C. Adova Possessed A Right To Exercise Jurisdiction Over Michael Kirgov And Gommel Vinitsa.

The applicant would like to exercise its own jurisdiction over Michael Kirgov and Gommel Vinitsa, because the crimes were committed against Adovan citizens. In some states there exists a principle of security and protection on national level, which provides that the state is entitled to bring to account on its territory and in accordance with its laws any person, suspect or accused of a crime against the interests of this state or against interests of the state’s citizens outside its territory. Therefore, the application of the principle of security and protection makes it possible and consistent with international law to prosecute Michael Kirgov and Gommel Vinitsa by Adovan court.

Moreover, international case law explicitly confirms this principle. For instance, the case against Antonio Noriega, a commander of the Panamian Defense Forces, was heard in the Florida Southern District Court of the USA. On February 4, 1988, a federal grand jury for the Southern District of Florida indicted Manuel Antonio Noriega on drug-related charges. At that time, Noriega served as commander of the Panamanian Defense Forces in the Republic of Panama. On December 15, 1989, Noriega publicly declared that a state of war existed between Panama and the United States. Within days of this announcement by Noriega, President George Bush directed United States armed forces into combat in Panama for the stated purposes of "safeguard[ing] American lives, restor[ing] democracy, preserv[ing] the Panama Canal treaties, and seiz[ing] Noriega to face federal drug charges in the United States. Noriega surrendered to United States military officials on January 3, 1990 and then was brought to Miami to face the pending federal charges[34].

From the above we can conclude that the practice of prosecuting citizens of one country in another country exists, and such practice provides a firm basis for proving Adova’s right to prosecute Michael Kirgov and Gommel Vinitsa.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

For all the reasons stated above, Republic of Adova requests this Court to adjudge and declare that:

I. The apprehension and rendition of Samara Penza and other Adovan citizens was a violation of Adova’s sovereignty and in contravention of international law;

II. The subsequent detention and treatment of Samara Penza and other Adovan citizens violated international law;

III. Rotania’s prosecution of the detained Adovan citizens before the Rotanian Military Commission, including Samara Penza’s prosecution for conspiracy, arson, and murder, violates international law; and

IV. Adova’s exercise of jurisdiction over Michael Kirgov and Gommel Vinitsa to prosecute them in Adova for crimes committed against Samara Penza and other Adovan citizens is consistent with international law.

Respectfully submitted, Agents for the Applicant.

[1] International Law, Cases and Materials, 4^th edition, Lori Fisler Damrosch, Lois Henkin, Richard Crawford Pugh, Oscar Schachter, Hans Smit – p.1177

[2] Factor v. Laubenheimer, 290 U.S. 276, 287, 54 S.Ct. 191, 193, 78 L.Ed. 315 (1933)

[3] European Convention on Extradition, Paris, 13.XII.1957, Article 6

[4] United Nations Security Council Resolution №1373 (2001)

[5] European Convention on Extradition, Paris, 13.XII.1957, Article 12

[6] Ibid., Article 15

[7] Corfu Channel Case, United Kingdom v. Albania, Individual opinion by Judge Alvarez, International Court of Justice 1949, I.C.J. 39, 43.

[8] Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention and Interference in the Internal Affairs of States, 9 December 1981 A/RES/36/103

[9] Declaration on Principles of International Law Friendly Relations And Cooperation Among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, Annex, p.A

[10] Ibid., p.C

[11] Declaration on the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance, General Assembly resolution 47/133 of 18 December 1992

[12] Ibid., Article 2

[13] Ibid., Article 6

[14] Ibid., Article 7

[15] Enforced Disappearance, Dr Laifungbam Debabrata Roy

[16]Definition of Aggression United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX) - 14 December 1974, Article 3

[17] Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment 1984, Article

[18] Ireland v. the United Kingdom, Strasbourg 18 Jan.1978

[19] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1976

[20] Ibid.

[21] Ibid.

[22] Kalashnikov v. Russia, №47095/99, Strasburg, 2002

[23] Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment adopted by General Assembly resolution 43/173, 1988

[24] Ibid.

[25] Ibid.

[26] Definition of Aggression United Nations General AssemblyResolution3314 (XXIX) - 14 December 1974

[27] Charter of the United Nations, Article 51

[28] Rome Statute of International Criminal Court, article 8, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.183/9, July 17, 1998

[29] Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment adopted by General Assembly resolution 43/173 of December 9, 1988

[30] Immunity from Prosecution for International Crimes: The Case of Charles Taylor at the Special Court for Sierra Leone, 2004

[31] Iraq v. Saddam Hussein, Special Tribunal, 2005

[32] France v.Moammar Gadhafi, 1999

[33] Dragomir Milošević’s case, IT-98-29/1, 2007

[34] United States v. Noriega, 746 F.Supp. 1506, 1511 (S.D.Fla.1990)

Date: 2015-12-17; view: 624