18th Nelson Mandela World Human Rights Moot Court Competition

The Takakua Down Human Rights Court is now in session in the matter between Wambua and Loman Yaka.
The Honorable Judge Ivana lis, presiding.
Good morning, distinguished guests.
May I kindly request that you switch off your cell phones or you put them on silence.
As we commence the final oral round and awards ceremony of the 18th Nelson Mandela Weld Human Rights Moo Court competition.
The court is already in session.
I May I now just acknowledge the presence of His Excellency, Ambassador Lahey, Ambassador South African ambassador.
I'd like to also acknowledge Madam President of the Bench, Judge lik, honorable members of the Bench, Professor Frans Viln, distinguished Judges, representatives of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.
And I would like to also introduce the bench that is before you.
It is my distinct honor to introduce the eminent panel of judges.
Firstly, we have got Madam President Judge lik, who's going to be presiding today.
She has presided over she will preside over today's final oral round.
Judge lik serves as a vice president of the European Court of Human Rights and the president of one of its sections.
She previously served as the vice president of the United Nations Human Rights Committee in Geneva and is a former Associate Professor of the University of Montenegro.
She is also an internationally recognized scholar for her expertise in international human rights, law, and minority rights.
Madam President, we are honored to welcome you.
We also have Judge Veronica Gomez joining the bench today.
Judge Gomez serves on the court for the 2023 2028 term of the Inter American Court of Human Rights.
She previously served as president of the Global Campus of Human Rights and currently serves as Director for education at the Centro International de Estudios Politicos in Unsam in Argentina.
He also held senior positions within the Inter American Commission on Human Rights.
Welcome Judge Goz.
We also have Judge Day Cloudy.
We have a privilege to welcome the judge who's a judge of the International Court of Justice.
Judge Cloudy is a former Professor of International Law at the University of Pretoria and former chair of the United Nations International Law Commission, where he also served as special rapporteur on youth Cogans.
He has also served as a senior legal advisor for the government of the Republic of South Africa in matters of international law and diplomacy.
Welcome, Judge Clay.
Joining the panel is also Professor Manfred Nowak, who is the Secretary-General of the Global Campus of Human Rights.
Professor Nowak is a Professor of International Human Rights at the University of Vienna and serves as the United Nations independent expert leading the global study on children deprived of liberty.
He previously served as the United Nations Special Rapporteur on torture and is internationally recognized as one of the world's leading human rights scholars.
Welcome, Professor Nowak.
We are also delighted to welcome Professor Thompson Centa, who is a Professor of International Law and AI Technologies at Liverpool John Morse University.
Professor Centa served on the United Nations Secretary-General Advisory Board on Disarmament matters and Global Commission on responsible AI in military domain.
For more than 15 years, he has authored the hypothetical cases of the Nelson Mandla Human Rights Mood court competition.
Welcome, Professor Cgata.
We also warmly welcome Mr.
Piram Patra, the Human Rights Officer at the Office of the United Nations Human Human Rights Commission United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in Geneva.
Mr.
Patra has extensive experience in human rights investigations, legal analysis, monitoring, and policy development prior to joining the United Nations worked with Amnesty International.
Welcome to you, Mr.
Patra.
On behalf of the organizers, I would like to thank the distinguished judges for their continued commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights and for honoring this competition with their presence.
At this point in time, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to hand over to the judge president to take session forward.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Good morning to everyone.
On behalf of the final jury.
I welcome the finalist teams, their coaches, my fellow members of the jury, and all distinguished guests.
I congratulate both teams on reaching the final round of the 18th World Human Rights Most Code Nelson Mandla, and we look forward to your submissions.
I now declare the hearing of the final round open and the court is now in session.
May I invite counsel for the applicant to introduce themselves, indicate the allocation of speaking time between co counsels and proceed with their oral submissions.
If this Honorable Court, I am first counsel for the applicant, and my name is Prince Mafigu and I shall be taking up a total time of 22 minutes.
And with me is my co counsel, Ruth Joca, who shall also be taking a total time of 18 minutes, and we shall then reserve before this Honorable Court 5 minutes for rebuttals.
Thank you.
Thank you, Counsel.
I would like to invite the respondent to do the same.
Thank you.
Good morning, Excellencies.
My name is Ivan Quirga, first agent for the respondent, and I shall be speaking for the first 25 minutes.
My co agent, Migahmed will then address this Court in the next 20 minutes.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Counsel for the applicant, the floor is yours.
Is this Honorable Court.
I shall begin by making submissions on the preliminary issues, that is jurisdiction, admissibility, as well as proffer submissions on the first claim.
Your Excellencies, we submit regarding claim number one of 2026 before this Honorable Court that concerns the widespread violations within the region of Dabula that are alleged regarding personal jurisdiction.
Your Excellencies, we submit that before this Honorable Court, it possesses the requisite personal jurisdiction on both the parties.
A clear reading of paragraph 47 of the facts make it abundantly clear that both state parties before this court at this present time have ratified the Takola Down Charter on Human and people's rights, not only that, but they have deposited valid optional declarations that gives this Honorable Court the specific jurisdiction to hear this matter.
Now, Your Excellencies, we acknowledge that on the 1st of September 2025, aka withdrew and renounced its particular optional declaration before this court.
However, we submit that this does not vitiate the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court regarding this matter, and the legal basis for this argument is under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties Article 56, subarticle 2, which provides for at least a 12 month renunciation notice before a withdrawal by a state becomes valid.
Now, Your Excellcies we then consequently submit that the renunciation by the state of Yaka remains at least invalid until the 1st of September 2026.
Therefore, this court is properly seized with the requisite personal jurisdiction regarding this claim.
Your Excellency further proceeding to make submissions regarding the requisite territorial jurisdiction on the same claim.
Well, the applicant acknowledges that the violations occurred within the region of Daba.
Now, Your Excellency's primarily jurisdiction is territorial as clearly established by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Ilascu versus Moldova.
Now, there are particular exceptions to this rule that then provides for the particular principle of jurisdiction being exercised by a court based on the principle of extraterritoriality.
To this effect, we then proffer before this Court the case of Ukraine versus Russia Crimea, wherein it was highlighted that the only special and specific circumstances in which a court can exercise territorial jurisdiction where violations occurred outside of the parties before the court are namely, number one, where there is state agent authority and control.
Your Excellency the other exception is where there is particular effective control over the particular violations.
Now, Your Excellencies, we further submit that the Respondent State Yaka exercised both of these two criteria in order for this Court's jurisdiction to be properly triggered.
Now, the proof is as follows regarding state agent authority and control.
Now, the court in Ascani versus the United Kingdom highlighted that the test for state agent control and authority exists where a state via its agents exercises control and authority over individuals abroad, which is enough to trigger a jurisdictional link that can give rise to the court's jurisdiction.
Now, a clear reading of paragraph 15 of the facts highlights that Yakarian field advisors were seen directing interrogations of individuals that were being tortured within the region of Dabula.
Your Excellency is not only that, Paragraph 14 also then further highlights that during the operations of the Dabula defense forces, the Yakarian satellites mapped precisely with these operations according to the satellite reconnaissance schedules.
Counsel, Mafgo, if I may just take you a little bit back on the specific issues that you are related to PAP, we'll ask when you are dealing with specific claims.
I just wanted to take you back to the authority of the Vienna Convention that you cited.
In fact, there is no way it is indicated that a the Respondent has signed the Vienna Convention.
I wanted to know from you on what basis can we actually be bound by that convention.
That's the first question.
The second question regarding that is, do you have any case law in terms of withdrawal of states from a particular treaty in terms of jurisdiction? If you can refer us to that, please.
Most obliged, Your Excellency, While the facts do not point to either party signing as part of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
However, we submit that according to the preliminary objections judgment in the case of Nicaragua versus the United States of America, it was highlighted that in cases where there is a withdrawal, the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties acts as the bedrock and the parent of all treaties, which then reflects the customary international law provisions which are applicable whenever a state withdraws from a particular treaty.
Your Excellcy regarding the second question regarding the particular case law on withdrawal, we submit particularly the judgment in the Inter American Court of Human Rights of Ivke Bronstein versus Peru.
It was highlighted that a state cannot attempt to use a withdrawal of the court's consent to the jurisdiction simply to tactically maneuver away from particular accountability for violations that crystallized during the time a declaration was active Now, Your Excellencies, it is abundantly clear that operation purity occurred within the time of 2023 to 2024.
That is pursuant to paragraph seven and eight of the facts.
Now, at this present time, the court was still seized with the requisite jurisdiction, and consequently, this court cannot have this jurisdiction stripped away by such a bad faith attempt.
Counsel, do you mean to argue then that there is something different consideration when dealing with the interpretation of human rights treaties and withdrawals and reservations? Most Most indebted, Your Excellency.
Particularly, Your Excellencies, regarding the issue of withdrawals.
We refer to this Honorable Court's particular judgment in the case of Uu Waza versus Rwanda, where particularly the issue that is looked at is what is provided for in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties under Article 26, that is Pacta Sant Servanda whereby if a state then deposits a particular declaration, which gives the court jurisdiction evasion of such would be violation of the actual good faith that is inherent in every human rights treaty.
Now, regarding reservations, Your Excellencies, the applicant does note that the ICJ, in the case of border and trans border military activities on the territory of Cameroon and Nigeria highlighted that the two, that is reservations and a treaty are slightly different and in the following manner.
And the court further emphasized that a declaration constitutes a Sisi generous particular act by a state and such a sui generous act by a state while unilateral, it consists of a state's voluntary and sovereign exercise of its authority.
Counsel, if I may, does it matter what the treaty in question says? Is it the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties that regulates the question of withdrawal or is it the content of the treaty itself? Most indebted, Your Excellencies, we submit that the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and the Takkula Dawn Charter on Human and People's Rights.
These are not mutually exclusive treaties.
However, they are inextricably linked.
The legal basis for such is the charter generally provides the specific norms of application regarding human rights for the Takaka Dawn Union, that is consisting of the violations that are to do with the issues of torture and the protection of individuals from the deprivation of the right to life.
Now, in order to operationalize the provisions and to protect the sanctity of all treaties, the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties acts as the century to that particular treaty.
Your Excellencies, I shall proceed.
May I just ask you about attribution.
What do you think about how this court should distinguish between jurisdiction established by the charter, talking about the k down Human Rights and People's Charter and substantive attribution of internationally wrongful act to the respondent state? What would be your opinion? What legal standard we should apply here? Ted, Your Excellcy Judge President, we submit that Article 35 of the Takakoa Down Charter provides for this Honorable Court's jurisdiction for the interpretation and application of all human rights treaties to which the parties are parties to.
Now, Your Excellencies, regarding the issue of attribution, particularly regarding this initial claim of the atrocities committed within the region of Dabula, under the articles on responsibility of states for internationally wrongful acts.
Your Excellency under Article 8, it provides for attribution of a non state actors actions to a state where that particular state exercises direction or control of the particular actions.
Now, if these are read together, it is clear and abundant that in order to establish a violation, there must be attribution of that particular wrongful act to the state.
May I also come back to the withdrawal.
The fact that the government of Yaka has actually responded also by launching an interstate complaint.
Does it have a legal effect on the withdrawal before? Indeed, Your Excellency, we acknowledge that on the 1st of February 2026 is when Yaka filed its counterclaim.
However, we are of the opinion that this only further cements Yakar's bad faith because pursuant to paragraph 39 of the facts, it was through a rushed parliamentary decision when it decided to withdraw from the particular consent of this court after allegations had arisen from particular NGO and NGOs and other organizations regarding these atrocities.
Now, it then filing such a claim before this Honorable Court after refusing the jurisdiction via a withdrawal further cements the breach of the good faith principle under international law.
May I ask you one last question on jurisdiction.
One of the issues that arises for me in this case is whether there is, as a matter of law, I mean, clearly, as a matter of fact, there's no question that there's a dispute, but as a matter of law, is there even a dispute between the parties? That's one of the requirements for a founding of jurisdiction, at least in the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice, which of course you have alluded to.
Most obliged, honorable judge, we submit that indeed a dispute exists between the parties, and the reasoning is as follows.
Your Excellency is pursuant to the reasoning of the ICJ in Myanmar versus Gambia, as also read with the Ogyk case.
It defined what a people are and a people constitutes not only nationals of a particular territorial state, but it also involves any other sub states that have an ethnic and cultural or religious link to that territorial state.
Now, relating this to the facts, Your Excellency, paragraphs 3, four, and five, make it abundantly clear that the Kuro minority have a shared ancestry and cultural kinship with the people of Jamuka as during the period of migration via the Dracula Sea, there was clearly a transference of indigenous peoples from Jambuka into the region of the Kuru highlands.
Consequently, the Kura minority are a people of Jambuka.
Therefore, as a matter of law, Jambuka is clearly at a legal standpoint where it can file an application regarding violations of its people.
So you've now moved on to standing.
I was asking you a very specific question about disputes.
So you've moved on to standing, which is an interesting point.
The question about a dispute, though, is whether or not the two parties have at least had an opportunity to discuss to see whether or not they can find an agreement before making an application before the court.
Most indeed, just as a correction, thank you very much.
We note that under paragraphs 24 and 25 of the facts, there was a series of diplomatic cables between the parties, followed by communications which are diplomatic once again, but the parties realized that they failed in this regard.
Therefore, the prerequisite of diplomatic negotiations outside of any tribunal was fulfilled before the application was brought before this Court.
Most indebted.
I shall proceed to make submissions regarding the admissibility of the claims.
Your Excellencies, we submit before this Court that regarding admissibility in interstate applications pursuant to paragraph 47 of the facts, there is supposed to be the exhaustion of domestic remedies, and the exceptions which exist have been highlighted in Jawara versus the Gambia as follows, a domestic remedy ought to be pursued to the extent that it is effective, available, and efficient.
Now, Your Excellencies, we further than submit that according to the case of Akmadu Sadio Diallo, that is between Guinea and the state of the Democratic Republic of Congo, It was highlighted that whenever an applicant state is alleging fundamental breaches that are reflective of an administrative practice of violations, therefore, domestic remedies can be waived.
Pursuant to this reasoning, Your Excellency, we submit that regarding this initial claim on the particular violations which have occurred within the region of Dabula, there is a systematic and administrative practice of violations.
Now, Your Excellency the fact pattern, Counsel, just maybe before I ask my question to ask you, are you going to address any merits in your submissions? Excellency, I shall make submissions regarding the first claim.
In in that regard, I know we've asked you questions on procedural aspects.
I will just ask you to answer the PEPs this question and then move to the merits of the case.
When you're talking about exhaustion of local remedies, in which country, really? Because DABla is not before the court today.
So exhaustion of local remedies, can we as a court, be able to comment on whether or not remedies were exhausted in a country that is not even before this Court? Your Excellencies, we proffer before this Honorable Court the Inter Handel case, wherein the court highlighted that whenever there are violations in any territory, domestic remedies must be pursued by the specific individuals that were the victims of such violations.
Now, a reading of the facts under paragraphs 36 and 38, there is the clear pursuance of these remedies within the state of Daba.
However, because of this cultural link between Jamuka and the Kuro minorities, then this matter can be admissible before this court.
I May I ask you about interstate cases before other international courts.
Do you know any example where the exhaustion of domestic remedies is not a precondition for accepting an interstate application? Honorable Judge President, we submit before this Court the case of Ireland versus the United Kingdom, and the court highlighted the fact that where a state alleges a direct injury of its own state apparatus, then there is no particular domestic remedy to pursue.
Now, in terms of the facts, there is the claim that has got to do with the sinking of the Madame VG, which was sunk on the region of the high seas, and the state of Yaka claims violations stemming from the destruction of such apparatus.
Now, that claim, clearly, there is no domestic remedy to pursue because it is state apparatus that has suffered direct injury.
Now, in the interest of time, I shall proceed to address the first claim.
Your Excellency regarding the atrocities committed by the Regarding the particular atrocities that were committed in the region of the bulla, Your Excellencies, we submit before this Honorable Court that under Article 16 of the ASIA, it was provided that a state is complicit in the commission of an internationally wrongful act if it assists or aids another state with knowledge of the circumstances.
Now, Your Excellencies, before establishing this, they are violations of the rights that are provided for in the Convention Against Torture to which both parties are parties to, particularly by the torturing of Reverend Tomaso Kwanza, not only that, but the killing of 37 civilians and Moricha also violates the right to life under the charter.
Now, in order to prove the particular assistance, the applicant points this Honorable Court to the particular facts.
Paragraph six of the facts highlight the transportation of karian military equipment using unmarked trucks into the region of Dabula.
Not only that, Your Excellencies, it is also then abundantly clear that shortly thereafter, the applicant notes that its time has elapsed, perhaps if I can get a minute to conclude the submission.
Could you just finalize your sentence? We have to be very strict about the time.
Most.
Thank you.
Most indebted, this particular fact is then buttressed by the conversation between the two military commanders of the DDF and Yakar where they were instructing each other to burn the root and the tree will weather and this proves the knowledge of the circumstances and the intent to cause violations.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Please.
May it please this Honorable Court, I will be making submissions on the remaining claims before the tendering our prayer before this Honorable Court.
In relation to claim number two, Your Excellencies, the Respondent State might try to argue that there was a violation of the right to life under Article 4 of the Charter as well as Article 6 of the ICCPR.
However, Your Excellencies, the applicant submits that the state of Shambua was in no way responsible for the sinking of the Madame Vigi.
Provisions of Article 8 of RCO make it abundantly clear that the only time where a state can be held responsible for the activities of an individual or group of individuals is where it's directed or controlled the particular activities.
Consistent with your Excellencies is the effective control test, which was established by the ICJ in the case of Nicaragua versus USA and later on in the Bosnian genocide case wherein in paragraphs 397 to 405 of the judgment, Counsel, may I stop you there? I can see the line of argument.
The line of argument is making a very important assumption about the facts.
The assumption here is that the applicant state had nothing to do with the bringing down of the submarine.
But that is contested on the facts.
On the facts, there are some allegations that in fact, the non state actor here implicated did not have the capacity to engage in such and so by implication that it was the applicant.
How do you respond to that? Because that seems to be the critical point for me at least.
Most indebted, Your Excellency.
In response to that, we look at paragraphs 20 and 21 of the facts, where indeed it is stated that they did not have the capacity to carry out this attack that was on Madame Fiji.
However, Your Excellency, as stated in the effective control test, for responsibility to then be attached, the state needs to direct the specific operation, in this case, the sinking of Madame Fiji.
Your Excellency there is no evidence in the facts that shows that the state action Boka actually directed, though it is alleged that the weapons were provided, which is disputed pursuant to paragraph 22 of the facts, when it was stated that the only reason why the KRF had access to these weapons is because of Yaka's failure to curb regional smuggling in the area.
Therefore, Your Excellency, we submit that because the state option Buka did not direct the specific operation, it cannot therefore be held responsible for the attack.
So is it my understanding then that assuming the Court were to find on the facts that we believe the allegation, that you would accept responsibility? So if we were to determine on the facts that having looked at the facts and having listened to the allegations from the respondent, that we think in fact the applicant was actually involved, that you would then assume responsibility under the law.
Most indebted Your Excellency, looking at the provisions of our CIWA, it is clearly stated in Article 2 that a wrongful act is a prerequisite for responsibility.
So if the court were to find that the action itself is attributable to the state of Jabuka, we submit that it still would not constitute a violation of international humanitarian law.
Your Excellency is in the judgment of Nicaragua my apologies in the nuclear weapons advisory opinion, it was stated that in order to establish whether there was a violation of the right to life during a time of an armed conflict, we then resort to international humanitarian law, which is the interpretive lens in times of armed conflict.
We submit Your Excellency that pursuant to the facts, Madame Vigi was a legitimate military objective, which is defined in Article 52 And, Counsel, I think it's a very important point that you're making.
I just have one question and I promise is the last question that I'll ask you on this.
You have referred us to the nuclear weapons advisory opinion and the famous quote about the relationship between IHL and international human rights law.
Is it the case, do you accept that the court seems to have moved away from that particular relationship and now almost seems to treat international humanitarian law and international human rights law on an equal footing even in terms of armed conflict.
If I look, for example, at the advisory opinion of 2024 and of 2025 in relation to the situation in Palestine.
Most indebted, Your Excellency, we submit that because there was an armed conflict and international humanitarian law is the leg specialis, the court should find persuasion and look at the provisions of international humanitarian law to assess whether a violation of international human rights law occurred, even though it is up to the court and it is in the court's discretion.
May I come in for a moment on that point, could you guide us to your argument on proportionality under international humanitarian law in this attack? Most indebted, Your Excellency, I will refer this Honorable Court to the provisions of Article 51, subarticle 5B of Additional Protocol one, as well as Rule 14 of the customary rules of international humanitarian law, where the principle of proportionality as discussed, stating that when carrying out attacks, the attack should not then result in collateral damage which is excessive in relation to the military advantage that is gained.
Your Excellency, while it is accepted that the attack on Madame Vigi pursuant to a reading of paragraph 20 of the facts, resulted in the deaths of 97 medical doctors, 33 nurses, we submit Your Excellency, that also aboard the Madame Vigi were 30 specially trained Marines, as well as hundreds of creative armaments.
Your Excellency is now applying this to the facts, Your Excellencies, we note, looking at the event that occurred before this, Your Excellencies, that in paragraph seven, there was a raising of entire villages, particularly the Tu, Gansa and Ngaru.
And all of this is attributable to the state of your car as argued by my co counsel.
We note that the Marines and the armaments were then meant to be used to continue with atrocities that were occurring in the territory of Dabula.
That being said, we submit before this Honorable Court that the advantage that was gained far supersedes the damage that occurred, particularly the deaths of the civilians aboard the ship.
Excuse me.
Also on the thinking of the submarine, you seem to assume that international humanitarian law is applying.
That means that you assume there was an armed conflict.
Has there been at that time, an armed conflict between Swambuka and Yaka? When did that armed conflict start and why was it during that time? Most indebted, Your Excellency, I will begin by providing the definition of an armed conflict, which was defined by the International Criminal Court in the case of Prosecutor versus T Ganda in 2019, particularly paragraph 701 to 706 of the facts, where stated, particularly first referring to a non international armed conflict, it defines this as a conflict that goes on between governmental authorities and an organized armed group or between such groups themselves.
It also then defined an international armed conflict as a conflict that occurs between two states.
Now, Your Excellency is applying this to the facts, we note in paragraph three that they began a conflict between the KRF and the DDF.
This is also then cemented in paragraph 12 of the facts, which then shows that the KRF was an organized armed group, solidified by paragraph 19, meeting the organization requirement, where we note that the KRF made a statement claiming responsibility for the sinking of the Madame Vig.
Therefore, Your Excellencies, we submit that there was an There was an armed conflict between the KRF and the territory of Tabula.
But your Excellencies, we submit that this was then internationalized by the involvement of your car as it was providing the weapons and had control and assisted the DDF.
Most indebted.
Counsel, just to clarify, since you're saying this is in the context of armed conflict, are you now saying that Jean Booker, the state you're representing, also joined the armed conflict when they attacked the submarine? Most indebted, Your Excellency, we submit that Jambua was not a party to the armed conflict as Counsel still submits that it had no responsibility and the action of the sinking of the Madame Vigi is not attributable to the state of Jambua, so it did not play a part in the armed conflict.
Thank you for your clarifications.
I would like to ask you about a genuine integrated normative framework established by a landmark case that your colleague quoted, Netherlands and Ukraine versus Russia.
Where European Court of Human Rights departed from classical traditional interpretation of IHL as interpretative aid, but also introduce a transformative character and application of European Convention on Human Rights in terms of establishing state responsibility.
Could you find a kind of parallel obligations on the charter regarding the state responsibility or you insist on IHL in this respect? Most indebted to excellency, counsel for the applicant insists on international humanitarian law.
However, we submit to the discretion of this Honorable Court in relation to this matter.
Most indebted to excenc, I will proceed to address claim number three, which is based on the Aurora cease fire Agreement.
Once more, Your Excellencies, we submit that the state of Jabuka is in no way responsible for any human rights violations that arose from the Aurora Ceafre Agreement.
We begin by proffering before this Honorable Court the provisions of Article 1 of the charter, which places an obligation on states to respect and protect the rights that are provided for in the charter.
Now proffer before this Honorable Court the decision in the Velazquez Rodriguez case wherein it was stated that the primary obligation to respect and protect rights that are provided for in the charter lies with the state, a position that was also then cemented by the American Court of Human Rights in the case of Center of Human Rights versus Tanzania in 2025.
Now, getting into more specific case law regarding this, Your Excellency, we begin by proffering the case of the Quichua Indigenous people of Sariaku versus Ecuador, decided by the Inter American Court in 20 2012.
When it was stated in paragraph 165 of the judgment that the state has an obligation to also respect the rights of the people to free prior and informed consultation.
Your Excellency, we also proffer before this Honorable Court the case of laa Hahat versus Argentina, decided by the Inter American Court in 2020.
Where in paragraph 275 of the facts, it was stated that states must protect the relationship that indigenous people have with their indigenous land.
It then went on to So it then went on to discuss and submit that this responsibility to ensure that the right to free p and informed consultations cannot be delegated to private companies or third party, less the private company that has interest in the particular rights in question.
We therefore submit Your Excellency the obligation rather to ensure that these rights were protected lies primarily with the state of Uba and not with the state of Shabka.
That also your excellency due to the principle of non intervention, the state of Jambuka could not enter the territory of Jabula to then regulate the mining activities that were being carried out.
Counsel, you've heard the saying, eat your cake and have it.
It seems like you're doing that.
You want to eat your cake and still have it.
In respect of the armed conflict, it was clear that Jabuka was intervening.
I respect to that, you were willing to intervene, but now you're not willing to intervene.
Most indebted, Your Excellency, first of all, we submit that the state of Jambua did not intervene, we also submit that it is also important to look at the context.
While according to the court's discretion, if the court were to decide that Jambua did intervene, it is important to note that the attack was carried out on the high seas and not in the So in this respect, my intervention here is in respect of you had said you had made the argument that the applicant can't intervene in the territory of Dabola with respect to how Dabulla treats its minorities.
That's the essential argument you had made.
And I tried to compare this with earlier on when you did, in fact, or your state did, in fact, intervene to try to help the minorities.
Why is it different at this time? Most indebted, Your Excellency, we submit that the difference is that the assistance Jamba is providing to the minorities was by bringing the matter before this Honorable Court and it did not enter the territory of D Rula in order to achieve this.
But in this particular case, Your Excellency, we submit that it could not enter the territory of Dabula pursuant to the Declaration on the inadmissibility of intervention to the domestic affairs of the state, 1981, if I'm not mistaken, Rind that states should not intervene with the internal or external affairs of a state for whatever reason.
Counsel, you quoted very extensively the jurisprudence of the Inter American Court of Human Rights on indigenous rights and on consultation.
But why do you think that a state should intervene with the presence on the ground in order to ensure that there is a proper consultation process with an indigenous people when we're talking about extractive activities and profit and agreements between states, et cetera Why do you equal let's say conditioning on the state relationship with its own indigenous population with military intervention? Why do you equal those two situations? Most indebted to Excellency, if I may begin by addressing the first half of your question.
We submit that in relation to physical intervention, Your Ecellcy and ensuring the right to free parent informed consultations, Your excellency, this is the most effective as physical intervention would ensure that the rights have indeed been fulfilled, and we submit that the territory of rather the state of Jambuka could not then intervene in this manner.
If.
Does it matter that the rights in question or raise obligations owed to all and such that therefore, if their obligations are omnis, your state as well has an obligation to ensure that they're fulfilled? Most indebted, Your Ecellcy indeed, pursuant to the East Timor case, these obligations are obligations ag omnis.
But however, we submit that because the primary obligation lies with the state of Jabula, which is not even a party to these proceedings, and also because of non intervention, the State of Jabuka, while it had an obligation to ensure that these rights are respected, this was limited in as far as what could have been done by the state to ensure that these obligations are fulfilled.
Most Thank you.
Your time expired.
Do you want to finish the sentence? Yes, please.
Most indebted Your excellency, we therefore submit that Sham Buka is not responsible.
And in relation to the third claim, the fourth claim rather, and the prayer, we rely on our written memorials filed of record.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Counsel.
Now, the floor goes to Respondent counsels.
Please.
The floor is yours.
Madam President, Your Excellencies, good morning, and may it please this Honorable Court.
My name is Ivan Quirga and together with my co agent, Migahmt, we rise on behalf of the Respondent State of Lamon aka.
I will speak for the first 25 minutes on the preliminary issues of jurisdiction and admissibility.
The address this Court on merits A concerning Ykar's responsibility for the human rights violations in Dabulla and merit D concerning the legality of the selective entry policy.
My co agent, Migalahmed will then address this court in 20 minutes on merits B and C.
Unless directed otherwise, we wish to proceed.
Madam President, Your Excellencies, in war, truth is always the first casualty.
Throughout their submissions, the applicants have sought to conflict and speculate.
They conflict humanitarian assistance for operational control, and they speculate whether the factual record remains deeply contested and highly fragmented.
To that end, we pose a question before this Honorable Court.
Since when has international law made a decision on the basis of speculation rather than evidence? It is the Respondent's submission that it has never done so.
With all this in mind, allow me to proceed to my substantive submissions on the preliminary issues.
Turning first to jurisdiction and admissibility, we are in agreement with the applicants submissions that this Court does indeed have the requisite jurisdiction to hear and determine this matter.
However, before I move to address this Honorable Court on its admissibility, may I offer some clarity on its personal jurisdiction.
Counsel for the respondent submitted that our withdrawal pursuant to paragraph 14 of the fact pattern was done on bad faith.
However, Your Excellencies, may I direct this Court's attention to paragraph 14, specifically the sentence beginning with on first September.
On a September 2025, Yaka's parliament arguing that Yaka was being unfairly targeted by international institutions, in particular, the Dhaka cola down human rights system by a two thirds majority formally withdrew from the jurisdiction of this court, declaring that the court had become politicized and inconsistent with the charter's original spirit.
We submit your Excellencies that our withdrawal was in pursuit of maintaining the spirit of the charter because we were being unfairly targeted throughout the human throughout the war that was occasioning in Dabola.
So, may I ask you a question just on that? I mean, it's a factual question.
Were you targeted before this Court or at that date? Just a point of clarification.
We were targeted throughout the diplomatic communications that existed between the two states.
We are told even past on paragraph 39 of the fact pattern, that the applicant state proceeded and places countermeasures against the state of Sambu, as against the respondent state without even ensuring that Yaka was the one that was actually responsible for the human rights violations.
You do realize the implication of my question.
My earlier question is then why withdraw from this court if this court this court and the system has actually never done anything in relation to the respondent because it hasn't targeted you.
To clarify, Your Excellencies, paragraph 14 of the fact pattern states that we were being targeted by international institutions, particularly the Takula Down Charter's human rights system.
We therefore submit your excellencies that pass on paragraph 14, our withdrawal was conducted because the court had become politicized by efforts of the applicant states and other states like it in the Taka Down Union and further, that it was moving in a manner that was inconsistent with the charter's original spirit.
We therefore submit your Excellencies that our withdrawal was not done in bad faith.
In addition to this, Counsel, just one follow up question on that because it's really important to the argument you're making there.
When you say the facts say that you're being targeted by the human rights system, was it by this court? Because the question still remains, why withdraw from this court if your state has never been brought before this Honorable Court, why withdraw from this court? Your Excellency, this court is guided by the, the Taulla Down Charter on Human Rights, and it is also developed by the Takakula Down Charter on Human Rights.
If the spirit of the Charter is not being upheld by institutions established and further at paragraph 14, it is declared that also this Honorable Court, Your Excellency, was acting had become politicized and acting inconsistently with the charter and therefore that becomes the basis of our withdrawal and not on any point at any point in time done in bad faith.
In any event, Counsel, So how do we read Pactasvana? Because you're saying we're withdrawing, I'm trying to understand because there is a problem with Pactasva.
But how do we read your withdrawal in terms of Pacta sun Svana and the temporal application of your legal obligations? Excellency, I do not your concern, and with regards to the principle of good faith, it is our submission that our withdrawal was done with regards to good faith with the charter establishing the Takuar Down Union, Your excellency, in that the state of Yaka and its Parliament had noted that this honorable court had become politicized and was moving inconsistently with its obligations and the charter's original spirit, which is a protection of human rights and Yes, Your Excellency.
That's what you said that this court hadn't behaved that way.
Allow me to clarify, Your Excellency.
At paragraph 14 of the fact pattern, it is stated that the parliament of Dabulaviksori, by a two thirds majority withdrew from the jurisdiction of the Takakula Down Human Rights Court, declaring that the court had become politicized and inconsistent with the charter's original spirit.
In the Just again, maybe, Counsel, to allow you to move away from that point, I think earlier you made a good submission to say a claim without evidence doesn't become truth because it's being claimed.
So it's your parliament is claiming that you're being targeted, but is it a matter of fact? Can you relate where the Court has done that? I think there's no evidence regarding that.
Maybe afterwards, you can just move on to the next claim.
I think we've heard you on this point and we'll consider it, but maybe you can answer that question and then just move on.
Your Excellency, whereas in the fact pattern, we do consider that there is no evidence that we were being targeted by the court.
It is our submission that car has not acted inconsistent with the charters spirit, and therefore, You Excellency, even in the withdrawal, it was done in accordance with good faith.
Turning to admissibility, I note that firstly, counsel for the applicant directed this Honorable Court to paragraph 47.
This is wrong, Your Excellencies, and the requisite standard on admissibility is enshrined at paragraph 48 of the fact pattern, and if I may guide this Court's direction to paragraph 48.
At paragraph 48 of the fact pattern, it is cited that the only relevant admissibility criteria within the take cola down interstate matters such as this one is only the exhaustion of local remedies.
To that end, your Excellencies, we do not contest the applicant submissions that this court that the matters before this Honorable Court are admissible specifically with merit A, which they defended.
On merit C and D, Your Excellencies, local remedies were indeed exhausted as pursuant to paragraph 38 of the fact pattern, the NGO I international rights of Dabollans approached the Swambuka Constitutional Court, which is the highest court in the land pursuant to paragraph seven.
Additionally, at paragraph 39 of the fact pattern, affected Ykarians approached the Swambua Constitutional Court, and therefore we submit that with regards to both merit C and D, local remedies were indeed exhausted.
In contention before this Honorable Court, however, is the exhaustion of local remedies with regards to Merit P on the ceasefire agreement.
Excellencies, may I begin with acknowledging that merit B was indeed forwarded before this Honorable Court by the respondent state without the exhaustion of local remedies.
However, it remains our submission that merit B is admissible before this Honorable Court.
We place reliance on the case of Javara versus Gambia in 2001 by the African Commission which established Local remedies are only to be exhausted where they are available, efficient, efficient and sufficient.
In the present case, Your Excellencies, the Respondent state contests that local remedies in the applicant state were not available.
Your Excellencies, local remedies are considered available where they can be pursued without an impediment.
In the present case, we submit that ka and Swambuka being sovereign states, Your Excellencies, aka is impeded by the doctrine of equality of states from taking a matter before the courts in Swambka and therefore, despite the lack of exhaustion of local remedies, merit B remains admissible before this Honorable Court.
Concluded on the preliminary matters before this Honorable Court, I now turn to I just have one question.
It's a question I would have liked to ask the applicant, but I didn't.
So you don't contest that the applicant has standing to raise the issue of the responsibility of the Respondent for violations of the rights of the minorities in Tabula.
In answering your question, may I direct this Court's attention to paragraph 48 of the fact pattern, specifically the line beginning with state parties to the charter.
Okay.
The sentence.
State parties to the charter may bring applications against other state parties alleging violations of the charter, interstate applications provided that all parties have accepted the court's jurisdiction.
In the present case on merit A, the applicant has brought a claim alleging that by its participation in the war in the state of Dabulla, the respondent state has violated the right to life under Article 5, Article 4 of the Charter, and the right to freedom from torture under Article 5.
Just to be clear, in your view, once the court has jurisdiction, then the issue of standing is addressed.
No, Your Excellency, standing is under admissibility.
The court first establishes its jurisdiction, then moves to address its admissibility and standing of the applicant state.
Right.
And the sentence that you've just referred to us is about jurisdiction.
It's not about standing admissibility.
That's really my question.
So is your argument that once jurisdiction is established, it's not necessary to establish standing separately? Excellency, we rely on paragraph the first part of that sentence which states that state parties to the charter may bring applications against other state parties alleging violations of the charter.
In the present case, the applicants submissions on merit A concerning Yaka's human rights violations are based on the violation of the right to life under Article 4 of the African Charter and the right to freedom from torture under Article 5, which person paragraph six is synonymous to the Takla Down Charter.
But just to clarify, but do you imply then that if you have an interstate complaint, there is no need to, let's say, exhaust domestic remedy remedies and comply with all of the other requirements that a claim through a Court of Human Rights should satisfy before not talking about jurisdiction, before there is admissibility for the claim.
Because you were talking before about admissibility.
The the claimants were saying that there was no need to exhaust remedies because they were talking about a generalized human rights violation.
But you're saying that actually some organizations approached a high court and therefore there had been, let's say, exhaustion, although you were not clear about whether that was an adequate remedy and whether it was actually effective.
So can you clarify? Excellencies, with regards to merits B and merits C and D, Your Excellencies, it is our submission that despite the fact that it is not the state of aka that directly went before the highest court in the state of ambuka, Your excellency's local remedies have been exhausted.
The African Commission in the 2017 case of African Commission on Human and People's Rights versus the State of Kenya, at paragraph 55 stated that the party before this court and the party that exhausted local remedies need not be the same, but all in all that local remedies be exhausted.
Regards to merit B, we submit that the respondent state, being the custodian of the rights of the people who are killed pursuant to the sinking of Madame Vig is partly a victim and therefore, Your Excellencies, by virtue of the doctrine of equality of states cannot approach the courts in the applicant state to exhaust local remedies.
Proceeding with my submissions and moving to merit A, the question before the court is whether the state of Yaka can be held responsible for the human rights violations in Ebola.
Under this merit, counsel for the applicant has submitted that there were human rights violations in the violation of the right to life under Article 4 of the African Charter, pursuant to paragraph 11 of the fact pattern where that seven individuals were killed and the violation of the right to freedom from torture under Article 5, pursuant to paragraph 15 due to the torture of Reverend Tomaso Cona.
Your Excellencies, it is our submission that these human rights violations, whilst deeply regrettable, cannot be attributed to the state of Yaka by virtue of Article 16 of the Articles on state responsibility.
Article 16 of the Articles of state responsibility provides that a state shall be held responsible for any assistance that it provides in the commission of an internationally wrongful act where two elements are met.
First, that it is under a direct obligation not to commit these internationally wrongful act and second, that gave assistance with knowledge of the circumstances of the internationally wrongful act.
So, Counsel, given the rights at issue, does the duty to prevent come in, which is much more positive, requiring much more positive conduct on the respondent and much stronger than the right the obligation not to assist, does this in any way affect your argument, the duty to prevent? See, person to Sara Nigeria, their duty to prevent does indeed come in and we submit that that does not affect our state as our state did not have knowledge that its assistance was going to be used to commit an internationally wrongful act.
The test is not if you have knowledge, it's in the circumstances you ought to have been aware that there was a possibility and given the conflict and the news media about what was happening, surely you must have foreseen a real risk of some violations of human rights and yet you continue to assist, no.
I may direct this Court's attention to paragraph ten of the fact pattern.
It is clearly stated that Yaka insisted and continues to act lawfully to preserve regional stability by supplying non lethal aid such as russians, communication gear, and defensive drones.
In the present case, Your Excellencies, all the offensive drones that were used in the other attacks mentioned by the applicant State pant paragraph six and paragraph 11 of the fact pattern were not supplied by the State of Yaka.
Therefore, we submit that Jakar did not have any obligation to prevent and this obligation lay with the state of Dabola as it is of its officials who are committing these human rights violations.
May I ask you something? Maybe I misunderstood, but I have impression that you claim that there was no effective control.
Do you think that there was an overall control at all from your side? Maybe, Counsel, just so that you answer the questions today because they are related on the question of effective control.
On paragraph 15, this is specifically to do with the right to freedom from torture.
It's clearly stated that there are eyewitnesses actually, which say that it was Jakorian personnel who were directing the interrogations where someone is being tortured, which is, you know, you know, direct control there.
What would be your response to that? Beginning with Madam President's question, on overall control, while that might have been met by the provision of training and weapons Your Excellencies, pursuant to the International Court of Justice decision.
At paragraph 405 of the 2007 Bosnian genocide case, overall control is not the standard to be used in matters of state responsibility and is only to be used when assessing individual criminal responsibility.
Regards to effective control and answering jointly Madam President's question and Professor Cengata's question with regards to effective control, passed on to the International Court of Justice's case of Nicaragua versus the United States, at paragraph 115, effective control is demonstrated by either specific direction or enforcement of the acts in question.
Direction in the present case requires that the state party give specific instructions for the alleged violations.
In the present case, Your Excellencies, the evidence relied on by the applicant state at paragraph 15 of the fact pattern is cited as testimony from a former security contractor whose identity cannot be verified.
And further, if I may direct this Court's attention to paragraph 37 of the Counsel, when you say whose identity cannot be verified, that's not stated in the fact pattern.
We don't have that their identity cannot be verified.
Allow me to direct this Court's attention to paragraph 15 of the fact pattern, specifically the sentence beginning with Yaka dismissed.
Kar dismissed the reports as manufactured atrocity propaganda, adding that the alleged contractor had no verifiable identity.
We therefore submit that reliance on this testimony, Your Excellency, from a person who can't even be brought before this Honorable Court constitute cannot be used to prove specific instruction by the state of Yaka.
Additionally, at paragraph 37 of the fact pattern where we had criminal prosecutions with regards to the right to torture specifically, whereas the word testimony is Your Excellency's, the courts in Dabola held that without any further evidence in the form of signed orders, Your Excellencys, this could not be attributed to the state of car.
Proceeding with my submissions on Article 16, the threshold under Article 16 is established in the preparatory works and we place reliance on the preparatory works by virtue of Article 32 of the Vienna Convention of Treaties, which states that when the text of the article is ambiguous, then we can use the preparatory works to get the intent of the drafters.
In the present case, the text of Article 16 is ambiguous on what the threshold of knowledge of the circumstances is, and therefore it is our submission that we should place reliance on the preparatory works.
Excellencies, the preparatory works to RCA, specifically the drafting committee minutes of the 26 81st meeting at paragraph five.
Just one small question.
It's a technical question.
You're treating RCA as a treaty.
Your Excellency, it is soft law and it has been documented and therefore we submit that Article 32 of Vienna Convention of the Law of treaties can apply in that at this specific moment, we do not pass on to the reading of the text.
The threshold of knowledge of the circumstances is not provided under the text of Article 16, and therefore, Your Excellencies, we move to the preparatory works to get the threshold.
The commentary, which is an integral part of the instrument adopted.
Your Excellency, the commentary in and of itself is also silent on the threshold.
Under the preparatory work, specifically the conclusions of the meeting of the drafting committee's 2608 first meeting, they conclude that the threshold for knowledge is to be interpreted narrowly, Your Excellencies, and adds that in the commentary, this specifically will be discussed.
The commentary at page 66, Paragraph four states that the state will only be held accountable where it provided assistance with the knowledge of the intended use of its assistance.
On the facts, this has not been demonstrated by the applicant state.
Placed reliance on the leaked intercept at paragraph eight of the fact pattern.
However, Excellencies, at paragraph eight of the fact pattern, it is stated that this leaked intercept has only been authenticated by Groc an AI tool on X, Your Excellencies, and when it was provided to experts, they could only conclude that your Karan accents were heard.
We submit that Accent alone is not enough to attribute any crime to any state as any people from any other region can share accents and can speak in the language of another state.
Further, Your Excellencies, under Article 16 of our CWA, assistance is not enough to prove attribution.
Was the respondent state might have provided assistance, the applicants have not shown that the respondent state knew that its assistance was going to be used to commit human rights violations.
Turning swiftly to merit D, Your Excellencies, the question before this Honorable Court is whether the visa policy is justified.
Counsel for the applicants have not submitted on this merit and therefore, we place reliance on the statements by the Minister of the state at paragraph 40 that the visa policy is a lawful countermeasure.
Countermeasures are guided by Article 49 of our CIA and there You don't have much time left, and so I'm just going to ask you one question.
So even if we forget countermeasures and everything, is there anything unlawful about that conduct? Is it not up to the state to determine its visa policies? B, We thank you.
In answering judge honorable justice's question, it is true that states have the right to regulate entry and exit of aliens into its territory.
However, this right is subject to Article 12 of the ICCPR, which provides that this must be governed by lawful processes, Your Excellencies, which have failed under RCA Your Ecellcy as they have justified it as a lawful measure.
Additionally, there must be notice and the aliens must be given a chance to contest their expulsion.
In the present case, they were indeed given a chance and we do not contest that.
The time expired a couple of I think 30 seconds ago.
So just conclude your sentence and we finish.
I took into consideration that we asked you a lot, so please conclude your sentence.
As I cede floor, Your Excellencies, where thresholds are not met, responsibility cannot arise.
The applicants have not provided any thresholds before this Honorable Court and therefore, we submit that the respondent state cannot be held responsible for any violations.
I cede flow to my co agent, Mr.
Glamed.
Thank you.
Please.
The floor is yours.
Madam President, Your Excellency, may it please this Honorable Court.
Picking up from where my co agent has left, my name is Sagamed appearing as the second agent on behalf of the Respondent State Lonn Yaka.
With the leave of this Court, I shall be taking the next 20 minutes to dispense with Merit B on the responsibility for the sinking of Madame Vig and Merit C on Zumbua's inconsistency with its human rights obligations under the Ora cease fire Agreement.
Your Excellencies, I posed a question before this Court.
Does international law permit destruction or does it demand restraint? The respondents submit that the law is unequivocal, that where verification is possible, yet not undertaken, where alternatives exist, yet ignored, and where lives could be spared but are not, the law is not applied, it is violated.
With this, your excellencies, allow me to move to substantive submissions beginning with merit B.
It is the respondents submission that Zambua bears international responsibility for the sinking of Madame VG.
To this end, we shall be advancing our two arguments that firstly, the attack on Madame VG was unlawful under international humanitarian law, and second, that that attack is in fact attributable to the applicant state.
Turning fast to the unlawfulness of the attack, it is a submission, your Excellencies that the attack on Madam Vig was unlawful as the vessel itself constituted a dual use object, by definition, under page 92 of the ICRC guide to Excellencies, wherein a dual use object is one that has both simultaneous civilian and military functions.
Did the Applicant state know that it was dual use? Is there anything in the facts to indicate that it knew that it was dual use? Your Excellency, it is a submission that whereas they may not have known, that in fact leads me to my point that in the cases of uncertainty, then that must be resolved in favor of protection.
In this present scenario, it is a submission that the attack was unlawful as the principle of precaution was not adhered to.
By dint of customary IHL Rule 15, as well as the 2000 prosecutor versus Cooper Skit decision, it was stated that the principle of precaution and the international humanitarian law has attained the status of customary international law.
And the reasoning of the tribunal, Your Excellency, was that no state had contested the ones that are even the ones that are not a party to the additional protocol.
In contrast to these requirements, if I may guide this Court's attention to Paragraph 20 of the fact record, where it is stated that the applicant state chose the highest form of attack to piding the Madam VG Excellency, leading to the death of the 97 doctors, 33 nurses, as well as the 30 specially trained commandos.
Having established the unlawfulness of the attack, Your Excellency, it is a submission that we note the applicant has stated that the attack was proportionate.
It is a submission.
Counsel, just for more clarity on the part of illegality that you are referring to, which I have heard that you've mentioned the principle of precaution.
Can you articulate how the principle of precaution IHO principle of precaution is being violated in terms of the attack of the submarine, I'm not getting linking there.
Then if that's the only precaution also you are relying on is an IHO principle that it was violated before you move on to question of proportionality.
Okay.
Certainly, Excellency, it is a submission that the principle of precaution was violated as the agents for the applicants could have in fact chosen less lethal means as they had the capability, as shown by paragraph 21 of the fact record, where it is stated that the technology that was used in the tracking of Madam Vig itself, Your Excellency, was capable of detecting and transmitting minute acoustic signatures even across continents.
In this regard, it is a submission that they in fact had the capability to effect the principle of precaution.
Moving then, Am also ask in that context, do you think that the sinking of the submarine was a violation of Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, or are you only applying international humanitarian law? If so, do you contend that it was an international armed conflict at that time? You excellent.
Sorry, Counsel, the question which I wanted to follow up is that precaution you take measures that are possible to take.
In this particular regard, I wanted to hear what are the alternative measures which they could have taken to actually destroy if it is a military target.
Responding to the first question, it is a submission that were in fact contending that the attack was in violation of Article 6 of ICCPR, as well as Article 4 of the African Charter, and we note that in this instance, Your Excellency, that your question in fact alludes to the difference between international humanitarian law as against international human rights law.
In our present case, it is a submission that what is applicable is international humanitarian law.
However, it is still a submission that international human rights law does not cease to take effect in instances of war and therefore it is applicable and complementary to each other.
In that regard, it is a submission that both are in fact applicable.
Responding to the second question, Your Excellency, as to what feasible measures are present in the present case, it is a submission by relying on the Sandra manual Excellency, that the applicant state could have in fact issued blockades, which would be a less lethal means Your Excellency, as the attack happened on the high seas, it posed no imminent threat to the applicant state, and therefore, there was no need to choose the highest form of attack on the Madam VG and therefore, it is a submission that even then the principle of precaution was not adhered to.
Adré So if you state that actually IHL is applicable here, then you submit that submarine was a legitimate military object.
Where is the principle of distinct here? Do you think that how do you prove that submarine is not a civilian object? For example, if it's used in humanitarian purposes or other purposes, could you elaborate on that, please? Your Excellency, it is a submission that Madam VG was, in fact, not a military objective as it was a dual use object.
For an object to classify as a military objective, two criteria must be met under Article 522 of Additional Protocol one, that firstly, by its use, nature, location, or purpose, it must make an effective contribution to military action, and second, its complete or partial destruction offers a definite military advantage.
In this present case, we contend the second criteria as it was not making an effective military contribution.
If I may guide this Court's attention to paragraph 23 of the fact record where k states that the 30 commandos were accompanying the 97 doctors and 33 nurses for basic security in order to establish emergency clinics, and that was Your Excellency pursuant to the humanitarian mission to ensure that the citizens of Dabula were to be protected.
Andrés of ammunition.
Excellency While we note your concern regarding the cs of ammunition, it is a submission, Your Excellency, that in fact, even in the scenario where this Court finds that this was a military objective, the attack was still unlawful as the principle of precaution was not adhered to, as well as the principle of proportionality.
It is a submission that in assessing the principle of proportionality, as rightfully noted by the second agent for the applicant, that this Court should consider two factors.
Firstly, the incidental civilian harm as against the military advantage present.
In this present situation, Your Excellency, we submit that the just one question on that point.
Is that assessment taken before the attack or afterwards? Is it an ex post facto analysis that we say so many doctors died, so many nurses, so many civilians, or is the assessment taken before by the applicant in this case because you're soon going to argue attribution? It is a submission that that assessment should be taken at the time of the attack and considering that.
And my question then is, did the applicant, again, assuming a position, did they know that there were so many civilians and so many doctors and so many nurses? Your Excellency, it is a submission as the facts are unclear as to the time of the attack and the knowledge of the people on board.
It is a submission that they should have verified, considering they did have the capability to verify who was on board before making the attack.
Moving then to the attribution of that attack, agents for the applicant test stated and relied on Article 8 and the articles of state responsibility.
However, we seek to clarify something before this Court.
Agent for the applicant has stated that, in fact, the requisite standard and threshold and Article 8 is one of effective control.
However, we submit to the contrary that that is in fact a misdirection before this Court.
We seek to rely on the ILC commentary to Article 8 at paragraph seven, where it states that a state may assume responsibility under three limbs.
Firstly, if it exercise direction, control or instruction.
It was stated in the text of Article 8 that these three are disjunctive, and it is sufficient to establish any one of them for responsibility to arise.
While they have relied on control, it is a submission that we seek to ground responsibility under direction.
Paragraphs page 69, paragraph seven of the ILC commentary, states that the actual threshold required and standard for direction is one of actual direction of an operative kind.
With that, if I may guide this Court's attention to paragraph 20 and 21 of the fact record, where it is evident that the Kuru Restoration front, the KREF could not possibly have possessed the requisite technology and capability to effect the attack.
You were earlier or your co counsel was earlier talking about evidence, but could not have is not evidence of this involvement.
Your Excellency, if I may guide this Court's attention to Paragraph 20 of the fact record, where it is stated that this technology was with sophisticated and of restricted export.
Further, this technology was within the exclusive control of Zambuka and therefore, in this regard, it is a submission that they in fact directed the attack on Madame VG.
And to that end, we submit that Zambuka bears international responsibility for the sinking of Madame VG in violation of its human rights.
Earlier on in respect of the first claim, there was allegations made that some of the armaments that were used for some of the gross violations of human rights could only have or were the kind of armaments that came from your state.
And again, your co counsel argued, but there's no evidence.
This is not evidence because it could have been acquired by anybody.
Is the same argument not available to the applicant? Again, the same evidentiary status argument.
While we note your concern, Your Excellency, we submit that this Court can, in fact, then rely on circumstantial evidence to prove the fact that the applicants, in fact, directed the attack.
This is by dint of paragraph 132 of the Maprean versus Columbia decision where it stated that International Human Rights Court do not bring states before it as defendants, but rather as custodians to protect the rights of the victims.
In this present case, it is a submission, therefore, that this Court can rely on circumstantial evidence to prove that the applicants directed the attack on Madam Vig in violation of the human rights obligations.
I now tend to address the third question, proving that Zambuka A cease fire Agreement is inconsistent with Zambuka's human rights obligation.
You excellent Counsel.
So you're arguing that there is an objective responsibility on the part of the state in this sort of scenarios? Please clarify, Excellency? You quoted a precedent when you said that states are custodians of the rights of individuals.
But just to understand from which context you bring that precedent, are you trying to imply that we are in a scenario of objective responsibility on the part of the state? Your Excellency, it is a submission that we seek to rely on that case to establish before this Court that it can, in fact, rely on circumstantial evidence as it is the obligation of the International Human Rights Court to ensure that they protect the rights of the victims.
I now turn to address the third question, proving that Zumbuk's human rights obligations are inconsistent under the Aurora Case Fire Agreement.
Your Excellencies, it is your submission that the Ara Cease Fire Agreement is inconsistent as the right to self determination of the Kuro Indigenous people pursuant to paragraph four of the fact record has been violated.
It is a submission, Excellency, by relying on the separate opinion of Judge Robinson and Judge Sabutinde in the case of Chagas advisory opinion of 2019, where he stated and I quote, the inalienable right to self determination is cogance.
The corresponding obligation incumbent upon the administering power is an obligation that the omnis.
The same was codified.
If I may, I mean, that's a separate opinion.
The court itself has later clarified that self determination is indeed uskogn, but it clarified that only the core part, what part would that and how would that apply here? In the 2024 advisory opinion on the policies and practices of Israel on the territory of Palestine, Your Excellency, it is a submission that while we note that assessment and we do in fact side with that, it is a submission that the same was codified under the 2022 ILC draft conclusion on identification and legal consequences of peremptory nom, which included the right to self determination as his codin.
The specific part was as explained to show that the requisite part of a The requisite part of self determination, your excellency, is the distinct social, cultural, economic characteristics, a special relation with ancestral territory.
In this present regard, paragraph four of the fact record as well as paragraph five, demonstrate that the Kuru people are an indigenous people that have territorial and ancestral connection with the Kuru Highlands.
It is in this regard, Your Excellency, that flowing from the Sarco versus Ecuador decision, that in instances of right of self determination, a binding obligation of free prior and informed consent flows.
We note then that the agents for the applicant aptly put that these obligations are territorial obligations.
However, considering that this is a ogious obligation, then it is a submission that they have an oms obligation and the court went ahead to state that in assessing free prior and informed consent, the court should also consider whether an environmental impact assessment was conducted.
It is a submission, Your Excellency, that by relying on the Pulp Mills Uruguay decision, it was stated that it is mandatory for an environmental impact assessment to be conducted in the case where there's a proposed industrial activity that has an adverse impact on the climate and the environment.
And just a clarification, in these facts, we know that no environmental impact assessment has been carried out.
We do.
Your Excellency, it is a submission that there was no environmental impact assessment that was conducted, post paragraph 33 and 34 of the fact record where despite seeing that the rivers have clouded with runoff, ecosystems were being fractured, pastoral fields collapsed into pits that no protective measures were put in place.
Any claim by the applicant? Sorry, but can you separate the two concepts in the argument? Because if you're talking about self determination, that means that an indigenous people has the right to establish that they want an extractive activity to be conducted if they can profit from it, which is separate from the effort of the international community to establish damage to the environment and protection to the environment as an obligation, a process in which we're in.
Can you please separate both? Because you intend to conflate both in one argument? Just, Counsel, maybe to add to Judge Gomez's question, can you also clarify how the right to self determination, as a matter of fact, has been violated within the title of doublar? I'm asking this question because you are aware that the charter of this Court is similar to that of the African Commission on Human Pop's rights.
So the question of self determination is contained in Article 2 and one, subsection one.
Having to use your resources as a people should be balanced with the right to development, which is in Article 22.
That right to development, if you look on the facts, it actually says resulting out of this ceasefire agreement, there has actually been increased development in Dabola and the areas affected.
How do you balance this for us to actually say there is a violation of self determination here? Your time expired, but because actually we made so many questions, I would allow you to answer one or two sentences if possible.
Thank you.
Thank you, Madam President.
It is your submission, Excellency, that in responding to the first question, we do not intend to conflate the right to self determination of the Kuro people.
In this present case, pursuant to paragraph 31 of the fact record, even the Kuro people themselves are protesting in grief, first in grief, then in anger.
Therefore, in this regard, even the Kuro people themselves who have this right are not on board with this decision.
Responding? Thank you.
Thank you.
Now, I would like to give the floor to applicants for rebuttal in duration of 5 minutes.
Most indebted judges.
Your Excellencies, the Respondent has tried to paint the wrong picture before this Honorable Court regarding these claims.
Firstly, Your Excellencies, regarding the issue of personal jurisdiction, the Respondent has argued that this particular declaration that was withdrawn on the 1st of September 2025 is valid.
However, this is a hypocritical argument as the state of Yaka claims to have withdrawn from the jurisdiction of this honorable court but then proceeded to file its counter appplication.
We surely do not understand how that holds legal weight, and it should only lead this Honorable Court to conclude that the respondent state is acting clearly in bad faith in contrary with the provisions of the VCLT.
Your Ecellc' we further submit, in contrast to the submissions made by the respondent state regarding the issue of interstate applications.
Your Excellencies, we note that in line with this, there is a concern that was raised by Judge Veronica Gomez regarding how the mechanics of interstate applications and exhaustion of domestic remedies function under international law.
Your Excellencies, we submit that the respondent state failed to clearly articulate what this means and In this regard, we submit that in the case of Amdu Diallo Sardio, it was highlighted that where an applicant state that is regarding interstate applications, where a state seeks to espouse or vindicate the rights of victims which are its nationals, then in that context, those particular nationals and individuals must at least attempt to pursue domestic remedies within the particular state where the violations occurred.
Now, Your Excellencies, we further proceed to make relevant submissions regarding the initial claim on the atrocities committed within the region of Dabula Your Excellencies, the respondent has told this Honorable Court that it had no knowledge of the circumstances.
However, as clearly highlighted by Judge Dret Lady, it is apparent that according to the reports under paragraph 14 and paragraph 16 of the facts, it is a clear and lucid situation where these violations were known by each and every individual.
Your Excenc more particularly, the Respondent has also highlighted that there is no particular form of responsibility that is arising at its instance.
Your Excellencies, we submit pursuant to the reasoning of Judge Dire Cladi in his declaration regarding the Nicaragua and Germany jurisprudence of 2024, where in paragraphs 1 and 13, he highlighted that where a state is aware of grave situations and ongoing allegations of gross violations, it is under a strict and continuing obligation of due diligence.
Your Excellencies, to this effect, because of these widespread reports, the respondent state had an obligation to exercise due diligence even in the alleged supply of humanitarian aid, which we still vehemently dispute before this Honorable Court.
It proceeded to supply these despite the volatile situation within the Dablah region, which is a consistent violation of due diligence under international law.
Your Excellencies, lastly, regarding the issue of the crates of armaments, the Respondent has also highlighted before this Honorable Court that the crates of armaments were in the particular submarine and this does not constitute any violation, and they referred to the San Remo Manual.
Your Excellencies, we submit that under paragraph 67 F of the San Remo Manual, it is highlighted that where a vessel is harboring particular weaponry in order to protect the individuals therein, such weaponry in terms of its threshold and amount should be at least adequate to protect the individuals within the particular machine.
Your Ecelly the facts make it abundantly clear and this court can clearly see that.
There were merely 97 individuals and an additional 33 making them 130 and there were hundreds of crates of armaments.
Your Excellcy this is clearly not proportionate and is a consistent violation of that particular rule under international law.
Your Ecellncy with this, the applicant arrests this case.
Thank you.
So now we would like to adjourn because we will deliberate.
I would like to thank you for your excellent submissions and thank you for your patience.
Now, it's up to us to deliberate and it's our work at stage.
Thank you, and see you very soon.
I.
I I I I I Hello.
May I ask you to take your seats, please? The court has reached its decision, but before announcing the results, I would like to congratulate to both teams on excellent final round.
Your preparation, advocacy, professionalism have been exemplary and it was a great pleasure being today with you.
I would like to give the floor to my colleagues to share with you our comments or impressions.
Please, I would like to give the floor to Veronica Gomez on the right side.
Thank you, just to start.
Congratulations to both teams.
I think we're very well prepared.
I'm sure that many people that are in this room that managed to reach this stage of the competition, also very well prepared.
Congratulations on all the preparations for both teams.
I think both teams are very gifted in terms of presenting their arguments, resisting the onslaught of questions from the bench.
And also referring to different types of case law from different regional systems.
Thank you for that.
Well, all the best for you for us is always very encouraging to see how we have coming through the ranks, many people that are particularly gifted for international litigation.
All the best for your careers and congratulations for a job.
Really well done.
Thank you.
Thank you, Veronica.
Now the floor goes to Judge Lady.
Well, thank you very much.
I share everything that Judge Gomez has said.
I was terribly impressed.
I have been doing moots in some form or the other since 1994, in some form or the other.
And this is the first time, I think that I have seen two teams and both teams did this able to recite the facts without looking and telling us at which paragraph.
Um, able to recite judgments and telling us the pages and paragraph numbers of judgments.
So that was really, really impressive.
I know it's always very difficult to receive questions.
It's much easier on this side.
We don't even have to know the answers to the question that we ask.
You guys have to know the answers.
I know, again, because I've been on both sides of this bench.
So it's really impressive what you've done.
At the court at which I sit, you all would have done exceptionally because there there are no questions.
The few times that there are questions, you can say, I'll respond tomorrow.
I've really been very impressed by your composure and your ability to withstand very difficult questions and I wish you everything of the best for the future.
Thank you.
Now the floor goes to Professor Novak.
Yeah, I can only echo.
I think it was extremely impressed by the knowledge of the facts, the knowledge of the law, the very, very quick reactions to partly very difficult questions, I should say, and And I was also kind of admire, of course, you know that is the rule of the game, but if I would be in your position and I get at the end, two long questions.
They are so long that the time is over, and then you are not allowed to answer the questions because you exhausted the time.
I think I would have gone on speaking in your case saying that's unfair.
But, Um, I like the presentations.
I mean, unfortunately, because of so many questions, certain important issues on the merits have not really been addressed, but it was not your fault, it was our interruptions.
I felt that the rebuttal was excellent.
Thank you, Manfred, the floor goes to Professor Thompson.
Thank you, Judge.
Let me also join the panelists in really congratulating both teams for really, really well presented cases.
I also must lead by acknowledging your interest in human rights, especially in the era that we are currently living in.
I hope and pray that you perhaps continue advocating in this particular field of human rights.
Two things that I would want to say, the first one being beyond not starting first with the question of advocacy, but the question of research, which are really, really was very impressive.
It was very clear for both teams that much research went into this.
I would want to encourage you to say, I think that's sometimes one of the key best aspects of a lawyer, whether you're in private practice or the international level, that sometimes people undermine the importance of research which you need to put in.
I hope also that you continue being focused in that particular area.
Then on the question of advocacy, Um, again, exceptional presentations, and I think many in the room perhaps have been to courts of law where perhaps maybe people were already qualified sometimes don't show that level of advocacy.
So on that bit really, congratulations.
Two things that I want to add on the question of advocacy will simply to say, What I noticed for both teams, if you, if you're making claims and also when you are defending, it may be a little bit perhaps helpful to differentiate the tone and approach when you're defending and when you're claiming to show that, for example, if you're defending that there's a human rights violation and when you're claiming that is the tone there should be a little bit different at least for me.
Lastly, I would say that in terms of language, It's a point that I have to say, excellent language that was being used.
I would have to actually acknowledge the respondent, very respectful in every bit of your submissions.
Applicant without mentioning exactly which one, I think there was some time point where I think the certain language I will be saying, take it a little bit.
For example, you wouldn't use language as hypocritical, referring to submissions of co counsels.
Also on the respondent side, last comment, perhaps let him go.
There are certain points that don't hit your case at all, where you feel it's actually taking more time actually trying to articulate a point that actually doesn't add to your case, perhaps just let him go.
With that, congratulations to both teams and it was a pleasure listening to you all.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Mr.
Batra, please.
Thank you, Madam President.
My fellow judges have already praised both teams and I wholeheartedly agree with their views.
Not much more for me to say on that point other than it was very competitive and extremely difficult to decide and mark on.
But let me take this opportunity to also congratulate all the other participants of previous rounds who took part.
I think many are in the room, and I think you may not have made it to the final, but congratulations for making it to the final rounds.
I want to thank the organizers for the incredible competition that they organized.
Now, I do also have the privilege of wearing my OHCHR hat, and we have been very fortunate to partner with this mode code competition from the early years even before it moved to Geneva, as I understand.
So let me take this opportunity then to congratulate you, the finalists and all participants and organizers on behalf of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, who could not be here today.
Previous participants at the competition have gone on to make significant contributions to human rights.
We've seen that from many of them.
That role is even more essential now in the times we live in with an ongoing assault on human rights, multilateralism and the international order.
OHCHR has now convened the Global Alliance on Human Rights, a multi stakeholder c regional mobilization to connect people and to fight exactly against what we are facing now.
I hope and join my colleague in praying that the finalists and all the others in this room will continue their advocacy for human rights and join us in this global alliance and this global initiative to push back against the attacks on human rights that we are seeing internationally.
With that, thank you very much and pass you back to Madam President.
Thank you.
Thank you all.
I would also like to express my sincere congratulations to both teams, but also to all participants of this exceptional World Human Rights mood court Unikov nature.
I'm always very happy.
Actually, I'm very proud of you being here and doing all this work for the human rights cause.
Better understanding, better dialogue is actually the way the way forward.
I would like to thank to both of you for your outstanding, excellent presentations.
We were very well aware when we came here that you know the case.
But as Da told, I was impressed that you even didn't consult notes when quoting paragraphs and that was impeccable.
Also, your presentations showed that you invested a lot of energy time in order to get your competence and to sharp your presentations.
Where it became difficult is when we made questions.
At one moment, I said to D, I will not ask now, I will not ask anymore because I want to actually get them back to what they prepared.
My advice for future, don't try to persuade and loss time, move.
You, you give your statement, you reply to question, and then you move to another argument because organization of time in this working manner, we ask questions, then you reply directly.
It's a cross examination in a way.
In the European Court of Human Rights, we don't have it.
Yes, judges make questions, but only after oral pleading of parties.
When both parties finish, then we ask, and then we give half an hour usually for them to concentrate on replies.
Then we leave 48 hours actually for additional written submissions.
Of course, this is moot court.
In every moot court, we appreciate questions.
I was also impressed like Manfred with the rebuttal.
I also liked how some of you, I think the lady from respondent side replied to question she was not very sure about, but then she replied in a very good manner.
Sometimes we ask questions just to check where you are.
We don't ask questions for receiving yes or no, but that's also something that you should take into account.
For me, nuances are here, both of you, both teams are were excellent and all of you all speakers did a great job.
I congratulate you and I also wish that you stay in this area, which is very vulnerable right now with all these politicians around us.
Thank you, and I think that we will not announce any result now.
It will come later.
Thank you so much.
Thank you so much, Madam President and thank you to all members of the bench for your thoughtful reflections and valuable guidance to our finalists.
It is a pleasure for me to now introduce to you His Excellency, Ambassador De Laher, permanent representative of South Africa to the United Nations Office and other international organizations in Geneva to deliver the closing remarks.
Your Excellency, the floor is yours.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Participants, judges, the organizers, a few days ago, we were welcoming you to Geneva for the Nelson Mandela World Human Rights Moot Court competition.
Today, after what I'm certain has been a rigorous week of researching, drafting, and arguing, you have reached the end of the competition.
We congratulate you on your participation and the winners for the achievement.
Having sat here for today's final round, I fully concur with the comments from the judges.
The exceptional level of arguments clearly shows the highest standards of participation.
To all of you, you have already achieved something remarkable simply by being here.
You successfully went through virtual rounds and the demanding process that brought you here to Geneva.
As I noted on Monday at the opening, you have done so across languages, legal traditions, and time zones with the support of your teams and institutions and your mentors.
That achievement deserves immense recognition.
Again, I want to repeat, your participation is not just about this competition.
There is a larger purpose.
Despite the gains we have made in setting norms for human behavior when it comes to rights and responsibilities, human rights are too often contested, dismissed, or politicized.
This is especially so in the world we live in today.
Your participation has allowed and given you the opportunity to engage on international human rights matters and international law more generally in a practical and constructive manner.
Human rights law is only as strong as the people willing to study it, defend it, and apply it in practice.
That is why this exercise is more than just a competition.
Through your efforts, not just this week in Geneva, but throughout the process.
This competition is both a community of future practitioners who understand that justice must be argued for, not assumed, and that human rights are not just words on paper, but must be actively pursued through justice.
The vision of the Center of Human Rights at the University of Pretoria and its partners has created a truly global forum for legal education, human rights advocacy, and intercultural exchange.
This must be commended and celebrated.
To the organizers, we express our profound appreciation.
The partnership that underpins this competition of a diverse range of collaborators who put this together, and I mentioned them all, the Center for Human Rights, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Geneva Academy, the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, the University of Geneva Faculty of Law, the Open Society Foundation, and Global Campus Africa.
This model of constructive multilateral cooperation shows what can be achieved when institutions from different parts of the world work together with a shared purpose.
It also represents an example of working across the geographic and developmental divide that should be emulated by states and our citizens.
To the judges, thank you for lending your expertise, your time, and your authority to this competition.
Your presence lends weight to the proceedings and ensures that the students Are able to gain from your experience and also encounter not only a contest, but also a genuine test of discipline, seriousness, and integrity.
To the coaches and faculty members, thank you for the countless hours of mentorship, encouragement and intellectual guidance that brought your teams here today.
Your contribution is often less visible, but is indispensable.
To the students and you are the star attraction.
Once again, congratulations.
You represent hope, you represent the future of human rights law.
Whatever the outcome of the final round is, you have already shown that the next generation is ready to defend human dignity in a challenging world.
South Africa is proud to be associated with this competition, which bears the name and honors the legacy of Nelson Mandela, whose 108th birthday we will be commemorating tomorrow.
May your experience in Geneva and in this competition be an inspiration in whatever path your life journey takes.
Let us not forget Mediva's life lessons of service, dignity, and solidarity.
This competition illustrates the belief that young people, through knowledge and commitment can help build a more just and humane world.
I, for one, live here inspired.
Thank you very much.
Thank.
Thank you very much, Your Excellency.
We now proceed to the presentation of recognition awards.
These awards recognize distinguished individuals whose dedication and longstanding contribution have helped shape and strengthen the Nelson Mandela Welt Human Rights Moot Court competition over many years.
May I respectfully fully invite His Excellency, as well as Judge Day Clay to present the recognition of awards.
Congratulations to all the recipients in advance.
Here.
The first award goes to Professor Manfred Nowak.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Congratulations.
Congratulations.
The second award goes to Church Veronica Gomez.
Thank you.
Thank you.
The third award goes to Professor Thompson Changata.
The last award goes to Judge Ivana Jelic.
Thank you.
Congratulations to the recipients and thank you so much for your invaluable service to this competition.
Ladies and gentlemen, now we come to the moment of truth, the moment that you have been anticipating.
May I invite Professor Franz Pilon to come up to announce the official results.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, doctor Sabo.
In the interest of time, I will try to be combining some remarks to thank a number of people together with the announcement of some results, but also to keep the suspense going, we will come to the final outcome of this day's event only at the end.
First of all, let me say thank you very much from the Center for Human Rights, my own side to the triad that makes this Nelson Mandela Human Rights Mood Code competition possible.
At the top of the triad, clearly are the students, the participants.
You have committed not only these weeks, but certainly more or less six months of your lives to this project.
We trust that you found that you were shaped by this professionally, maybe also as human beings, but that you really also draw from the privileged position you had to really in a sense, also shape the legacy of the great and the mighty Mab Nelson Mandla.
So thank you so much for the participants for your contributions, and I'm sure it is a cliche to say, but I'm sure that we feel that you have benefited in multiple ways all yourselves.
Secondly, the faculty representatives, the coaches, we hesitate to use that word, the mentors, the sounding boards, those who are also the institutional links that ensure participation from universities over many years.
We also know that resources are required to get the teams here.
We really appreciate those institutional presences and continued loyalty to this competition.
The third of the triad certainly are the judges.
The judges are during all the multiple facets of the competition and particularly also today.
I think I can just also highlight our great appreciation over many years for those who have received the honorary mention and the plaques today.
I think it just reinforces our appreciation and acknowledge your own great stature.
I think all of you are in one way or another judges.
Also, Professor Novak, as we would know, was in the Human Rights Chamber of Bosnia and Herzegovina, a judge of the European court and judge of the Inter American court.
Then I'm sure Professor Thomson Geng principally, also, people often ask, who is the drafter of these human rights hypotheticals? We could say that it is the poet, the international law scholar, the imagination of Professor Geng that really has driven those hypothetical cases for a number of years now.
Thank you very much to all of you.
You are much appreciated as are those in the other rounds of the competition.
More towards the outcomes, the results.
To revisit the phases of the competition, the first phase, as the students very well know, is that written arguments are submitted.
This year, there was a record number of 122 universities that participated and submitted written heads of arguments.
Now, those are also assessed through a rigorous process, and then from the 122 will emerge 50.
And those 50 came from the global reach that the competition encompasses, and it certainly also straddled the English, the Spanish, and Francophone worlds, one of the main characteristics also of this competition.
There were 15 teams from Asia, 14 from Africa, eight from the West European and other seven from Latin America and six from East European that made it into the 50 teams that now advance to the virtual rounds.
As you know, those virtual rounds then took place subsequently.
Let me, however, come to the first of our prizes, and that is the prize for those memorials.
We have, in the three language categories, a prize for the best memorials.
In the French category, it is the Universite Catholic La Ficus in Cor devoir that was the best team, but we believe that they are not present here, so this will be sent to them by post.
Then we have in the English speaking rounds, maybe I'll mention the top five just because there were so many teams.
In the fifth place was the Royal University of Law and Economics in Cambodia.
The fourth was Strathmore University in Kenya.
The third was University of Allahabd in India.
The second was Kenyatta University in Kenya, and the winner of the Memorial Award then is an Indian university, Nassar University of Law Hyderabat.
Unfortunately, also not present here.
It brings us to the Spanish memorials and the third position for the best memorials in that initial phase goes to Universidad Ostra in Argentina.
The second position is the autonomous University of Caid Hida in Mexico, and the winning team for the memorials is Universidad Catolica Boliviana San Pablo in Bolivia.
And I If that team is represented here today, Wanna, the University, please, you can come and we ask that your plaque, the plaques be handed to you by Judge Gomez.
Judge Gomez, we ask you to please hand these to the, the winning team for the memorials in the initial rounds.
Congratulations.
Thank you very much.
And also going and Thank you very much.
Thank you very much.
To you, sir, and it's a great occasion to celebrate your teams here.
Then we move to the next phase, which were, in fact, these virtual rounds.
The teams participated four times virtually on a virtual platform.
These were grueling rounds, and I think it's only correct that we also acknowledge the performance during those rounds.
In our custom, we will mention that ten highest teams, just in terms of the scoring, you know that you were part of the 24 that advanced, but among the 24, we highlight just the ten top teams from the various languages as they are.
There are unfortunately no plaques, but honorable mention in number ten position, it was Hidal Tula National Law University in India.
In number nine position was Universidad Catolica Boliviana San Pablo.
Number eight was Ukrainian Catholic University in Ukraine.
Number seven, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Colombia.
Number six was University of Ahabat in India.
In the fifth position, Koch University in Turkey, Turka.
Number four in the preliminary rounds was the Kenyatta University in Kenya.
The third position in those preliminary rounds, Universidad Ostra in Argentina.
The second ranked university in those virtual rounds, Oxford University, University of Oxford, United Kingdom, and the top university of those rounds, University of New South Wales in Australia.
But where we do have plaques are for the individual artists in those rounds.
Again, in the French rounds, the best artist in those virtual rounds was Aude De Sosa from Uniste Catholic de la Fri Ds, but we believe that she is not here.
But congratulations.
To the Spanish best artists, the award is in fact shared because up to two decimals, these two people could not be separated in their scoring and that is then it goes to Ana Inez Gutierrez from Ures Astra and to C Sophia Rodriguez from Unvers Nun de Colombia.
If I could ask Professor Novak to please hand these to the best orders in the Spanish rounds, I believe they are present, and they are welcome to come to receive their awards.
I Yes.
For alone, the other one, we will keep it in.
We'll make a plan with the other one.
That person is not present.
Thank you very much.
For the Anglophone rounds, perhaps we mentioned just the top five honors in the preliminary rounds.
Number five was Anand Misra from University of Alahd, India.
Number four was Mushkn Goyal University of Oxford.
Go.
Number three, Oyama Nzaidum also from the University of Oxford.
Number two, top honist for the preliminary round from the University of New South Wales, Brendan Miloba and the winner for the best honist during the preliminary rounds on a virtual basis was also from the University of New South Wales, Anthony Ma.
If we could ask Professor Thompson Geng to just come to the front and hand Plack to the winner.
Yes.
Thank you very much.
Just to say that from the 50 teams that participated on the virtual rounds, 24 were selected to come to Geneva for the Geneva final rounds.
Regrettably, four teams could not make it here due to visa issues.
But ultimately, we had the participation of these teams and I can just say from that list, 17 countries were represented again across the globe and two countries, maybe just to mention them here had more than one representative among that group and those two countries were perhaps predictably from what you've heard before, Kenya and India.
So we acknowledge those universities and their participation over time.
Let me then just quickly say a few words in thanks before we do the grand finale announcement from the Center for Human Rights side, just to thank the um All those involved in the Nelson Mandela lecture, I think it was a great moment to discuss the issues of our time at that juncture.
We appreciate everyone's presence.
The center does what it does only in partnership and because it is able to partner with institutions, we're very glad to do so.
Our partner here is obviously the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, with the council branch in particular.
Want to single out Mr.
Pascal Sim, who is at the media section, the media officer, who has in so many ways assisted us as organizing team here.
It certainly was him, as it were, our man in Geneva to make things happen on the ground.
Thank you so much for the whole team and for you in particular and also mentioning Mr.
Bhrambatra who graciously also joined us today for these proceedings.
It bees no argument that we may have lofty ideas, but those need to be concretized supported materially and we thank those who are able to support us materially, in particular, the permanent mission of South Africa over many, many years, but also mentioning the European Union through the Global Campus of Human Rights represented here by the president and the Secretary-General and also from the donors that the center has, Open Society Foundation.
Um, Other partners were already mentioned by the ambassador, our technical partners, the two academies, the Academy at the Washington College of Law in the US, and the Academy here, the Geneva Academy, and others who assisted us throughout these events.
Certainly, it's always a team effort within the Center for Human Rights.
There are many who had been contributing.
We have the team back home, for example, the communications team, the Assistant Director in Karam Murngi others such as Sayad that I think many of you communicated with Sayad Ahmed, who is really the principal organizer who was unable to be here because he's already looking at another moot court competition that the center is organizing, namely the Krišto Enes African Human Rights Moot Court competition.
But here present, we are very fortunate also that our assistant director, doctor abla Gometz is here, who's led the team here.
I have to mention the names of Cara, of Sam, Zelda, but particularly Carol.
Carol has been here for many, many years.
She's the anchor around which the mood evolves over many years together with Emily, who is also back home, just mentioning everyone's names and appreciating everyone's great contributions.
So I suppose that brings us to the moment of truth, as it were, the moment we've been waiting for.
Just to clarify that the calculation is done as per usual in this competition, namely that the scores are added and the highest and the lowest scores are discarded and the winner is calculated through those mechanisms.
I may just add that perhaps keeping the suspense going for 1 second longer, that we have a tradition also of handing out certificates to all participants.
We are not dispensing with that, but we are moving into the electronic age, so you all receive your electronic versions of those certificates in due course for you to have this token of your presence and your participation here.
What I propose to do is to hand this result to the president of the court To make the announcement.
Then we have two teams who will come forward, I suppose, a winning team and a runner up team.
I will ask that between her, the president of the court and professor Judge Claudi that then you hand these plaques to the runners up, maybe Judge Claudi and then to the winners, Judge dic.
I may also now reveal for those who are still in the dark that the applicant team is, in fact, Midlands State University, which is based in Zimbabwe.
And that the respondent team is Strathmore University based in Kenya.
With this, I'm going to hand over the results and the announcement will be made by the president, and then she'll call forward the teams to receive their prizes.
It is my honor to announce that the winning team is the applicant team.
Thank So in total, for transparency sake, in total, you won 89 38 points.
So that is your score.
The total for the run up team is 85.
Respondent team, congratulations to you.
So my colleague, Judge Lady will hand over the certificate to respondent team, the plugs, please.
Now, I would like to invite applicants team to come and I will handle whatever it likes with pleasure.
Professor Pilon, I think you have already given a vote of thanks on behalf of all of us.
May I now invite everyone to the official photograph that will be taken and then we'll have networking.
From our side, thank you so much once again for being part of this very important event.
These proceedings are now adjourned.
Thank you.
Thank you so much, welcome.