INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

SPECIAL AGREEMENT
Case concerning, "The Frost Files"
The State of Amestonia
---------------------------------------------- Applicant
vs.
The Federal Republic of Riesland
---------------------------------------------- Respondent
______________________________________________________________________________
On submission to the International Court of Justice
______________________________________________________________________________
Memorial on behalf of the Applicant
'State of Amestonia'
FACTS:
Riesland is a democratic state with a population of approximately 100 million, which
boasts one of the fastest growing free-market economies in the world. Amestonia is
a developing country bordering Riesland to the south, with a population of
approximately 20 million and is a predominantly agrarian export economy.
Joseph Kafker is a 70-year-old retired Amestonian politician who founded the Green
Party, now the third largest in the Amestonian Parliament. For years, Kafker has
been a vocal opponent of the use of neonics in agricultural production. He
attempted, on a number of occasions, to promote legislation banning them but none
of these efforts were successful.
On March 7, 2015, Kafker was invited to give the keynote address at an
international environmental law conference at Riesland's largest law school. After he
completed his speech, he was detained by the police, allegedly in accordance with
the Terrorism Act. In a special session, the Amestonian Parliament adopted a
resolution denouncing Kafker's detention and demanding his release. The
Government of Riesland did not respond.
On March 10, 2015, Kafker's case was brought before the National Security Tribunal.
Following a request from the Attorney General's Office, the Tribunal ruled that all
evidence pertaining to Kafker's activities and leading to his apprehension was

"closed material". The Tribunal further allowed Bureau officers to testify via video
conferencing, with their faces and voices obscured, regarding the need to detain
Kafker. Following their testimony, the Tribunal granted the petition to extend
Kafker's detention for reasons of national security. Kafker's lawyer, who had been
selected from a list of approved "special advocates", was present during the
proceedings, but was not permitted either to consult with his client or to share with
him any of the secret information said to substantiate the allegations against him.
Kafker remains detained without charge in a maximum-security facility in Riesland
and his detention has been extended by the Tribunal every 21 days. A motion
challenging the constitutionality of the proceedings was filed before the Supreme
Court of Riesland but was denied.
On March 12, 2015, Amestonia's Foreign Minister contacted his counterpart in
Riesland and demanded access to the secret evidence that constituted the basis for
Kafker's detention. He also stated that, in Amestonia's view, the Terrorism Act did
not comply with international human rights standards. The Rieslandic Minister
rejected the request, responding that disclosure of the information concerning
Kafker's apprehension would endanger the integrity of particular intelligence
sources and therefore the national security of Riesland. The Minister further
stressed that the National Security Tribunal had already determined that the
information could not be disclosed in accordance with the Terrorism Act.
On March 17, 2015, The Ames Post website's banner read "A Kafker-esque Affair." A
memorandum, sourced from Frost's USB stick, revealed that a May 2014 interview
with Kafker on "Tea Time with Margaret" allowed the Bureau to hack into his
electronic devices. According to the memorandum, Kafker was considered a "highlevel suspect with ties to The Hive, including the planned contamination of a large
shipment of honey with a toxic variant of nenicotinoids in 2014." The continuous
surveillance of Kafker, following the bugging of his devices, was considered a "top
priority." From intercepted communications, Bureau analysts were able to establish
that Kafker was a frequent visitor to the longlivethehive website, had participated in
online chats, and had used the forum's "like" function to endorse conversations
including the calls for violent disruptions to raise public awareness of the neonics
controversy. Attorney General Deloponte refused to comment on questions raised
by the media following The Ames Post's publication. He stated only that Riesland
was in possession of "closed materials" that "directly link Kafker to The Hive's senior
echelons."
In light of growing international pressure, Riesland and Amestonia agreed to refer all
matters in dispute to the International Court of Justice, and for this purpose have
drafted and signed this Special Agreement.
ISSUES RAISED:
3. Whether the detention of Joseph Kafker under the Terrorism Act violated

international law.
LAWS:

1. 1999 International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing

of Terrorism and Security Council resolution 1566 (2004).

2. The Declaration on measures to eliminate international terrorism,

adopted by Resolution 49/60, of 17 Feb 1995

3. International Human Rights legal framework

4. Article 14 and 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS:
3. It is submitted that the Terrorism Act violated international law with regard to the
detention of Joseph Kafker. In addition, he was not given a fair trial by the National
Security Tribunal which violates the International Human Rights legal framework.
The Terrorism Act 2003 also did not comply with international human rights
standards in giving Kafker due process. He was deprived of his right to legal
counsel. The Secret Surveillance Bureau Act 1967 violates the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which prohibits State parties from interfering
with the privacy of another. The hacking of Joseph Kafkers electronic devices by the
Bureau on a May 2014 interview on Tea Time with Margaret violated his privacy
rights.
PLEADINGS:
3. The Secretary-Generals High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change
described terrorism as any action that is intended to cause death or serious bodily
harm to civilians or noncombatants, when the purpose of such an act, by its nature
or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a Government or an
international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act and identified a
number of key elements, with further reference to the definitions contained in the
1999 International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of
Terrorism and Security Council resolution 1566 (2004).
The relationship between terrorism and human rights is quite complex and at all
costs must prevent that relationship from becoming contradictory. The
Declaration on measures to eliminate international terrorism, adopted by
Resolution 49/60, of 17 Feb 1995, reads as follows: "States must also fulfil their
obligation under the Charter of the United Nations and other provisions of
international law with respect to combating international terrorism and urged to
take effective and resolute measures in accordance with the relevant provisions of
international law and international standards of human rights for the speedy and

final elimination of international terrorism(...)". The act of Riesland in the detention

of Joseph Kafker violates provisions of international law and international standards
of human rights.
The International Human Rights legal framework requires that any deprivation of
liberty should be based on grounds and procedures established by law, that
detainees should be informed of the reasons for their detention and promptly
notified of the charges against them, and that they should be provided with access
to legal counsel. In the case of Kafkers detention, his lawyer who was present
during the proceedings was not permitted either to consult with him or to share with
him any of the secret information said to substantiate the allegations against him
which was against the International Human Rights legal framework. As part of its
efforts to counter terrorism, a State may lawfully detain persons suspected of
terrorist activity, as with any other crime. However, if a measure involves the
deprivation of an individuals liberty, strict compliance with international and
regional human rights law related to the liberty and security of persons, the right to
recognition before the law and the right to due process is essential. The nondisclosure of information concerning Kafkers apprehension which was in accordance
with the Terrorism Act of 2003 violates the International Human Rights.
In July 2007, the Human Rights Committee adopted general comment N 32,
revising its general comment on Article 14 of the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights on the right to a fair trial and equality before the courts
and tribunals. The revised general comment notes that the right to a fair trial and to
equality before the courts and tribunals is a key element of human rights protection
and serves to safeguard the rule of law by procedural means. Article 14 of the
Covenant aims at ensuring the proper administration of justice and to this end
guarantees a series of specific rights, including that all persons should be equal
before the courts and tribunals, that in criminal or civil cases everyone has a right
to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal,
that everyone charged with a criminal offense should have the right to be presumed
innocent until proved guilty according to law, and that everyone convicted of a
crime should have the right to have his or her conviction and sentence reviewed by
a higher tribunal according to law.
Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
prohibits States parties from interfering with the privacy of those within their
jurisdiction and requires them to protect those persons by law against arbitrary or
unlawful interference with their privacy. Privacy includes information about an
individuals identity, as well as the private life of the person. Any act which has an
impact on a persons privacy must be lawful, i.e., it must be prescribed by law. This
means that any search, surveillance or collection of data about a person must be
authorized by law. (Article 17 (1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, article 8 (2) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights
and Fundamental Freedoms and article 11 (2) of the American Convention on

Human Rights.)
The hacking of Joseph Kafkers electronic devices by the Bureau violated his privacy
rights. The Secret Surveillance Bureau Act 1967 violates the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights which prohibits State parties from interfering with the
privacy of another.