Ist International Moot Court Competition, 2026

TEAM CODE: TC28 - R

International Court Of Justice

La Cour Internationale De Justice

At The Peace Palace

The Hague, Netherlands

Case Concerning The Legality Of Detention Of Mittal

Order Of 14 May 2025

United Republic Of Othello [Applicant]

v.

Democratic State Of Desdemona [Respondent]

On Submission To The International Court Of Justice

Memorial For Respondent 1

 Ist International Moot Court Competition, 2026

-TABLE OF CONTENTS-

Table Of Contents............................................................................................................... 02 - 04

Index Of Authorities........................................................................................................... 05 - 07

Statement Of Jurisdiction.................................................................................................. 08

Questions Presented............................................................................................................09

1. Desdemona has acted consistently with international law in arresting, prosecuting

and convicting Mr. Mittal.................................................................................... 10

2. The claims of Othello in relation to the conviction of Mr. Mittal are inadmissible

or, in the alternative, liable to be dismissed in their entirety............................... 10

3. Desdemona has acted lawfully in passing the Essential Security Act, 2022

and applying it to DEC; claims of expropriation are meritless............................ 10

4. The arbitral award is valid and binding under international law and the ICJ

lacks jurisdiction to sit on appeal or substitute its views...................................... 10

Statement Of Facts...............................................................................................................10 - 12

Summary Of Pleadings........................................................................................................13 - 15

Memorial For Respondent 2

 Ist International Moot Court Competition, 2026

Advanced Pleadings............................................................................................................. 16 - 29

1. Desdemona has acted consistently with international law in arresting, prosecuting

and convicting Mr. Mittal................................................................................. 16 - 20

I. The Arrest and Detention of Mr. Mittal were Lawful and Non-Arbitrary under

Article 9 of the ICCPR

II. Mr. Mittal was Informed of the Reasons for His Arrest in Compliance with

Article 9(2) of the ICCPR

III. The Trial before the Special Criminal Court Complied with Article 14 of the

ICCPR

IV. Mr. Mittal was Provided with Effective Legal Assistance under Article 14(3)(d)

of the ICCPR

V. The Conviction of Mr. Mittal Does Not Give Rise to International

Responsibility

VI. The Presumption of Regularity Attaches to Domestic Judicial Proceedings

VII. Article 14 ICCPR Does Not Authorise Reassessment of Facts or Evidence
VIII. The High Threshold for Denial of Justice Has Not Been Met

The claims of Othello in relation to the conviction of Mr. Mittal are inadmissible

or, in the alternative, liable to be dismissed in their entirety................................................21 - 25

I. Desdemona Acted Consistently with Article 14 of the ICCPR

II. Appointment of State-Appointed Counsel Satisfied Article 14(3)(d) of the

Memorial For Respondent 3

 Ist International Moot Court Competition, 2026

ICCPR

III. Denial or Restriction of Consular Access Does Not Render the Conviction

Invalid under International Law

IV. The Special Criminal Court Was a Court Established by Law

V. The Relief Sought by Othello Is Unsupported by International Law

VI. International Responsibility Cannot Substitute for Domestic Appellate Mechanisms

VII. Even Assuming Arguendo a VCCR Violation, Annulment Is Not the Appropriate

Remedy

VIII. Proportionality of Remedy Is Required under International Law

IX. No Causal Link Exists Between Alleged Irregularities and Conviction

Desdemona has acted lawfully in passing the Essential Security Act, 2022 and applying it to
DEC; claims of expropriation are Meritless......................................................... 26 - 27

I. The Application of ESA Does Not Amount to Indirect Expropriation

II. The Police Powers Doctrine Recognised under Customary International Law
III. The ESA is a Valid Regulatory Measure under Article 5 of the BIT
IV. The ESA Pursues a Legitimate Public Welfare Objective

The arbitral award is valid and binding under international law and the ICJ

Lacks jurisdiction to sit on appeal or substitute its views.................................................... 28 - 29

I. The Arbitral Award Is Final and Binding under International Law

II. The ICJ Does Not Have Jurisdiction to Sit in Appeal over an Arbitral Award
III. The ICJ Cannot Substitute Its Own Views for that of the Tribunal
IV. No Grounds Exist under International Law to Declare the Award a Nullity

Prayer For Relief ...................................................................................................................... 30

Memorial For Respondent 4

 Ist International Moot Court Competition, 2026

-INDEX OF AUTHORITIES-

I. Treaties and Conventions

- International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 (ICCPR)

 Art. 9(1)
 Art. 9(2)
 Art. 14(1)
 Art. 14(3)(b)
 Art. 14(3)(d)

- Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 1963 (VCCR)

 Art. 36

- Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969 (VCLT)

 Art. 26
 Art. 31

- Othello–Desdemona Bilateral Investment Treaty, 1997

 Art. 5
 Art. 5(B)
 Art. 9

II. International Court of Justice (ICJ) Cases

- Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v. Democratic Republic of the Congo),

Preliminary Objections, I.C.J. Reports 2007
- Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America), I.C.J.
Reports 2004
- LaGrand (Germany v. United States of America), I.C.J. Reports 2001
- Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United
States of America), I.C.J. Reports 1986

Memorial For Respondent 5

 Ist International Moot Court Competition, 2026

- ELSI (United States of America v. Italy), I.C.J. Reports 1989

- Arbitral Award Made by the King of Spain (Honduras v. Nicaragua), I.C.J. Reports 1960
- Nottebohm (Liechtenstein v. Guatemala), Preliminary Objections, I.C.J. Reports 1953
- Factory at Chorzów (Germany v. Poland), P.C.I.J., Ser. A, No. 17 (1928)

III. Investment Arbitral Awards

- Pope & Talbot Inc. v. Canada, Interim Award (2000)

- SEDCO, Inc. v. National Iranian Oil Company, Award
- Starrett Housing Corporation v. Iran, Award
- Methanex Corporation v. United States, Final Award (2005)
- Saluka Investments BV v. Czech Republic, Partial Award (2006)
- LG&E Energy Corp. v. Argentina, Decision on Liability
- Tecmed v. Mexico, Award
- ADC Affiliate Limited v. Hungary, Award
- Loewen Group, Inc. v. United States, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/98/3

IV. United Nations Instruments & International Documents

- U.N. General Assembly Resolution 3281 (XXIX), Charter of Economic Rights and
Duties of States (1974)
- Draft Convention on the Protection of Foreign Property, 1963
- Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, 2001
- Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 32
- Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 35
- OECD Working Paper on International Investment No. 2004/4

V. Scholarly Writings

- G.C. Christie, What Constitutes a Taking of Property Under International Law?, 38

British Yearbook of International Law (1962)
- B. Wortley, Expropriation in Public International Law (1959)

Memorial For Respondent 6

 Ist International Moot Court Competition, 2026

- Ian Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law (7th ed.)

- Third Restatement of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States

Memorial For Respondent 7

 Ist International Moot Court Competition, 2026

-STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION-

The United Republic of Othello (hereinafter referred to as “Othello” or “Applicant”) and the

Democratic State of Desdemona (hereinafter referred to as “Desdemona” or “Respondent”)

submit their dispute concerning alleged violations of international law by Desdemona to the

International Court of Justice (hereinafter referred to as “ICJ”) by Special Agreement pursuant to

article 40(1) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice. The parties have agreed to the

contents of the Compromis submitted as part of the Special Agreement. The Applicant and the

Respondent have accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court in accordance with article

40(1) of the Statute of the ICJ.' The Applicant and the Respondent undertake to accept the

judgment of this Court as final and binding and shall execute it in good faith in its entirety.

Memorial For Respondent 8

 Ist International Moot Court Competition, 2026

-QUESTIONS PRESENTED-

I.

Desdemona has acted consistently with international law in arresting, prosecuting and
convicting Mr. Mittal

II.

The claims of Othello in relation the conviction of Mr. Mittal are inadmissible or in the
alternative, are liable to be dismissed in entirety.

III.

Desdemona has acted lawfully in passing the Essential Security Act, 2022 and applying it to
DEC and claims of expropriations are meritless.

IV.

The arbitral award is valid and binding on both parties under international law and the
ICJ, in context of this specific dispute, does not have the jurisdiction to sit on appeal on the
decision of the Tribunal or to substitute its views.

Memorial For Respondent 9

 Ist International Moot Court Competition, 2026

-Statement Of Facts-

I. The Parties and Treaty Framework

¶1. The United Republic of Othello and the Democratic State of Desdemona are

neighbouring States and members of the United Nations. Both are parties to the Vienna

Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR), the International Covenant on Civil and

Political Rights (ICCPR), and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. In 1997, the

two States concluded a Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) to promote and protect cross-

border investments.

¶2. Pursuant to this framework, Othello Oil & Natural Gas Company (AONGC), a state-

owned enterprise incorporated in Othello and operating on a commercial basis,

established the Desdemona Exploration Company (DEC) as its wholly owned subsidiary

to conduct oil and gas exploration and extraction in Desdemona. AONGC is publicly

traded, with the Government of Othello retaining a minority shareholding as required by

its constitutional documents. From 2005 onward, DEC operated profitably and was

recognized in an official report as contributing to Desdemona’s economic development.

II. Developments Prior to the Dispute

¶3. From 2017, Desdemona expressed increased interest in DEC’s operations and indicated

willingness to support its expansion. In 2018, an internal intelligence report in

Desdemona alleged that certain AONGC personnel visiting the country were involved in

espionage and drug trafficking. Following this report, security measures at Desdemona’s

ports and airports were heightened.

Memorial For Respondent 10

 Ist International Moot Court Competition, 2026

III. Arrest and Detention of Mr. Tereka Mittal

¶4. On 15 August 2022, Mr. Tereka Mittal, an Othello national, former legal adviser to the

Government of Othello, and a director of AONGC, was arrested at Ralhore International

Airport after airport security discovered small packets of white powder in his luggage.

Mr. Mittal stated that the packets contained Ayurvedic medicine. He was taken into

custody and transferred to a high-security detention facility. Desdemona informed Othello

of the arrest through a diplomatic note, and Othello requested his release.�

¶5. On 16 August 2022, Mr. Mittal was produced before a magistrate within 24 hours in

accordance with Desdemona’s criminal procedure law. His request for interim bail was

rejected, and he was remanded to police custody for further investigation. During the

hearing, protesters gathered outside the court building, and demonstrations relating to the

arrest took place in various parts of Desdemona. Public statements were made by officials

of both States concerning the incident and its implications.

IV. Consular Access and Diplomatic Exchanges

¶6. Othello requested consular access to Mr. Mittal pursuant to Article 36 of the VCCR.

Desdemona declined these requests, citing national security considerations and domestic

legal provisions applicable to drug-related offences. Diplomatic correspondence between

the two States continued but did not lead to agreement regarding consular access.

Subsequently, Desdemona downgraded diplomatic relations and announced increased

scrutiny of capital inflows and movement of persons from Othello.

V. The Essential Security Act and Measures Against DEC

¶7. In November 2022, Desdemona enacted the Essential Security Act, 2022 (ESA), which

addressed matters relating to national security and public affairs and had retrospective

Memorial For Respondent 11

 Ist International Moot Court Competition, 2026

effect. Under the ESA, the government nationalized the entire shareholding of DEC and

all its movable and immovable assets. DEC’s board of directors was dismissed, and

management of the company was transferred to a state-appointed management committee

composed of officials of Desdemona.

¶8. Desdemona offered AONGC compensation amounting to 60% of the estimated market

value of its shareholding, together with standard interest. AONGC and Othello

communicated objections to this measure through diplomatic channels.

VI. Arbitral Proceedings Under the BIT

¶9. On 10 January 2023, Othello initiated arbitration against Desdemona under the dispute

resolution clause of the BIT in relation to the measures affecting DEC. A three-member

arbitral tribunal was constituted. In July 2024, by majority, the tribunal dismissed

Othello’s claims on grounds of admissibility and merits. One arbitrator issued a

dissenting opinion addressing issues relating to expropriation, admissibility, and

compensation.

VII. Criminal Trial and Conviction of Mr. Mittal

[Link]. Mittal was tried before a special criminal court established under the ESA on charges

relating to drug trafficking and public security. The court convicted him and sentenced

him to life imprisonment.

[Link]. Proceedings Before the Court

Othello subsequently instituted proceedings before this Court concerning the arrest, detention,

prosecution, conviction, and consular access relating to Mr. Mittal, as well as the nationalization

of DEC and the legal effect of the arbitral award.

Memorial For Respondent 12

 Ist International Moot Court Competition, 2026

-SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS-

ISSUE 1: DESDEMONA HAS VIOLATED INTERNATIONAL LAW IN ARRESTING,

PROSECUTING AND CONVICTING MR. MITTAL

The Respondent submits that the arrest, detention, prosecution, and conviction of Mr. Mittal
were carried out in full compliance with international law, particularly Articles 9 and 14 of the
ICCPR. The arrest was based on reasonable suspicion, followed by prompt judicial oversight.

Mr. Mittal was informed of the reasons for his arrest, tried before a court established by law, and
provided with legal representation throughout the proceedings. International law does not
prohibit criminal prosecution per se, nor does it guarantee a favourable outcome. Mere
dissatisfaction with the result of domestic criminal proceedings cannot give rise to international
responsibility.

ISSUE 2: THE CLAIMS OF OTHELLO IN RELATION THE CONVICTION OF MR.

MITTAL ARE INADMISSIBLE OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, ARE LIABLE TO BE
DISMISSED IN ENTIRETY.

The Respondent submits that the claims advanced by Othello are legally untenable and must
be dismissed. International law does not mandate annulment of a domestic criminal conviction or
release of a convicted individual on the basis of alleged procedural deficiencies. Even assuming
arguendo that consular access was restricted, international jurisprudence recognises that such
violations do not automatically invalidate criminal proceedings.

The relief sought by Othello exceeds what international law permits and is therefore
unsustainable.

Memorial For Respondent 13

 Ist International Moot Court Competition, 2026

ISSUE 3: ESDEMONA HAS ACTED LAWFULLY IN PASSING THE ESSENTIAL

SECURITY ACT, 2022 AND APPLYING IT TO DEC AND CLAIMS OF
EXPROPRIATIONS ARE MERITLESS.

The Respondent submits that the enactment of the Essential Security Act, 2022 (“ESA”) and
its application to the Desdemona Exploration Company (“DEC”) constitute a lawful exercise of
Desdemona’s sovereign police powers. International law recognises the right of States to
regulate economic activity within their territory in the interest of national security and public
welfare, and such bona fide regulation does not amount to expropriation.

The Respondent further submits that the measures adopted under the ESA do not result in
substantial or permanent deprivation of ownership, control, or economic value of DEC.
Accordingly, the threshold for indirect expropriation under international law is not met. As the
measures were regulatory, non-discriminatory, and undertaken for a legitimate public purpose,
no obligation to pay compensation arises. Therefore, the claims of expropriation advanced by
Othello are without merit and must be dismissed.

ISSUE 4: THE ARBITRAL AWARD IS VALID AND BINDING ON BOTH PARTIES

UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE ICJ, IN CONTEXT OF THIS SPECIFIC
DISPUTE, DOES NOT HAVE THE JURISDICTION TO SIT ON APPEAL ON THE
DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL OR TO SUBSTITUTE ITS VIEWS.

The Respondent submits that the arbitral award rendered in the dispute concerning DEC is
final, valid, and binding upon both parties under international law.

It is a settled principle that arbitral awards rendered pursuant to valid consent cannot be
challenged merely on the basis of alleged errors of law or fact.

Memorial For Respondent 14

 Ist International Moot Court Competition, 2026

The Respondent further submits that the International Court of Justice does not possess
jurisdiction to sit in appeal over an arbitral tribunal or to substitute its own views for those of the
tribunal.

The Applicant has failed to establish any exceptional grounds, such as lack of consent or
manifest excess of jurisdiction, that would justify treating the arbitral award as a nullity.
Accordingly, the challenge to the arbitral award is legally untenable and must be rejected in its
entirety.

Memorial For Respondent 15

 Ist International Moot Court Competition, 2026

-PLEADINGS-

ISSUE: 1 THE STATE OF DESDEMONA HAS DULY FULLFILLED ITS MANDATE OF FAIR
TRIAL BY APPOINTING A COUNSEL TO DEFEND MR. MITTAL IN COURT

It is respectfully submitted that Desdemona has acted fully in accordance with its obligations
under international law in the arrest, prosecution, and conviction of Mr. Mittal. The Respondent
submits that the measures adopted complied with the requirements of legality, due process, and
fair trial as mandated under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966
(“ICCPR”).

International law does not prohibit arrest, detention, or criminal prosecution per se. It requires
only that such measures be carried out in accordance with law and with minimum procedural
safeguards. Mere dissatisfaction with the outcome of domestic criminal proceedings cannot, in
itself, give rise to international responsibility.

Accordingly, the Applicant’s allegations of arbitrariness and denial of justice are unfounded and
must be rejected.

THE ARREST AND DETENTION OF MR. MITTAL WERE LAWFUL AND NON-
ARBITRARY UNDER ARTICLE 9 OF THE ICCPR

Article 9(1) of the ICCPR protects individuals from arbitrary arrest or detention, but does
not prohibit arrest carried out on reasonable grounds and in accordance with law. 1 The Human
Rights Committee has clarified that arbitrariness must be assessed in light of necessity,
reasonableness, and proportionality.

1
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966, Art. 9(1)

Memorial For Respondent 16

 Ist International Moot Court Competition, 2026

In the present case, Mr. Mittal was arrested at an international airport upon the discovery of
suspicious substances in his possession, giving rise to reasonable grounds for arrest. He was
produced before a competent judicial authority within the time prescribed by law. 2

The Human Rights Committee has consistently held that detention following lawful arrest and
subject to judicial supervision does not amount to arbitrariness under Article 9 of the ICCPR. 3

Accordingly, the arrest and detention of Mr. Mittal were consistent with Article 9 of the ICCPR.

MR. MITTAL WAS INFORMED OF THE REASONS FOR HIS ARREST IN COMPLIANCE
WITH ARTICLE 9(2) OF THE ICCPR

Article 9(2) of the ICCPR requires that a person arrested be informed of the reasons for arrest
and the charges against him. This requirement does not mandate a detailed legal exposition at the
time of arrest, but only sufficient information to enable the person to understand the basis of
detention. 4

In the present case, Mr. Mittal was informed that he was being arrested on suspicion of drug-
related offences and security concerns. The evolving nature of the investigation does not vitiate
compliance with Article 9(2).5

The Human Rights Committee has recognised that the adequacy of information must be assessed
in light of the circumstances of each case. 6

2
Moot Proposition, Statement of Facts
3
Mukong v. Cameroon, Comm. No. 458/1991, CCPR/C/51/D/458/1991
4
ICCPR, Art. 9(2)
5
Moot Proposition, Statement of Facts
6
Kelly v. Jamaica, Comm. No. 253/1987, CCPR/C/41/D/253/1987

Memorial For Respondent 17

 Ist International Moot Court Competition, 2026

THE TRIAL BEFORE THE SPECIAL CRIMINAL COURT COMPLIED WITH ARTICLE 14
OF THE ICCPR

Article 14(1) of the ICCPR guarantees a fair trial before a competent, independent, and impartial
tribunal established by law. 7 The mere fact that a court is constituted under special legislation
does not, by itself, render it incompatible with Article 14.

International human rights law recognises that States may establish special courts to deal with
particular categories of offences, provided that fundamental judicial guarantees are respected.8

The Special Criminal Court constituted under the Essential Security Act, 2022 was established
by law and vested with jurisdiction to try offences implicating national security. No evidence has
been adduced to demonstrate lack of independence or impartiality.

Accordingly, the trial of Mr. Mittal complied with Article 14(1) of the ICCPR.

MR. MITTAL WAS PROVIDED WITH EFFECTIVE LEGAL ASSISTANCE AS REQUIRED

UNDER ARTICLE 14(3)(d) OF THE ICCPR

Article 14(3)(d) of the ICCPR guarantees the right to legal assistance but does not confer an
absolute right to counsel of one’s own choosing in all circumstances. 9

In the present case, Mr. Mittal was represented by a state-appointed counsel during the
proceedings. The Human Rights Committee has consistently held that representation by a state-
appointed lawyer does not constitute a violation of Article 14(3)(d) unless it is shown that the
lawyer’s conduct was manifestly incompatible with the interests of justice. 10

No material has been placed on record to demonstrate incompetence, bad faith, or prejudice
attributable to the State. Mere dissatisfaction with the outcome of proceedings cannot be equated
with ineffective legal representation.

7
ICCPR, Art. 14(1)
8
Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 32, ¶22
9
ICCPR, Art. 14(3)(d)
10
Pratt and Morgan v. Jamaica, Comm. No. 210/1986

Memorial For Respondent 18

 Ist International Moot Court Competition, 2026

THE CONVICTION OF MR. MITTAL DOES NOT GIVE RISE TO INTERNATIONAL

RESPONSIBILITY

International law does not impose responsibility on a State merely because a criminal
conviction is challenged by another State. International responsibility arises only where there is a
clear and serious breach of international obligations, which is absent in the present case. 11

The Applicant has failed to establish any violation of Articles 9 or 14 of the ICCPR sufficient to
engage the international responsibility of Desdemona.

For the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully submitted that Desdemona has acted consistently
with international law in arresting, prosecuting, and convicting Mr. Mittal, and that the claims
advanced by Othello under this Issue are without merit and must be dismissed.

THE PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY ATTACHES TO DOMESTIC JUDICIAL

PROCEEDINGS

It is a settled principle of international adjudication that domestic judicial acts enjoy a

presumption of regularity unless compelling evidence establishes fundamental unfairness.
International tribunals have consistently refrained from acting as courts of appeal over municipal
judicial determinations.

The burden lies upon the Applicant to demonstrate that the criminal proceedings, taken as a
whole, were manifestly unjust or structurally deficient. Mere disagreement with evidentiary
assessment or adverse outcome does not rebut this presumption. 12

In the present case, no systemic bias, structural defect, or procedural collapse has been
established. Accordingly, the presumption of regularity remains intact and Desdemona cannot be
held internationally responsible.

11
ELSI (United States of America v. Italy), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1989, ¶73
12
Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v. DRC), Preliminary Objections, I.C.J. Reports 2007, ¶51

Memorial For Respondent 19

 Ist International Moot Court Competition, 2026

ARTICLE 14 ICCPR DOES NOT AUTHORISE REASSESSMENT OF FACTS OR

EVIDENCE

The Human Rights Committee has clarified that it is not its function to act as a “fourth instance”
reviewing factual findings or re-evaluating evidence unless proceedings were manifestly
arbitrary. 13

The Applicant’s submissions seek precisely such re-evaluation. Allegations concerning

appreciation of forensic evidence or conclusions drawn by the trial court fall outside the limited
scope of Article 14 review.

Accordingly, no violation of Article 14 ICCPR arises merely because the Applicant disputes the
findings of the Special Criminal Court.

THE HIGH THRESHOLD FOR DENIAL OF JUSTICE HAS NOT BEEN MET

Under customary international law, denial of justice requires a clear and egregious failure of the
judicial system, not merely legal error.14

International tribunals have emphasised that denial of justice arises only where proceedings are
fundamentally unfair or amount to a complete miscarriage of justice. 15

Mr. Mittal had:

 Judicial oversight,
 Legal representation,
 Opportunity to defend himself,
 Trial before a court established by law.

The Applicant has failed to demonstrate any conduct meeting the stringent threshold required to
establish denial of justice.

13
Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 32, ¶26
14
ELSI, I.C.J. Reports 1989, ¶128
15
Loewen Group, Inc. v. United States, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/98/3, Award, ¶132

Memorial For Respondent 20

 Ist International Moot Court Competition, 2026

ISSUE 2: THE CLAIMS OF OTHELLO IN RELATION TO THE CONVICTION OF MR.

MITTAL ARE INADMISSIBLE OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED
IN THEIR ENTIRETY

It is respectfully submitted that the claims advanced by the State of Othello concerning the
arrest, prosecution and conviction of Mr. Mittal are misconceived in law and unsustainable on
facts, and therefore liable to be dismissed in limine. The Respondent submits that Desdemona
has acted in conformity with its obligations under international law, including the Vienna
Convention on Consular Relations, 1963 (“VCCR”) and the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights, 1966 (“ICCPR”).

I. DESDEMONA HAS ACTED CONSISTENTLY WITH ARTICLE 14 OF THE

ICCPR IN ARRESTING, PROSECUTING AND CONVICTING MR. MITTAL

Article 14 of the ICCPR guarantees the right to a fair trial but does not prohibit arrest, detention
or prosecution per se.16 The Covenant requires that criminal proceedings be conducted in
accordance with law and minimum standards of due process.

In the present case, Mr. Mittal was produced before a competent judicial authority, tried before a
Special Criminal Court constituted under domestic law, and represented by legal counsel
throughout the proceedings. 17 The mere fact that the outcome of the trial was unfavourable to
Mr. Mittal does not, by itself, establish a violation of Article 14 of the ICCPR.

The Human Rights Committee has clarified that Article 14 does not guarantee a particular
outcome, but only the fairness of the procedure.18

16
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966, Art. 14
17
Moot Proposition, Statement of Facts
18
Pratt and Morgan v. Jamaica, Comm. No. 210/1986

Memorial For Respondent 21

 Ist International Moot Court Competition, 2026

APPOINTMENT OF STATE-APPOINTED COUNSEL SATISFIED THE REQUIREMENTS

OF ARTICLE 14(3)(D) OF THE ICCPR

Article 14(3)(d) of the ICCPR guarantees the right to legal assistance, but does not confer an
absolute right to counsel of one’s own choosing in all circumstances. 19

In the present case, Mr. Mittal was provided with a state-appointed counsel who represented him
before the Magistrate Court and during subsequent proceedings. 20 The Human Rights Committee
has consistently held that dissatisfaction with a state-appointed lawyer, without proof of manifest
incompetence or prejudice attributable to the State, does not constitute a violation of Article
14(3)(d).21

No material has been placed on record to demonstrate that the conduct of the state-appointed
counsel was incompatible with the interests of justice or that the outcome of the proceedings
would have been different but for such representation.

DENIAL OR RESTRICTION OF CONSULAR ACCESS DOES NOT RENDER THE

CONVICTION INVALID UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW

The Respondent submits that even assuming arguendo that consular access was restricted, such
restriction does not automatically vitiate the criminal proceedings or render the conviction null
and void under international law.

The International Court of Justice in Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United
States of America) expressly held that a violation of Article 36 of the VCCR does not lead to
automatic annulment of conviction, but requires only review and reconsideration in accordance
with domestic law.22

Accordingly, the Applicant’s prayer seeking annulment of the conviction and immediate release
of Mr. Mittal is legally untenable.

19
ICCPR, Art. 14(3)(d)
20
Moot Proposition, Statement of Facts
21
Pratt and Morgan v. Jamaica, Comm. No. 210/1986
22
Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2004, ¶121

Memorial For Respondent 22

 Ist International Moot Court Competition, 2026

THE SPECIAL CRIMINAL COURT WAS A COURT ESTABLISHED BY LAW

The Special Criminal Court which tried Mr. Mittal was constituted under the Essential Security
Act, 2022, a validly enacted domestic legislation. 23 The mere fact that a court is constituted
under special legislation does not per se render it incompatible with Article 14 of the ICCPR.

International human rights law recognises that States may establish special courts to address
particular categories of offences, provided that such courts afford basic judicial guarantees. 24 No
evidence has been adduced to show that the Special Criminal Court lacked competence,
independence or impartiality.

IN ANY EVENT, THE RELIEF SOUGHT BY OTHELLO IS UNSUPPORTED BY

INTERNATIONAL LAW

International law does not mandate the release of a convicted individual or the nullification of a
domestic criminal judgment merely because a procedural violation is alleged. 25

As held in Avena, the appropriate remedy, where applicable, is limited to review and
reconsideration, and not substitution of the judgment of domestic courts or automatic release of
the accused.26

Accordingly, the claims of Othello, even if considered on merits, are liable to be dismissed in
their entirety. For the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully submitted that the claims of Othello in
relation to the conviction of Mr. Mittal are inadmissible, or in the alternative, liable to be
dismissed in their entirety.

23
Moot Proposition, Statement of Facts.
24
Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 32, ¶22
25
Avena, I.C.J. Reports 2004
26
Ibid., ¶121

Memorial For Respondent 23

 Ist International Moot Court Competition, 2026

INTERNATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY CANNOT SUBSTITUTE FOR DOMESTIC

APPELLATE MECHANISMS

International law does not transform every contested domestic conviction into an international
dispute. Diplomatic espousal of claims does not convert the ICJ into an appellate criminal
court.27 The Court has consistently emphasised that it does not review municipal judicial
decisions merely because one State disagrees with the outcome. 28

The Applicant’s case attempts to internationalise a domestic criminal conviction without

demonstrating a breach of an independent international obligation.

EVEN ASSUMING ARGUENDO A VCCR VIOLATION, ANNULMENT IS NOT THE

APPROPRIATE REMEDY

The ICJ in Avena made clear that a violation of Article 36 VCCR does not automatically nullify
a conviction.29 The appropriate remedy, where required, is review and reconsideration — not
immediate release or annulment.30

The relief sought by Othello exceeds what international law recognises and must therefore be
rejected.

PROPORTIONALITY OF REMEDY IS A REQUIREMENT OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

Even where an internationally wrongful act is established, remedies must be proportionate and
appropriate to the breach. 31 The drastic remedy of setting aside a criminal conviction is
incompatible with the limited nature of procedural violations alleged by the Applicant.

27
U.N. Charter, Art. 2(7)
28
ELSI, I.C.J. Reports 1989, ¶73
29
Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America), I.C.J. Reports 2004, ¶121
30
Ibid
31
Factory at Chorzów (Merits), P.C.I.J., Ser. A, No. 17 (1928), p. 47

Memorial For Respondent 24

 Ist International Moot Court Competition, 2026

NO CAUSAL LINK BETWEEN ALLEGED IRREGULARITIES AND CONVICTION

International responsibility requires a causal nexus between the alleged breach and the injury
claimed. 32

The Applicant has failed to establish that any alleged procedural irregularity materially affected
the outcome of the criminal proceedings. Absent such causal nexus, no international
responsibility can arise.

32
Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, Art. 2

Memorial For Respondent 25

 Ist International Moot Court Competition, 2026

ISSUE 3: DESDEMONA HAS ACTED LAWFULLY IN PASSING THE ESSENTIAL

SECURITY ACT, 2022 AND APPLYING IT TO DEC; CLAIMS OF EXPROPRIATION
ARE MERITLESS
Desdemona fairly concedes that the detention of Mr. Mittal, dismissal ofDEC’s board of

directors,33 and placing it under an ad-hoc Management Committee,34 and detention of as a high

ranking executives like Mr. Mittal35 may amount to a substantial deprivation of AONGC’s ability

to control management decisions, appoint directors, and enjoy the economic benefits of its

investment, including profits and dividends. However, since the application of ESA,2022 to the

DEC is in furtherance of a legitimate public welfare objective within the meaning of Art. 5(B) of

the Othello-Desdemona BIT, it cannot be considered as expropiatory.

The Police powers doctrine has been recognised as a customary principle of law. 36

1. In the alternat ive, the ESA is per sea valid regulatory act.

It is a well settled principle of customary international law that all States have the right to adopt

regulatory measures, known as “police powers” that entails a decrease in assets or rights 37

provided they are not discriminatory.38The sovereign right of Desdemona to regulate as such is

explicitly stipulated in terms of Art. 5 of the BIT.

33
Compromis, ¶15 p.19
34
Compromis, ¶15 p.19
35
Compromis, ¶9 p.18
36
Saluka Investments BV (The Netherlands) o The Czech Republic, Permanent Court of Arbitration, Partial Award
(17 March 2006) at [306] ('Saluka); LGeE Energy Corp v Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/02/1 at [195]
('LGé-E'); TecnicasMedioambientalesTecmed SA U The United Mexican States (2004) 43 ILM 133 at (115)
37
TécnicasMedioambientalesTecmed S.A. v. United Mexican States[hereinafter Tecmed], ICSID, Case No. ARB
(AF)/00/2, 29 May 2003, 43 I.L.M. 133, at ¶. 115
38
[Link], supra note 142, 509; [Link] Weston, “Constructive Takings” underInternational Law: A Modest
Foray into the Problem of “Creeping Expropriation”, 16 [Link]’L L. 104, 121 (1975-1976); [Link], supra
note 153 331-332; Third Restatement, supranote 136, § 712, cmt. (g); Oscar Chinn affaire, P.C.I.J, 1934, Ser A/B,
Case No. 63; LG&E,supra note 142, at ¶. 195

Memorial For Respondent 26

 Ist International Moot Court Competition, 2026

Both necessary elements for the existence of customary law, State practice and opinio juris, can

be found. 39 Evidence of existence of opinio juris can be drawn from instruments approved by

international organizations that affirm the power of States to pass this kind of measures unless

they withhold a clear intention of taking the property by applying them 40 and the right of States

to regulate foreign investment and the activities of transnational corporation within its

territory“in consonance with its national objectives and priorities.” 41 Furthermore, the state of

this right as an integral part of customary international law has been confirmed by the work of

eminent scholars. 42

The ESA is in furtherance of a legitimate goal

The nationalisation of DEC is in furtherance of national security which qualifies as a legitimate

welfare objective within the meaning of Art.5(B) of the Othello-Desdemona

[Link] the adverse impact on property rights, it can be adapted in a view to protect

public interests, such as health, morals, safety or welfare. 43

39
North Sea Continental Shelf, supra note 27, 45; Military and At ¶military Activities in andAgainst Nicaragua,
supra note 94, 97; [Link], The Sources on International Law, [Link](ED.), INTERNATIONAL LAW 117,
125 (2003)
40
Draft Convention on the Protection of Foreign Property, 2 I.L.M. 241 (1963), art. 3, cmt. 3.(a); OECD Working
Paper on International Investment, OECD Working Paper on International Investment, No. 2004/4, “Indirect
expropriation” and the “right to regulate” in International Investment Law, 3, (Sept. 2004), at
[Link]/dataoecd/22/54/[Link];,
41
U.N.G.A. Res. 3281 (XXIX) of 12 Dec. 1974, 14 I.L.M. 251, Article 2.1(a),(b).
42
Draft Convention on the International Responsibility of States for Injuries to Aliens, 15 Apr. 1961, Article 10.5, 55
AM. J. INT'L L. 545, 554; Third Restatement, Explanatory Report, supra note 101, 21; ILC Summary Record of the
2232nd Meeting, Relations between States and International Organizations (Second part of the topic),
A/CN.A/438, A/CN.4.439, A/CN.4/L.456, sect. F, A/CN.4/L.466, Draft Art. 17 (1991); European Launcher
Development Organisation (ELDO) Protocol, Feb. 29, 1964 U.K.T.S. 30 (1964) Art. 22 ; United States ex rel.
Casanova v. Fitzpatrick, 34 ILR 154, 159-160 (1963); Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the
United States, 1 American Law Institute 524, §470, reporters’ note 3 [hereinafter: Third Restatement]., § 712, cmt.
(g).
43
[Link], What constitutes a taking of property under international law?, 38 [Link]’L L. 307, (1962),
318; [Link], EXPROPRIATION IN PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW 107 (1959). 338; Draft Convention
on the Protection of Foreign Property, Article 3, 7 ILM 124 (1968); Draft Convention on the International

Memorial For Respondent 27

 Ist International Moot Court Competition, 2026

ISSUE 4: THE ARBITRAL AWARD IS VALID AND BINDING UNDER INTERNATIONAL

LAW AND THE ICJ LACKS JURISDICTION TO SIT IN APPEAL OR SUBSTITUTE ITS
VIEWS
The Arbitral Award is Valid And Binding In the Context Of this Specific Dispute, The ICJ

Does Not Have The Jurisdiction To Sit On An Appeal On The Decision Of The Tribunal Or To

Substitute Its Views.

The ad hoc tribunal had the requisite jurisdiction to rule on the matter

In order to hear and determine the merits of a dispute, an arbitral tribunal must possess valid

jurisdiction. Here, in the present case, jurisdiction of the ad hoc tribunal arises from a valid

arbitration agreement 44 in terms of Article 9 of the Othello–Desdemona BIT.

The ICJ, in the context of this specific dispute, is not vested with criminal appellate

jurisdiction to sit on an appeal over the award of the ad hoc tribunal

The relief sought by Othello, namely the annulment of the judgment of the Special Criminal

Court constituted under the ESA, 2022, the setting aside of Mr. Mittal’s sentence of life

imprisonment, and his immediate release and repatriation, is relief that can only be granted, if at

all, by competent domestic appellate criminal courts of Desdemona.

This Court has consistently affirmed time and again in a plethora of decisions such as La Grand ,

Avena45and Paraguay46that it does not exercise appellate jurisdiction over municipal courts. As

Responsibility of States for Injuries to Aliens, Article 10.5, 55 AM. J. INT'L L. 545, 554;, Article 10.5, 554;
Convention Establishing the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency Article 11(a)(ii), (1985) 24 I.L.M. 1605,
1611-1612; Oscar Chinn affaire, [Link], supra note 142, 509; [Link] Weston, “Constructive Takings”
under International Law: A Modest Foray into the Problem of “Creeping Expropriation”, 16 VA.J.
INT’L L. 104, 121 (1975-1976);
45
Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America), Provisional Measures, Or der of 5 Fe
bruary 200 3, I C.J Reports 2 00 3, p. 89, para. 48)"

Memorial For Respondent 28

 Ist International Moot Court Competition, 2026

matter of fact, it is also expressly clarified by this Court itself under itsPractical Information

section in the ICJ website, which clarifies that,"Lastly, the Court is not a supreme court ta which

national courts can turn; it does not act as a court of last resort for individuals. Nor is it an

appeal court for any international tribunal”.

In the present case, Mr. Mittal was tried, examined and convicted by a special court lawfully

constituted under the ESA, in due compliance with Desdemona Criminal Procedure Code and

Desdemona Penal Code. Desdemona’s. Othello’s request that this Court annul that conviction,

restrain Desdemona from giving effect to the sentence, and order Mr. Mittal’s release would

necessarily require this Court not only to substitute its own assessment for that of a domestic

criminal tribunal but also to erroneously assume the criminal appellate jurisdiction.

46
Paraguay v United States of America), Provisional Measures, Order of9 April 1998, ICJ Reports 1998, p. 248
para.39

Memorial For Respondent 29

 Ist International Moot Court Competition, 2026

-PRAYER FOR RELIEF-

For all reasons argued in this memorial, the Respondent, the Desdemona, respectfully requests

that the Court:

A. Declare that Desdemona has acted consistently with international law in arresting, prosecuting

and convicting Mr. Mittal.

B. Declare that the claims of Othello in relation the conviction of Mr. Mittal are inadmissible or

in the alternative, are liable to be dismissed in entirety.

C. Declare that Desdemona has acted lawfully in passing the Essential Security Act, 2022 and

applying it to DEC and claims of expropriations are meritless.

D. Declare that the arbitral award is valid and binding on both parties under international law and

the ICJ, in context of this specific dispute, does not have the jurisdiction to sit on appeal on the

decision of the Tribunal or to substitute its views.

Submitted on this 18 June 2021 Agents for the Respondent

[Signed] The State of Othello

Memorial For Respondent 30