolio of Defence and Strategic
Administration.
In 2009, the ACCOUNTABILITY INTERNATIONAL brought a complaint against several
world leaders including Mr. TTK Ganzard for using public funds to buy luxury properties
and goods in URA through various modes of Money Laundering and corruption. Some
properties of Mr. TTK Ganzard were found in URA including Palatial House at 18, rose
avenue Manhattan, URA, luxury mansion in one of the island city of URA and a gulfstream
jet.
In year 2010, the UNICEF Ganzard Global Prize for Social Work was approved when the
Executive Board of the UNICEF accepted the offer of $3 million from President of Andorra
to endow and award in his name. The timing and purpose of the award was challenged,
however, the award is being conferred continuously.
URA and its prosecution agency prepared a case against Mr. TTK Ganzard on charges
including corruption, money-laundering and embezzlement of public funds. Mr. TTK
Ganzard denied the charges and wrong doing as well as questioned the jurisdiction of
Page xiii
domestic courts of URA. The case was popularly known as Kleptocracy III Gotten Money
Case.
In January 2011, President of Andorra appointed his son, Mr. TTK Ganzard as Andorras
Deputy Permanent Delegate to UNESCO.
URA and Andorra are Parties and signatory to the National Convention against Transnational
Organised Crimes. Both the countries have ratified UNCTOC. Both the counties are also
parties to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relation and all its optional protocol.
In March 2011, before the trial of the case started in URA, Mr. TTK Ganzard sold his Palatial
House at Rose Avenue to the Government of Andorra for Rs. $300 Million. Andorra through
its communiqu on 18.03.2011 declared that said house is now owned and controlled by
Govt. of Andorra. It is no longer a private property and is being used for the purpose of
diplomatic mission of Republic of Andorra.
In April 2011, in the process of investigation of the case, the Police of URA seized the
Palatial House along with the other known properties.
Andorra through its diplomatic note strongly protested the action taken by the Police of URA
and termed the actions as unauthorised and illegal in the eyes of International Law,
violating the principal of sovereignty and provisions of VCDR. Andorra Challenged URAs
jurisdiction to try case against the second Vice President and termed it as unlawful
interference in the internal matters of Andorra and also said that the alleged wrongdoing
would fall under exclusive jurisdiction of Andorra. Andorra also said that Mr. TTK Ganzard
is entitled to immunity as second Vice President of Andorra and as Deputy permanent
Delegate to UNESCO. Andorra also said that the search, seizure and occupation of the
building is in breach of VCDR, 1961.
Page xiv
In reply URA said that there are ample legal basis to validate search, seizure and occupation
of building. URA also claimed that building does not belong to diplomatic mission. Mr. TTK
Ganzard is accused of various crimes under domestic laws of URA as well as International
Law. Corruption has severe impact on human dignity and termed money laundering as
International crime. Andorras actions possess a threat of terrorism finance which poses a
threat to life and liberty of citizens of URA. The immunity claimed by Andorra is dwarfing
the principle of International legal framework.
In 2014, Mr. TTK Ganzard was appointed as Vice - President of Andorra by the Constitution.
In December 2014, another International NGO, ATTA generated a report titled Illegal Arms
& Ammunitions Island which states that one of the island of Andorra is the manufacturing
hub of illicit Firearms, their parts and components and ammunition and its trafficking to the
different parts of the world. The company is owned and controlled by Mr. TTK Ganzard.
This company also employs children and women who may be there as a result of human
trafficking.
Page xv
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
I.
WHETHER URA HAS BREACHED ITS OBLIGATION TO RESPECT THE

PRINCIPLES
OF
SOVEREIGN
EQUALITY
OF
STATES
AND
NON-
INTERFERENCE IN THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF ANDORRA?
II.
WHETHER
URA
HAS
BREACHED
ITS
OBLIGATION
UNDER
INTERNATIONAL BY PROSECUTING MR. TTK GANZARD?
III.
WHETHER
URA
HAS
VIOLATED
ITS
OBLIGATION
UNDER
INTERNATIONAL LAW BY SEARCHING, SEIZING AND OCCUPYING THE

BUILDING?
Page xvi
SUMMARY OF PLEADING
ISSUE.1 WHETHER URA HAS BREACHED ITS OBLIGATION TO RESPECT THE

PRINCIPLES
OF
SOVEREIGN
EQUALITY
OF
STATES
AND
NON-
INTERFERENCE IN THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF ANDORRA?

It is general as well as treaty International law that one state cannot interfere in the internal
affairs of other state.
According to UNCTOC, URA shall carry out its obligations under the convention in a
manner consistent with the principles of sovereign equality and territorial integrity of States
and that of non-intervention in the domestic affairs of other States.
Abiding by these principles, a state party cannot undertake in the territory of another state the
exercise of jurisdiction and performance of function that are reserved exclusively for the
authorities of the other state by its domestic law. Andorra has exclusive jurisdiction in Mr.
TTK Ganzards case because Andorras courts are capable to deal with the alleged crimes
committed by Mr. TTK Ganzard. In Lotus case it was held that a State cannot exercise
its jurisdiction outside its territory unless an International treaty or customary law permit it to
do so.
ISSUE2.
WHETHER URA
HAS
BREACHED
ITS
OBLIGATION
UNDER
INTERNATIONAL LAW BY PROSECUTING MR. TTK GANZARD?

In general International law the head of state and diplomats accredited to the foreign state
posses immunities as diplomats and representatives of state toInternational organization.
These immunities are necessary for peaceful cooperation and co-existence among states.
Page xvii
Increased global cooperation means that this immunity is especially important. The
immunities guaranteed could also be traced in the case of Rose v. R and Gadaffi case.
According to VCDR. Mr. TTK Ganzard is a diplomatic agent and deputy permanent delegate
to UNESCO from Andorra. At the time of search and seizure of palatial house he was also
holding the office of Second Vice President and portfolio of defence and strategic
administration. Andorra never waived off the diplomatic immunity which was granted to Mr.
TTK Ganzard.
Under Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Rights, diplomatic agents enjoy immunity from the
criminal jurisdiction of the receiving State. Here Mr. TTK Ganzard is a diplomatic agent
therefore, so the prosecution of Mr. TTK Ganzard in URA is violation of Vienna Convention
on Diplomatic Relation.
Under the rights of states diplomatic agents are Inviolable. The receiving state should protect
the diplomatic agent and treat them with due respect preventing them from any attack on his
person, freedom or dignity.
ISSUE 3: WHETHER URA HAS VIOLATED ITS OBLIGATION UNDER
INTERNATIONAL LAW BY SEARCHING, SEIZING AND OCCUPYING THE
BUILDING?
The rule of protection of property against confiscation is recognised in customary
International law in the Liberal code, the Brussels Declaration, Oxford Manual, The Hague
regulation, Code of Criminal procedure, Soviet criminal law and procedure.
Firstly, According to VCDR the property which is used for the purpose of the diplomatic
mission will be considered as a premise of mission and it will be immune from the search,
seizure, requisition or execution.
Page xviii
It was ruled in the Chorzow Factory case, ruled that the taking of alien property in
contravention of a treaty was unlawful and illegal.
Therefore the act of seizing and searching URA is breach of its obligation under International
law, Vienna convention on diplomatic relation and UNCTOC as well as general International
law.
Page xix
PLEADING
ISSUE 1: WHETHER URA HAS BREACHED ITS OBLIGATION TO RESPECT

THE PRINCIPLES OF SOVEREIGN EQUALITY OF STATES AND NONINTERFERENCE IN THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF ANDORRA?
URA in its action in seizing, searching and occupying the property, which at that instance
was owned and controlled by the government of Andorra and was being used for the purpose
of diplomatic mission of Andorra1, was interfering in the internal matters of the Andorra and
also was violating the principle of Sovereign Equality of the States.URA does not have the
authority to interfere in the internal affairs of Republic of Andorra, because no State has the
right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal or external
affairs of any other State under International laws.2
1.1 URA has breached its obligation under Customary International Law.
Sovereign equality is the concept in which every sovereign state possesses the same legal
rights as any other sovereign state in International law.3 Sovereign equality is also one of the
fundamental rights of the state.4 This right is inherent in the concept of a state.5
Sovereignty in the sense of contemporary public International law denotes the basic
International legal status of a state that is not subject, within its territorial jurisdiction, to the
governmental, executive, legislative, or judicial jurisdiction of a foreign state or to foreign
1
Compromis, 25.
2131 (XX). Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States and the
Protection of Their Independence and Sovereignty.
3
The Concept of sovereign Equality of States in International Law GIMPA Law Review (2016), Alen
Ansong- vol. II(1)
4
The Principle of Sovereign equality of states as Basis for International Organisation, Hans Kelsen, The Yall
Law Journal, vol. 53, no. 2 (March 1944). PP. 207-220
5
Ibid.
2
Page 1
law other than public International law.6Andorra is also a sovereign nation and therefore it is
not subject to judicial jurisdiction of a foreign state.
Andorra is a sovereign state having its own Constitution and jurisdiction over the internal as
well as external affairs. URA in its action is interfering in the sovereignty of Andorra by
interfering in the internal affairs of the Andorra. Prosecution of Mr. TTK Ganzard and search,
seizure and occupation of diplomatic premise is against the principles of sovereignty.
1.1.1 URA has breached its treaty obligations.
(A) URA has breached its treaty obligations under UNCTOC
URA and Andorra both are parties to UNCTOC.7 Therefore, URA shall carry out its
obligations under this Convention in a manner consistent with the principles of sovereign
equality and territorial integrity of States and that of non-intervention in the domestic affairs
of other States.8
It is clearly indicated in the UNCTOC that the states that are parties to the conventionshould
practice their obligations in regard with the other state without interfering in the internal
affairs. The mode of practice under treaty obligations should be in consistent with the
principles of sovereignty. URA therefore is under obligation to abide by the rules and
regulations of the convention.9
(B) URA has breached its treaty obligations under VCDR
Not only it has violated the provisions of UNCTOC but also it has violated provisions of
VCDR
H Steinberger, Sovereignty, in Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law,
Encyclopedia for Public International Law, vol. 10 (North Holland, 1987) 414.
7
Compromis 21
8
United Nation Convention against Transnational Organised Crimes, Annex 1, Article 4(1)
9
Ibid.
Page 2
The State parties to the VCDR must follow the provisions of VCDR to respect and promote
the principle and purpose of the charter of the United Nations. United Nations puts an
obligation on the states to respect the sovereign equality and territorial integrity of the state. 10
URA and Andorra are parties to the VCDR and all its optional protocols.11 URAs actions are
in derogation with the principles given in the VCDR12 because it has interfered in the internal
affairs of Andorra and has challenged its sovereignty.13
(C) URA has breached its treaty obligations under VCLT
Apart from VCDR and UNCTOC, URA has violated law contained in VCLT concerning
sovereignty and non-intervention in internal affairs of the states.
The principles of International law are embodied in the charter of the United Nations. These
principles include sovereign equality of state and principle of non-interference in domestic
affairs of any state. These states should not use threat or force and should have universal
respect for fundamental freedoms for all.14 URA and Andorra are parties to the VCLT15,
therefore they are abide by the rules and regulations of the convention.
(D) Sovereign Equality of State under general International law.
Sovereign equality of States includes several elements in which States are juridically equal,
each State enjoys the rights inherent in full sovereignty. The personality of the State is
individual and should be respected as well as its territorial integrity and political
independence. The State should, under International order, comply faithfully with its duties
and obligations. Every State has the duty to conduct its relations with other States in
10
Preamble, Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relation, 1961

Compromis 22
12
Supra note 9
13
Ibid.
14
Preamble, Vienna Convention on Law of Treaties, 1969
15
Compromis 7
11
Page 3
conformity with International law and with the principle that the sovereignty of each State is
subject to the supremacy of International law.16 URA has failed to respect the domestic
jurisdiction of Andorra over the alleged crimes.
Every country is juridically free in the eyes of law. It is clear that Andorra is a sovereign
nation having its own constitution and therefore it is entitled to the sovereign.URA has
breached this general International law by trying a case which is under Andorras jurisdiction
because it is against principle of sovereign equality of states.
The possibility of a harmonious and stable coexistence between the nations of the world
depends on the strict respect of sovereignty, independence and juridical equality of States.
Therefore, it is peremptory that International community rejects any claim of a state to
extraterritorially apply its law.17 In the mentioned view it is specifically given that there will
be harmonious relations among nations in the world only if each nations would respect
sovereignty and independence and juridical equality of states, but URA is not acting in a
harmonious way and not only breaching International law but also threatening International
security.
The interference in a careful diplomatic space is against state sovereignty because the
property is used for the Diplomatic Mission of State.18URA has seized the property that is a
diplomatic space and therefore, it should amount to interference in the internal affairs of
Andorra which is against the principle of sovereignty.
16
Proposal by the United Kingdom (A/AC.119/L.8), 1965 American Society of International Law,
Washington, D.C. International Legal Materials > Vol. 4, Number 1, REPORTS U.N. COMMITTEE
CONSENSUS ON SOVEREIGN EQUALITY OF STATES
17
Speech by, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Guatemala, United Nations General Assembly, 47 th session,
September 29, 1992.
18
Press release, 14th June, 2016, Equatorial Guinea v France, ICJ
Page 4
1.2The offences fall solely within the jurisdiction of courts of Andorra.

URA does not have jurisdiction to give decisions in the cases on which Andorra has its own
jurisdiction. URA was trying case against Mr. TTK Ganzard because several charges were
alleged by AI.19
The charges which were alleged in URA by AI against Andorra were not justifiable because
Andorra had exclusive jurisdiction over the charges which were framed against Andorra in
URA.
The charges framed against TTK Ganzard are in violation of UNCTOC. Nothing in the
UNCTOC entitles a State Party to undertake in the territory of another State the exercise of
jurisdiction and performance of functions that are reserved exclusively for the authorities of
that other State by its domestic law.20
Andorra has exclusive jurisdiction over the alleged crime committed by Mr. TTK Ganzard
and Andorra can deal with the cases in which its citizens are involved and also the cases in
which the crimes are committed on its territory. In the instant case all the crimes for which
MR. TTK Ganzard is charged in URA falls directly in the jurisdiction of Andorra. The issue
of jurisdiction could be traced in several cases, one of which is Lotus case according to which
Jurisdiction is territorial; a State cannot exercise its jurisdiction outside its territory unless
an International treaty or customary law permits it to do so.21 This principle given by court in
lotus case binds URAwhich is interfering in the internal affairs Andorra.
In one similar case French Republic breached its obligation to respect the principles of the
sovereign equality of States and non-interference in the internal affairs of another State, owed
to the Republic of Equatorial Guinea in accordance with International law, by permitting its
19
Compromis 11
United Nation Convention against Transnational Organised Crimes, Annex 1, Article 4(2)
21
S.S. Lotus (France v. Turkey), [1927] PCIJ
20
Page 5
courts to initiate criminal legal proceedings against the Second Vice-President of Equatorial
Guinea for alleged offences which, even if they were established, quod non, would fall solely
within the jurisdiction of the courts of Equatorial Guinea, and by allowing its courts to order
the seizure of a building belonging to the Republic of Equatorial Guinea and used for the
purposes of that countrys diplomatic mission in France.22
The Proposal given by United Kingdom23defines elements of sovereign equality of states
which included the principle that States are juridically equal means that States have their own
jurisdiction. This means that every state is juridically free in the eyes of law. It is clear that
Andorra is a sovereign nation having its own constitution which means it is entitled to the
sovereign equality of the state and the principle of sovereign equality says that every country
is juridically free and then it is wrong on behalf of URA to try a case which is under
Andorras jurisdiction.24
United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property talks
about the immunity of state and its properties and as given in the instant case the property
that belong to Mr. TTK Ganzard was later sold to the Government of Andorra for Diplomatic
Purpose and therefore, it ultimately belonged to the Government of Andorra, therefore it is a
state property. A State enjoys immunity, in respect of itself and its property, from the
jurisdiction of the courts of another State.25 According to this Article URA cannot interfere in
the internal affairs of the Andorra.
In Equatorial guinea v. France case,Mr.Obiangs lawyers filed a motion in which they argue
the case should be dismissed on the grounds that it would "infringe Equatorial Guinea's
22
Press Release, 14th June, 2016, Equatorial Guinea v. France.

Proposal by the United Kingdom (A/AC.119/L.8), 1965 American Society of International Law,
Washington, D.C. International Legal Materials > Volume 4, Number 1, REPORTS U.N. COMMITTEE
CONSENSUS ON SOVEREIGN EQUALITY OF STATES
24
Ibid.
25
Article 5 United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property.
23
Page 6
sovereign right to create, interpret, and enforce its own laws and will significantly hinder the
existing cooperative, friendly relationship" between the United States and President Obiangs
regime.26 In the above case the jurisdiction is claimed by Equatorial Guinea to deal with the
cases in its jurisdiction. Relying on the case URA should also be denied jurisdiction in the
cases where Andorra has jurisdiction.
1.2.1 URA cannot exercise universal jurisdiction.
Universal Jurisdiction is an emerging International law principle, where only 91 states

exercise it.27 Such jurisdiction has not been consistently and uniformly exercised over
ordinary crime such as money laundering. Courts in practice tend to address the crimes only
when they amount to offenses as heinous as genocide.28Therefore, URA cannot exercise
universal jurisdiction and the prosecution of Mr. TTK Ganzard is not justifiable.
26

Amnesty International, Universal Jurisdiction: A Preliminary Survey of Legislation Around the World (2012)
at 14.
28
Dusko Cvjekoviic, Landesgericht (1994); Public Prosecutor v. N.N., (1994) Ostre Landsrets 3d Div.
27
Page 7
ISSUE 2: WHETHER URA HAS BREACHED ITS OBLIGATION UNDER

INTERNATIONAL LAW BY PROSECUTING MR. TTK GANZARD?
International law confers on certain state officials immunities that attach to the office or
status of the official. These immunities, which are conferred only as long as the official
remains in office, are usually described as personal immunity or immunity ratione
personae.
In case of Equatorial Guinea v France, Equatorial guinea pleaded in ICJ to adjudge and
declare that, by initiating criminal proceedings against the Second Vice-President of the
Republic of Equatorial Guinea in charge of Defence and State Security, His Excellency Mr.
Obiang, the French Republic has acted and is continuing to act in violation of its obligations
under International law, notably the United Nations Convention against Transnational
Organized Crime and general International law, also pleaded that to order the French
Republic to take all necessary measures to put an end to any ongoing proceedings against the
Second Vice-President of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea in charge of Defence and State
Security, and also to order the French Republic to take all necessary measures to prevent
further violations of the immunity of the Second Vice-President of Equatorial Guinea in
charge of Defence and State Security and to ensure, in particular, that its courts do not initiate
any criminal proceedings against the Second Vice-President of the Republic of Equatorial
Guinea in the future.29
2.1 Mr. TTK Ganzard is a Diplomatic agent.
A diplomatic Agent is a head of a mission or member of diplomatic staff of the mission.30
29
30

Article 1(e), VCDR
Page 8
A diplomat is someone who is appointed by a nation state to represent and protect that
nation's interests abroad. Mr. TTK Ganzard is also a diplomat considering the above
definition because he has been appointed by the state as Deputy Permanent Delegate to
UNESCO31 and also he was holding office of Second Vice-President32 but later on he was
promoted to Vice-President of Andorra33 and he was holding the countrys Portfolio of
Defence and Strategic Administration.34 He was a diplomatic agent in URA representing
Andorra in UNESCO because he was the deputy permanent delegate of UNESCO.
2.1.1 He is the Second Vice President of Andorra
Mr. TTK Ganzard was holding the office of Second vice president when the search and
seizure of his palatial house was done by Police of URA and also he is Deputy permanent
Delegate to UNESCO from Andorra. At Present he is serving as Vice President of Andorra
and he was elevated to this post because he was holding countrys portfolio of Defence and
Strategic Administration.35
Head of the missions can be ministers or ambassadors accredited to the heads of the state.
36
URA cannot differentiate between heads of the mission by the reason of their class37.
In ICJ Yerodia Decision, the ICJ held, by thirteen votes to three, that Belgium had
breached its International legal duties to the DRC in that they failed to respect the
immunity from criminal jurisdiction and the inviolability which the incumbent
Minister for Foreign Affairs of the DRC enjoyed under International law.38 The
31
Compromis 20
Compromis 9
33
Compromis 30
34
Compromis 9
35
Compromis
36
Article 14, VCDR
37
Article 14(2), VCDR
38
Case concerning the Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of Congo v. Belgium),
Judgement, 14th February 2002; ICJ Rep 2002 (hereinafter Yerodia) at p.75.
32
Page 9
immunities ratione personae enjoyed by a foreign minister could not be set aside by a
national court by charging them with war crimes or crime against humanity.39
The International law immunities may be relied on to prevent prosecution by the International
criminal court of state officials.
Brief consideration is given to application of state and diplomatic immunities in foreign
domestic prosecution for International crimes. It is said that the immunity ratione persone
subsist in case concerning International crimes. The absolute nature of the immunity ratione
personae means that it prohibits the exercise of criminal jurisdiction not only in cases
involving the acts of these individuals in their official capacity but also in cases involving
private acts.40
In Equatorial Guinea v France case, Equatorial Guinea pleaded that, these proceedings
constitute a violation of the immunity to which His Excellency is entitled under
International law. It considers that, in his capacity as Second Vice-President and in charge of
Defence and State Security, the individual concerned represents the State and acts on its
behalf therefore he is entitled to immunity.41 In the case of Mr. TTK Ganzard he is also
entitled to immunity as he is Second Vice-President and also he was holding portfolio of
defence and strategic administration. URA is violating customary International law by not
granting him immunity to which he is entitled.
39
Yerodia pp. 56-8

See Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of Congo v. Belgium) [2002] ICJ Rep 3, at 54
41
Press Release, 14th June, 2016, Equatorial Guinea v. France
40
Page 10
2.1.2 He is Deputy Permanent Delegate to UNESCO

Treaties confer immunities on diplomats, representatives of states to International
organizations,42 and other officials on special mission in foreign states.43 Here UNESCO is
International organisation and Mr. TTK Ganzard is representative of state in UNESCO whose
headquarter is in URA. He is therefore diplomatic agent and he should be entitled immunities
in this regard.
In Equatorial Guinea v France case, it was argued that Diplomatic immunity is provided to
UNESCO delegates.44 Mr. TTK Ganzard is also delegate to UNESCO therefore he should be
given immunity.
As Diplomatic agents he should be granted immunity under VCDR.45VCDR states that, A
diplomatic agent shall enjoy immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving State.46
He shall also enjoy immunity from its civil and administrative jurisdiction.47 This section of
VCDR also grants immunity to Mr. TTK Ganzard as a representative of state and as
diplomatic agent of UNESCO.
So according to VCDR also Mr. TTK Ganzard should get immunity. URAs action in
bringing a case against Mr. TTK Ganzard is in violation of VCDR.
2.1.3 Immunity of TTK Ganzard as Diplomatic Agent did not come to an end.
The principle that unlawful Acts breach diplomatic status and permit receiving states to arrest
offending diplomats is not supported by state practice in International law.
42
4 E.g., Arts 29 and 31 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961 (VCDR), 500 UNTS 95; Art. IV,
Section 11, Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations 1946, 1 UNTS 15 and 90 UNTS
327 (corrigendum to vol. I).
43
Arts 21, 39, and 31 UN Convention on Special Missions 1969, 1400 UNTS 231.
44
UNESCO: President Teodoro Obiang of Equatorial Guinea, FEBRUARY 2012, Open Society Foundation
45
Article 31(1), Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relation.

47
46
Page 11
The function of a diplomatic agent comes to an end if the receiving State refuses to recognise
a diplomatic agent and notifies the same to the sending state48. URA never notified the
sending state that they do not recognise TTK Ganzard as Diplomatic Agent.
2.1.4 Immunity of Mr. TTK Ganzard as a family member of head of state.
TTK Ganzard is not only the Vice President of Andorra but he is also a family member of the
Head of URA which gives him additional immunity under the International treaty law.49 Such
immunity from jurisdiction can be waived only by the sending state. 50 Such Waiver of
immunity must always be expressed.51 In certain circumstances civil and administrative
jurisdiction can be exercised over the family members but criminal jurisdiction is never
allowed.52
2.2 Diplomatic agent has immunity under VCDR
Diplomatic immunity is granted to the persons who represent their state in the state in which
it has its premise of mission. In Equatorial Guinea case it was argued that the status of VicePresident entails under its law the right to represent the state. So according to this Mr. TTK
Ganzard could be considered as Diplomatic agents and he is also a Deputy Permanent
Delegate to UNESCO for Andorra, which has its headquarters in URA. Therefore he is
diplomatic agent there on behalf of Andorra.53 In VCDR Diplomatic agents are defined as a
head of the mission or a member of the diplomatic staff of the mission.54
VCDR says that, A diplomatic agent shall enjoy immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of
the receiving State. He shall also enjoy immunity from its civil and administrative
48
Article 43 and 9. VCDR

Article 37, VCDR
50
Article 32(1), VCDR
51
Article 32(2), VCDR
52
Article 37(2), VCDR
53
Press Rlease, 14th June, 2016, Equatorial Guinea v. France, ICJ
54
Article 1(e), Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Rights.
49
Page 12
jurisdiction.55 This section of VCDR also grants immunity to Mr. TTK Ganzard as a
representative of state and as diplomatic agent of UNESCO.
So according to VCDR also Mr. TTK Ganzard should get immunity. URAs action in
bringing a case against Mr. TTK Ganzard is in violation of VCDR.
2.2.1 Mr. TTK Ganzard has immunity ratione personae.
It has long been clear that serving Heads of State,56 Heads of Government,57 and diplomats
possess immunity ratione personae. In the Arrest Warrant case, the ICJ held - without
reference to any supporting state practice that immunity ratione personae also applies to a
serving Foreign Minister.58 Questions remain about whether this type of immunity applies to
other senior government members. In describing the rule according immunity ratione
personae in the Arrest Warrant case, the ICJ stated it applies to diplomatic and consular
agents [and] certain holders of high-ranking office in a State, such as the Head of State, Head
of Government and Minister for Foreign Affairs.59 The use of the words such as suggests
that the list of senior officials entitled to this immunity is not closed. In the Kleptocracy III
Gotten Money Case, Mr. TTK Ganzard should be granted immunity on the basis of this
Arrest Warrant Case, because apart from head of state, head of government and minister of
Foreign Affairs there are several other officials who are given immunity and those are
considered under term such as. Mr. TTK Ganzard should be considered under term such
as because he was holding the office as Second Vice President and also Portfolio of Defence
and Strategic Administration.60
55
Article 31(1), Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Rights.

See Djibouti v. France.
57
Arrest Warrant case; Watts,; Arts 1, 2, and 15 Res of the Institut de Droit Internaitonal on Immunities from
Jurisdiction and Execution of Heads of State and of Government in International Law, 2001,
56
58
Arrest Warrant case,.

Ibid. 53 (emphasis added)
60
Compromis 9
59
Page 13
2.2.2 A Diplomatic Agent is Immune from Criminal Jurisdiction under VCDR.

Under International treaty law a diplomatic agent is immune from criminal, civil and
administrative jurisdiction of the receiving state61. An action could be taken related to private
immovable property of the diplomatic agent situated in territory of the receiving state, unless
he holds it on behalf of the sending state for the purpose of the mission.
If a diplomat commits an offence he will not be amenable to the local criminal jurisdiction
but may be declared persona non grata is a form of punishment.62
2.2.3 Diplomatic Agents are Inviolable under VCDR.
The person of a Diplomatic Agent is Inviolable63. The receiving state should protect the
diplomatic agent and treat them with due respect preventing him from any attack on his
person, freedom or dignity.64 A diplomatic agent is also not liable for any form of arrest or
detention.65
There is no more fundamental pre-requisite for the conduct of relations between states than
the inviolability of diplomatic envoys in embassies.66
2.3 Diplomatic agent has immunities under customary International laws.
It has long been clear that under customary International law the Head of State and diplomats
accredited to a foreign state possess such immunities from the jurisdiction of foreign states. 67
In addition, treaties confer similar immunities on diplomats, representatives of states to
61
Article 31, VCDR

Satows Guide to diplomatic practise 120
63
Article 29, VCDR
64
Ibid.
65
Ibid
66
ICJ Reports (1979)
67
See, generally, Watts, Some Reflections on the Immunity of Individuals for Official Acts, 41 ICLQ (1992)
848; Tomonori, The Individual as Beneficiary of State Immunity: Problems of the Attribution of Ultra Vires
Conduct, 29 Denver J Intl L and Policy (2001) 261; H. Fox, The Law of State Immunity (2nd edn, 2008), at
455-464 and Ch. 19; Watts, The Legal Position in International Law of Heads of States, Heads of Governments
and Foreign Ministers, 247 Recueil des Cours (1994-III) 13; Wickremasinghe, Immunities Enjoyed by
Officials of States and International Organizations, in M. Evans (ed.), International Law (3rd edn, 2010), at 380.
62
Page 14
International organizations,68 and other officials on special mission in foreign states.69 The
predominant justification for such immunities is that they ensure the smooth conduct of
International relations and, as such, they are accorded to those state officials who represent
the state at the International level. International relations and International cooperation
between states require an effective process of communication between states.70 It is important
that states are able to negotiate with each other freely and that those state agents charged with
the conduct of such activities should be able to perform their functions without harassment by
other states.71 In short, these immunities are necessary for the maintenance of a system of
peaceful cooperation and co-existence among states.72 Increased global cooperation means
that this immunity is especially important.
Judicial Decisions have confirmed that there is no exception to personal immunity. In 1946, a
Canadian case held that a foreign diplomat could not be arrested or detained even after
threatening the security of the state, because if the diplomat violates the laws of nation, it
does not follow that the other State has the right to do likewise.73
68
E.g., Arts 29 and 31 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961 (VCDR), 500 UNTS 95; Art. IV,
Section 11, Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations 1946, 1 UNTS 15 and 90 UNTS
327 (corrigendum to vol. I).
69
Arts 21, 39, and 31 UN Convention on Special Missions 1969, 1400 UNTS 231.
70
SeeInterpretation in International law, Wickremasinghe, 2012

See Tunks, Diplomats or Defendants? Defining the Future of Head-of-State Immunity, 52 Duke LJ (2002)
651, at 656: The Guardian, 3 Mar. 2010.
71
72
See Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of Congo v. Belgium) [2002] ICJ Rep 3, Joint
Separate Opinion of Judges Higgins, Kooijmans, and Buergenthal, ibid., at para. 75: immunities are granted to
high State officials to guarantee the proper functioning of the network of mutual inter-State relations, which is
of paramount importance for a well-ordered and harmonious International system. See also Fox, supra note 1, at
673.
73
Rose V. R. (1947) 3 DLR 618 at 645
Page 15
This view has been upheld in recent cases in the context of serious International crimes. In
March 2001, the French Cour de cassation held in the Qaddafi case that a serving head of
State is immune from prosecution in national courts in relation serious act of terrorism.74
The Spanish Audienco Nacional reached a similar conclusion with respect to the allegations
of International crimes by Castro75 and the same result was reached in United Kingdom Court
in a case against President Mugabe.76
Denmark refused to arrest serving Israeli ambassador, Carmi Gillon, despite accusation that
he was previously responsible for torture, on the grounds that specific obligation of
diplomatic immunity superseded the general obligation under the Torture Convention 1984.77
2.3.1 TTK Ganzard has immunity under treaty of extraterritoriality.
The need for diplomatic immunities is not so self-evident. Although a majority of
authors believe in such a need and do not admit any exceptions. When speaking of the
legal basis of diplomatic immunity, several theories are mentioned78. One of it, is the
oldest and also the most outmoded, is the theory of extraterritoriality, which was a
legal fiction based on the notion that the territory of the receiving state used by the
diplomatic mission or diplomat should be considered as a part of the territory of the
sending state instead.
By the virtue of the theory of extraterritoriality the diplomat legally resides on the soil of the
sending state despite the fact that the diplomat lives abroad.79 Therefore, the foreign envoy is
not subject to the laws of the receiving state due to lack of local residence.80
74
Qadaffi (2001) 125 ILR 456

Castro (1999) 32 ILM 596
76
Reproduced in Colin Warbrick, Immunity and International Crimes in English Law (2004) 53 ICLQ 769
77
Jacques Hartmann, The Gillion Affair (2005) 45 ICLQ 745.
78
I.L.C. Yearbook, 1958, vol. II, pp. 9495.
79
C. Wilson at 5
75
Page 16
2.3.2 TTK Ganzard has immunity under theory of representative character.

The theory of extraterritoriality was replaced by the theory of representative
character, which was also partly used in the Vienna Convention81.This theory is
based on the idea that the diplomatic mission, and thus also diplomats, personify the
sending state and therefore they should be granted the same immunities and
independence as those granted to the sending state.
2.3.3 TTK Ganzard has immunity under theory of functional necessity.
There is the theory of functional necessity, which provides a conceptual basis for the
Vienna Convention (though there is no direct reference to such basis). According to this
theory, the justification for granting immunities to diplomatic agents is based on the need to
enable normal functioning of diplomatic missions and diplomats. The legal basis of
immunities in the Vienna Conventions can be found in the preamble, which explains that the
purpose of such privileges and immunities is not to benefit individuals but to ensure the
efficient performance of the functions of diplomatic missions as representing States. Driven
by the functional necessity, this theory confers a certain minimum immunity on the
diplomatic agent to perform his functions without hindrance.
The diplomat is not subject to jurisdiction of local courts because this would hamper the
functions of diplomatic relations.82 Diplomats are immune from prosecution even when
80
C. Wilson at 5
Article 3 points out clearly that the diplomatic agent represents the sending state and the preamble also
acknowledges the link between the immunities of diplomats and their function as representing the sending state.
81
82
C. Wilson at 17
Page 17
committing criminal or tortuous acts outside of their prescribed functions.83 Mr. TTK
Ganzard is also not subject to jurisdiction of local courts being a Diplomat.
2.3.4 Mr. TTK Ganzard has immunity under theory of personal representation.
Under the theory of personal representation diplomats embody the ruler of a sovereign state.84
Foreign Diplomats do not have the same degree of immunity as the sending state because the
individual diplomat is above the law of the host state85.
2.3.5 Mr. TTK Ganzard has immunity under law of state immunity.
The law of state immunity, provides a detailed guide to operation of the International rule of
state immunity which bars one states national courts from exercising criminal or civil
jurisdiction over claims made against another state. Building on the analysis of it to previous
edt. so, it reviews relevant material at both International and national levels with particular
attention to US and UK laws; The 2004 UN Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of the
State and its Property (not yet in force), and also seeks to assess the significance of recent
changes in the evolution of the law. Although the restrictive doctrine of immunity is now
widely observed by which foreign States may be sued in national courts for their commercial
transactions, the immunity rule remains controversial, not only by reason of the recognition
of a single State's right to deny a remedy for a wrong China, a major trading State, continues
to adhere to the absolute bar but also by the exclusion of any reparation or relief for the
commission on the orders of a State of grave Human Rights violations. The complexity and
moral challenge of the issues is illustrated by high profile cases such as Pinochet, Amerada
Hess, Saudi Arabia v Nelson86 and more recently NML v Argentina87 in national courts; Al-
83
Comment, A New Regime of Diplomatic Immunity: The Diplomatic Relations Act of 1978, 54 Tul. L. Rev.
661, 667(1980).
84
C. Wilson, Diplomatic Privileges and immunities 1-5, 1967
85
C. Wilson at 4
86
507 v. 349 (1993)
Page 18
Adsani v UK88 and Jones v UK89 in the European Court of Human Rights; and Judgments of
the International Court of Justice in Arrest Warrant, Djibouti v France90 and most recently in
the Jurisdictional Immunities of the State, which, particularly since the 2014 contrary ruling
of the Italian Constitutional Court, has attracted strong juristic criticism. The expanding
extraterritorial jurisdiction of national courts with regard to torture in disregard of pleas of
Act of State and non justiciability as in Belhaj and Rahmatullah offers a further challenge to
the exclusionary nature and continued observance of State immunity. Recent developments in
key areas are examined, including: impleading; public policy and nonjusticiability; universal
civil jurisdiction for reparation for International crimes; the application of the employment
exception to embassies and diplomats; immunity from enforcement and procedural measures;
immunity of State officials, and tensions between national constitutional requirements and
superior International norms.91
2.3.6 Mr. TTK Ganzard has immunity ratione personae underInternational Customary
Law.
In Equatorial Guinea V. France, it was pleaded that the status of Vice President entails under
its law the right to represent the state and, for that reason customary International law confers
immunity ratione personae.92
87
[2011] UKSC 31
(2002) 34 EHPR 273
89
ECtHR, 14th January, 2014
90
ICJ Report 2008 p. 177
91
Hazel Fox and Philippa Webb, The Law of State Immunity, pp. 564-566
92
Equatorial Guinea V. France, ICJ
88
Page 19
ISSUE 3: WHETHER URA HAS VIOLATED ITS OBLIGATION UNDER THE

GENERAL AND TREATY INTERNATIONAL LAW WHEN THE GOVERNMENT
OF URA SEARCED SEIZED AND OCCUPIED THE BUILDING?
The protection of private property against confiscation is a long-standing rule of customary
International law already recognized in the Lieber Code93, the Brussels Declaration94 and the
Oxford Manual.95 The prohibition of confiscation of private property is codified in Article 46
of the Hague Regulations.96 Seizure and search may be conducted on premise occupied by
diplomatic mission, or on premise in which members of diplomatic mission and their family
live only upon the request or with the consent of the diplomatic representative.
3.1 Building is Diplomatic Premise under VCDR.
Search and seizure of the Building at 18, Rose Avenue Manhattan, URA by the URA Police
is in breach of VCDR, 1961. The property is being used for the purpose of Diplomatic
mission therefore the property is the premise of the mission. Premise of the mission is the
building or parts of the building and the land ancillary thereto, irrespective of ownership,
used for the purpose of the mission including the head of the mission.97 The expression
premise of the mission includes the buildings, or parts of the building used for the purpose
of the mission, whether they are owned by a sending state or by a third party acting for its
account, or the leased or rented.98 The Premise of the mission, their furnishing and other
property thereon and the means of transport of the mission shall be immune from the search,
requisition, attachment or execution.99
93
Lieber Code, Article 22, Article 37 and Article 38

Brussels Declaration, Article 38
95
Lieber Code, Article 22, Article 37 and Article 38 ; Brussels Declaration, Article 38; Oxford Manual, Article
54.
96
Hague Regulation, Article 46
97
Article 1(i), Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961
98
Diplomatic Law (commentary on the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations), Eileen Denza, 1976, p. 14
99
Article 22, Vienna Convention on Dipomatic Relations, 1961.
94
Page 20
The above argument supports that URA should have followed the guidelines given in the
VCDR, 1961 and other conventions and treaties.
3.1.1 Premise is inviolable under VCDR.
Entry is not allowed even if the receiving state has serious reason to believe that the premises
of the mission are being used in a manner incompatible with the functions of the mission.100
For example, if the premises of the mission are used for smuggling weapons or narcotics or
for organising terrorist attacks, the receiving state may merely ask for the assistance of the
sending state to stop such activities occurring at its diplomatic mission.
Territorial integrity of the property was affected by the actions of URA. The seizure of the
Andorras property is an attack on the territorial integrity. Premises of the missions are
inviolable.101 Premises of the mission shall be immune from search, requisition, attachment
or execution.102 Receiving state has a special duty to prevent disturbances of peace of the
mission or impairment of its dignity.103
3.1.2 Building is not diplomatic mission still it is inviolable.
Under VCDR says, the private residence of a diplomatic agent shall enjoy the same
inviolability and protection as the premises of the mission.104 If the court, does not accord the
position of diplomatic premise to the building, the properties of Mr. TTK Ganzard are still
immune from the jurisdiction of URA because he is a diplomatic agent of UNESCO for
Andorra.
100
Article 41 (3) of the Vienna Convention prohibits the use of the premises of the mission in any manner
incompatible with the functions of the mission as laid down in the Vienna Convention or by other rules of
general International law or by any special agreements in force between the sending and receiving state.
101
Article 22(1), VCDR
102
Article 22(3), VCDR
103
Article 22, VCDR
104
Article 30, VCDR
Page 21
3.1.3 URA should carry out its treaty obligations Pacta Sunt Sarvanda.
One of the rules of International law, which is calculated to protect alien property interests
from arbitrary seizure, states that pacta sunt servanda. This principle dictates that a State is
bound, in good faith, to carry out its treaty obligations. Since the pacta sunt servanda rule is
universally upheld,105 no one contests the proposition that a State must observe its treaty
obligations with regard to the property interests of foreigners. The Permanent Court of
International Justice, in the Chorzow Factory case, ruled that the taking of alien property in
contravention of a treaty was unlawful and illegal.106 This ruling by the Court was a
wholly natural one, because the pacta sunt servanda principle obtains generally, in so far as it
pertains to treaties, in the various areas of the law of nations.
3.2 URA should recognise the building as premise of mission under general
International law.
In Equatorial Guinea v. France, Equatorial Guinea notes that the case pertains to the
question of the legal status of a building located on avenue Foch in Paris. It asserts that Mr.
Teodoro Nguema Obiang Mangue, the former owner of the premises, sold this building to the
State of Equatorial Guinea in September 2011 and that since then the property has been used
by the diplomatic mission of Equatorial Guinea. The Applicant therefore considers that this
building should enjoy the immunities accorded to official premises by International law.107 In
case of Mr. TTK Ganzard property was sold to Andorra for diplomatic mission, same as the
case mentioned above. In the above mentionedcase it was pleaded that as the building is used
105
The Harvard Research in International Law, Law of Treaties states: No case is known in which any tribunal
ever repudiated the rule or questioned its validity.
106
P.C.I.J., Ser., A, No. 17, at 47 (1928). See infra, part II(B). See also the case
Concerning Certain German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia, P.C.I.J., Ser. A, No. 7, at
21 (1926). The publicists reach the same conclusion. See Herz, supra note 3, at 253-54;
Fachiri, Expropriation and International Law, 1925 Brit. Y.B. Int'l L. 159, 169; Williams,
International Law and the Property of Aliens, 1928 Brit. Y.B. Int'l L. 1, 28 (1928).
107
Press Release, 14th June, 2016, Equatorial Guinea v. France
Page 22
as diplomatic mission it should enjoy the immunities accorded to official premise by

International law therefore in case of Mr. TTK Ganzard the property also should enjoy
immunities entitled to premise of mission.
In Equatorial guinea case, by seizing the building situated at 42, avenue Foch in Paris, the
property of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea which was being used for the purposes of that
countrys diplomatic mission in France, the French Republic is in breach of its obligations
under International law, notably the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and the
United Nations Convention [against Transnational Organized Crime], as well as general
International law, also appeal to ensure its protection as required by International law.
Relying on the statement of above case the property that belong to Andorra should not be
seized because it is in derogation with the VCDR, UNCTOC and customary International
Law.
Good relations among states are important for the negotiation among countries. It is
important that states are able to negotiate with each other freely and that those state agents
charged with the conduct of such activities should be able to perform their functions without
harassment by other states.108 As the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has pointed out,
there is no more fundamental prerequisite for the conduct of relations between States than
the inviolability of diplomatic envoys and embassies.109
3.3 Diplomatic Premise is inviolable under general International law.
The inviolability of the premises is an undeniably established norm of International law
according to which the premises of a diplomatic mission physically present in the territory of
the receiving state are not subject to the jurisdiction of the receiving state in the same manner
108
Supra note 71.

United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran case (United States of America v. Iran) [1980] ICJ
Rep 3, at 91.
109
Page 23
as other property is.110 The building of Mr. TTK Ganzard is inviolable under general
International law and its occupation search and seizure violates International Law.
3.3.1 Inviolability restricts entry into premise without consent
The prohibition from entering the premises of the mission imposes a negative obligation to
refrain from corresponding action. The inviolability of the premises is absolute, meaning that
the premises of the mission may not be entered even by the police chasing a criminal or by
fire-fighters if there is a fire on the premises of the mission.
3.3.2 Premise is inviolable under theory of extraterritoriality.
There has been a decline in exterritoriality and the increase in the importance of the duty to
protect the premise of the mission. The term exterritoriality is being expressly used for
expressing the fact that the receiving state has no power of law enforcement within the
premise they emphasize that the term is a fiction if limited application and does not imply
that the crimes or legal transactions occurring within the embassy must be deemed to have
occurred in the territory of the sending state.111 There are numerous modern decisions of
municipal court to the same effect.112
110
Yearbook of the International Law Commission. Vol. II. New York: United Nations, p. 95, 1958
See Hurst: Les Immunites Diplomatiques: 1926 Recueil des Cours II 145; Hackworth: Digest of
International Law IV 564-566; Satow: op.cit. (4th ed.) C.XVII: Report of Sub-Committee on Diplomatic
Privileges and Immunities, League of Nations Doc. C. 196. M. 70 1927 V. 79.
112
E.g. Trochanoff Case: 1910 Journal De Droit International Prive 551; Munir Pacha v. Aristarchi Bey: 1910
Journal de Droit International Prive 549; Couhi Case: 1922 Journal de Droit International Prive 193;
Angelini case : Annual Digest 1919-22 No. 206; Legation Building (turnover tax) case: Ibsid. No. 207;
Immunities (Foreign State in private contracts) case Ibid no. 79; Status of Legation building case: Annual Digest
1929-30 No. 197; Gnome and Rhone Motors v. Cattaneo: Ibid. No. 199; Afghan Embassy case, 64 Journal du
Droit International (1937) 561, annual Digest 1933-34 no. 166; Basiliadis Case: 1922 Journal Du Droit
International Prive 407 ; Conul Barat v. Ministere Public : A.D. 1948 no. 102; Regele v. Federal Ministry of
Social Administration : 26 I.L.R. 544. Tietz et al. v. Peoples Republic Bulgaria: 28 I.L.R at 379.
111
Page 24
3.4 Search and Seizure may be conducted only with consent.

The consent of the diplomatic representative to search or seize shall be obtained through the
ministry of foreign affairs.113 The criminal procedure code of Soviet Union says that search
and seizure could be conducted but only with the consent of the diplomatic representative but
in case of Mr. TTK Ganzards property no such consent was obtained either by URA or by
Mr. TTK Ganzard.
113
Article 173, Code of Criminal Procedure, Soviet Criminal Law and Procedure.
Page 25
PRAYER
The Republic of Andorra respectfully request Honble Court to adjudge and declare
that:
a) Mr. TTK Ganzard is a Diplomat and is immune from Criminal Jurisdiction.
b) URA should suspend all the criminal proceedings brought against the Vice-President
of the Republic of Andorra, and refrain from launching new proceedings against him,
which might aggravate or extend the dispute submitted to the Court,
c) URA should ensure that the Palatial House is treated as premises of Andorras
diplomatic mission in URA and, in particular, assure its inviolability,
d) URA should refrain from taking any other measure that might cause prejudice to the
rights claimed by Andorra, aggravate or extend the dispute submitted to the Court, or
compromise the implementation of any decision which the Court might render.
OR/AND
Pass any order, which the court may deem fit in light of justice, equity and good
conscience.
All which is humbly prayed

Respectfully submitted
X____________________
Agents on behalf of the Applicant
Page 26

Memorial On Behalf of Petitioner

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Memorial On Behalf of Petitioner

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CLEA (ASIA-INDIA) MOOTING COMPETITION, 2016

TEAM CODE- CLEA007

CLEA (ASIA-INDIA) MOOTING COMPETITION 2016

IN THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

THE PEACE PALACE,

CASE CONCERNING THE DISPUTE IMMUNITIES AND CRIMINAL

MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF APPLICANT

CLEA (ASIA-INDIA) MOOTING COMPETITION, 2016

1.2.1 URA cannot exercise universal jurisdiction............................................................7

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF APPLICANT

CLEA (ASIA-INDIA) MOOTING COMPETITION, 2016

II.ISSUE 2: WHETHER URA HAS BREACHED ITS OBLIGATION UNDER

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF APPLICANT

CLEA (ASIA-INDIA) MOOTING COMPETITION, 2016

III.ISSUE 3: WHETHER URA HAS VIOLATED ITS OBLIGATION UNDER THE

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF APPLICANT

CLEA (ASIA-INDIA) MOOTING COMPETITION, 2016

Palatial House at 18, Rose Avenue Manhattan,

Democratic republic of Congo

International Court of Justice

CLEA (ASIA-INDIA) MOOTING COMPETITION, 2016

International Legal Materials

Permanent Court of International justice

United Nation Convention against Transnational

United Nation Treaty Series

United Nations educational, scientific and cultural

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF APPLICANT

CLEA (ASIA-INDIA) MOOTING COMPETITION, 2016

Vienna Convention on diplomatic Relation,

Vienna Convention on Law of Treaties, 1969

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF APPLICANT

CLEA (ASIA-INDIA) MOOTING COMPETITION, 2016

AGREEMENTS, TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF APPLICANT

CLEA (ASIA-INDIA) MOOTING COMPETITION, 2016

CLEA (ASIA-INDIA) MOOTING COMPETITION, 2016

CLEA (ASIA-INDIA) MOOTING COMPETITION, 2016

Recueil des Cours (1994-III) 13; Wickremasinghe, Immunities Enjoyed by Officials of

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF APPLICANT

CLEA (ASIA-INDIA) MOOTING COMPETITION, 2016

United Republic of ASIAN (hereinafter URA) and Republic of Andorra (hereinafter

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF APPLICANT

CLEA (ASIA-INDIA) MOOTING COMPETITION, 2016

CLEA (ASIA-INDIA) MOOTING COMPETITION, 2016

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF APPLICANT

CLEA (ASIA-INDIA) MOOTING COMPETITION, 2016

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF APPLICANT

CLEA (ASIA-INDIA) MOOTING COMPETITION, 2016

WHETHER URA HAS BREACHED ITS OBLIGATION TO RESPECT THE

INTERFERENCE IN THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF ANDORRA?

INTERNATIONAL BY PROSECUTING MR. TTK GANZARD?

INTERNATIONAL LAW BY SEARCHING, SEIZING AND OCCUPYING THE

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF APPLICANT

CLEA (ASIA-INDIA) MOOTING COMPETITION, 2016

ISSUE.1 WHETHER URA HAS BREACHED ITS OBLIGATION TO RESPECT THE

INTERFERENCE IN THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF ANDORRA?

INTERNATIONAL LAW BY PROSECUTING MR. TTK GANZARD?

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF APPLICANT

CLEA (ASIA-INDIA) MOOTING COMPETITION, 2016

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF APPLICANT

CLEA (ASIA-INDIA) MOOTING COMPETITION, 2016

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF APPLICANT