Oral Sheet

Introduction:
Good … Mr. /Madam President, YE and member of the Court. My name is … I appear before
this honorable Court on behalf of Respondent, state of Rigalia. For the next 21 minutes I will
deliver Respondent’s remaining submissions concerning Rigalia’s Mavazi ban and Ardenia’s
violation to the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention and OECD Decision on MNE Guidelines. Mr. /
Madam President, and May it please the Court.

Pleadings
On the 4th submissions, Rigalia submit that the limited Mavazi ban is consistent with ICCPR and
CEDAW
YE, the Zetians adopted Masinto religion which obliges all Zetian women and girls over the age
14 to use head cover. This head cover known as Mavazi. Such religious right however has
constituted a form of discrimination to Zetian women and girls. The Mavazi was even used by a
suicide comber in Rigalia and to escape from detection. Rigalia then ban the Mavazi to protect
public safety and eliminate discrimination.

Respondent has 2 arguments to support this submission:

1. The restricted ban is a justifiable restriction under art 18(3) of ICCPR
2. The limited ban protects Zetian women and girl under art 2 of CEDAW

Moving on to the 1st point: the restricted ban is a justifiable restriction under ICCPR.
• Art 18(3) of ICCPR allowed state to restrict the right to manifest religion. The restriction
should be prescribed by law, and intended to protect inter alia, public safety, order and
health.
• In Sahin v Turkey, ECHR, 2005 restriction of Sahin’s rights to use the Jilbab in school.
The restriction by Turkey was justified by the Court. Court defined “prescribed by law”
as basis in domestic law.
• In this Case, President Khutai of Rigalia introduced a bill to ban Mavazi (16) and it was
adopt through Rigalian parliament (21) and become basis in their domestic law.
 We try to persuade YE, that the ban is also proportionate
• In Dogru v France, ECHR, 2008. Ms. Dogru was prohibited to use jilbab in sport
class. It was because the jilbab could endanger her safety. The Court decided that
restriction made by her school and France was justified. It is because it has legitimate
aim to protect public safety.
• Mavazi used by suicide bomber and Rigalia’s limited ban is proportionate because it
has legitimate aim of the state to protect public safety and enforce women’s rights.
In the 2nd arguments we have 2 points to deliver:
1. Rigalia must protect women and girls’ right under CEDAW
2. The limited ban is an appropriate measures under art 2(f) CEDAW against discrimination
• Art 2 of CEDAW stated that states are obliged to eliminate all form of discrimination
towards women.
• This discrimination described in art 1 of CEDAW as any distinction, exclusion, or
restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of impairing the
enjoyment or exercise by women, on a basis of equality of men and women.
• In case at hand, Zetian women and girls are being discriminated since they are forced to
use Mavazi without any excuses.
• Those who refuse to wear Mavazi receive severe punishment, such as 40 lashes in public
flogging ceremony. They even forced to leave their residence.
• Since Mavazi is a form of discrimination, therefore Rigalia has the obligation to protect
their rights.

Moving on to the 2nd point:

• Art 2(f) of CEDAW sets positive obligation for state to take all appropriate measures
including legislation to abolish existing law, custom and practices which constitutes
discrimination against women.
• Gen rec 28 elaborates appropriate measures means states must respect, protect, promote,
and fulfill the rights of women and girls.
• Limited ban of Mavazi only prohibits the use of Mavazi in public places and from
receiving public service.
 • The ban was intended to promote Zetians women and girls’ right and to protect them
from any severe punishment that comes from the use of Mavazi.
• Consequently Rigalia limited ban is appropriate for it has protected, promotes, respected,
and fulfill their rights.
And that concludes Respondent’s 3th submission.

Moving on to the 5th submission, Rigalia submits that Ardenia has violated the OECD Anti-
Bribery Convention and OECD Decision on MNE Guidelines.
YE, Ardenia and Rigalia are party to OECD Anti-Bribery Convention. As a member, Ardenia
has the obligation to combat bribery. This includes prosecuting and investigating bribery offence.
However, Ardenia has failed to fulfill its obligation.
We have 3 arguments to support this submission:
1. The OECD Anti-Bribery Convention is applicable in this case because the allegation was
within the ambit of the Convention.
2. Ardenia’s failure to investigate and prosecute the bribery allegation violates OECD Anti-
Bribery Convention.
3. Ardenia’s failure to provide prompt and effective legal assistance to Rigalia violates
OECD anti-bribery convention.

Moving on to the 1st arguments:

• Article 1(1) of the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention describes bribing a foreign public
official as a crime.
• Thus, the question here is whether Leo Bikra is a public official that falls within the ambit of
the Convention
• As explained in commentary 1 (14), public official means any person including an official of
public enterprise who exercises a public function.
• RRI is a public enterprise in which Leo Bikra was the President and Director General of
RRI. Consequently, the allegation of bribery by MDI to Leo Bikra falls within the ambit of
the Anti-Bribery Convention.
Moving on to the 2nd arguments that Ardenia’s failure to investigate and prosecute the bribery
allegation violates OECD Anti-Bribery Convention. In this argument, we argue that:
1. The prosecutor has been influenced by improper political and economic consideration.
2. The prosecutor cannot drop the investigation based on “public interest in security”.

Moving on to the 1st point.

• Art 5 provides that investigation and prosecution of bribery shall not be influenced by : 1)
consideration of national economic interest; 2) relations with other state; 3) identity of
parties involved
• In present case, the suspension of the investigation was supported by President Arwen. She
supported decision to drop the investigation based the cost of the investigation and its impact
to Ardenian economy. It is a violation to art 5.
• MDI has also lobbied influential judges, members of parliament and other government
officials of Ardenia to drop the inquiry. (Timeline of facts and draw inference)
• Therefore, the prosecutor has been influenced by improper political and economic
consideration.

Moving on to the 2nd point that the prosecutor cannot drop the investigation based on “public
interest in security”.
• Applicant argue that drop of investigation is lawful under BAE case decision.
• In BAE Case (R v director of the Serious Fraud Office), HoL, 2008 The House of Lords
made a controversial decision to discontinue an investigation into a bribery allegation based
on “public interest in security” is lawful
• However, this decision is considered to be inconsistent with the object and purpose of the
Convention. That decision would effectively exclude all state security-related matters from
the ambit of the Convention.
• Consequently, Ardenian prosecutor cannot drop the investigation based on public interest in
security.

Moving on the 3rd arguments that Ardenia’s failure to provide prompt and effective legal
assistance to Rigalia violates the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention.
• Article 9(1) Anti-Bribery Convention obligates the requested party to provide ‘prompt’ and
‘effective’ legal assistance.
• In LaGrand Case (Germany v United States), 2001, ICJ, The term ‘prompt’ is interpreted as
“at a time when such information is most useful.
• While ‘effective’ means that the assistance must satisfy the request.
• In this present Case, Ardenia’s lack of response to Rigalia’s MLA request for almost a year.
• Consequently, Ardenia violated the Convention by failing to provide MLA to Rigalia.
Based on those arguments, Respondent submits that Applicant has violated OECD ABC.

Moving on to the last submission, Rigalia submits that Ardenia has violated the OECD Decision
on MNE Guidelines.
In this submission, we have 2 arguments to deliver:
1. Ardenian NCP must respond to CRBC’s complaint because CRBC’s claim is admissible
2. In any event, Ardenian NCP must find a way to respond CRBC’s complaint in the spirit of
the MNE Guidelines.
In the 1st argument, we have 3 points to deliver:
1. NCP have the active nationality jurisdiction to examine a complaint
2. The MNE Guidelines are relevant to RRI
3. Parallel legal proceeding should not prevent Ardenia from responding to CRBC’s complaint

Moving on to the 1st argument:

• As stated in concepts and principle para. 10 and Chap. 1(1) of Decision on the OECD
Guidelines for MNE, NCP should deal with any complaint filed to them
• Once the complaint are accepted, NCP will make initial assessment to determine the
admissibility of the complaint, from several requirements:
1. The identity of the of the party concerned and its interest in the matter
2. The relevance of applicable rules and law
3. How similar the issues have been, or are being, treated in other domestic or international
proceedings.
Respondent will deal with those 3 requirements to prove the admissibility of the complaint.
In the 1st arguments, we have 3 points to deliver:
1. NCP have the active nationality jurisdiction to examine a complaint.
2. The MNE Guidelines are relevant to RRI
3. Parallel legal proceeding should not prevent Ardenia from responding to CRBC’s complaint.
Moving on to the 1st point:
• NCP must cooperate and hold a discussion with other state’s NCP in dealing with a
complaint filed to them,
• This reflects the active nationality jurisdiction of NCP.
• In Lotus, France v. Turkey PCIJ stated that “jurisdiction cannot be exercised by a state
outside its territory, except by the virtue of a permissive rule derived from international
custom or from a convention” (optional)
• It also applies in this present case both Ardenia and Rigalia bound to MNE Guidelines.
• And it is supported by Article 4(2) Anti Bribery Convention state party has jurisdiction to
prosecute its nationals for offences committed abroad.
• Since the bribery allegation involved is within the scope of Anti Bribery Convention,
Ardenian NCP has the jurisdiction to process the complaint. It is shown by the fact that
CRBC files the complaint to Ardenian NCP instead of Rigalian NCP.
• However, Ardenian NCP has failed to do so. Such failure is a violation of the MNE
Guidelines.
Moving on to the 2nd points that the MNE Guidelines are relevant to RRI
• Stated in the concepts and principle art 4 and 8, domestic enterprise are subject to the
Guidelines and should be treated equitably and in accordance with international law
• Moreover, based on chapter 6 para 1 of the guidelines, RRI considered as a business partner
of MDI, and part of the subject of the Guidelines as well.
• Consequently, MNE Guidelines are relevant to RRI.
Moving on to the 3rd point that parallel legal proceeding should not prevent Ardenia from
responding to CRBC’s complaint.
• As stated in Procedural Guidance, NCP should respond to any enquiries related to the
Guidelines, including act as a forum of discussion.
• This act is in order to promote the effectiveness of the Guidelines, and also reasons to justify
parallel legal proceeding.
• Parallel legal proceeding is should not used as an excuse to process the complaint, since
NCP did not deal with the complaint on legal aspect.
• Moreover, RAID and Corner House consider other proceeding made by the NCP is to
“provide guidance to companies when law does not provide full descriptions of acceptable
behavior of MNEs”
• In this present case, investigation in both states did not succeed.
• Ardenia has unlawfully suspend the investigation, while Rigalia finds difficulty in the
investigation due to the lack of evidence from Ardenia
• In such situation Ardenian NCP is allowed to take over parallel legal proceeding by
launching another investigation.
• Consequently parallel legal proceeding should not prevent Ardenia from responding to
CRBC’s complaint.
Based on aforementioned reasons above, the complaint is admissible. Rejection made by
Ardenian NCP has violated OECD Decision on MNE Guideline.

Moving on to the 2nd argument. In any event, Ardenian NCP must find ways to respond to
CRBC’s complaint in the spirit of MNE Guidelines.
• As stated several times in the Guideline (Concept and principle para 10, Procedural
Guidance chapter I, and Commentary paras 6, 9) NCP has the function to enforce the
effectiveness of the Guidelines and act as forum of discussion
• In this present case, CBRC ask for possibility to hold a discussion between Ardenian NCP
and Rigalian NCP.
• However, Ardenian NCP never responded appropriately to the request
• This is inconsistent with the spirit of the MNE Guidelines which obligates NCPs to conduct
discussions with other NCPs.
• Consequently Ardenia has violated the OECD Decision on MNE Guidelines.
Based on those arguments, Respondent submits that Applicant has violated OECD.
Your Excellencies, I believe I have delivered Respondent’s remaining submission. If Your
Excellencies have no further questions, I would return to my seat.