Summary of pleadings

1. The State of Rotania violated rules of international law by apprehending and rending Samara Penza and other Adovan citizens due to the absence of bilateral extradition treaty, which is necessary in such cases. Furthermore, Adova was not obliged to extradite its citizens, because the intention of Adova to exercise its own national jurisdiction over the above mentioned citizens was clearly stated. Apart from this, Rotania violated the sovereignty of the Republic of Adova by illegal raid in Adova’s territory and capturing its citizens with the following enforced disappearance and these actions constituted an act of aggression.

2. The State of Rotania firmly violated international law by keeping Samara Penza and other Adovan citizens in the manner that humiliates the human dignity. Various special techniques were used by Rotania, which constituted torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Colonel Vinitsa passed a proclamation, where it was stated that such measures do not violate international law. But being a party to the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment 1984, Rotania repeatedly mistreated the detainees.

3. 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, because the crimes, committed by these citizens were not war crimes, and thus Rotania had no right to try them before the Military Commission. And moreover, Rotania did not grant to the detained Adovan citizens the right to have a legal counsel of their own choice.

4. 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, because Michael Kirgov and Gommel Vinitsa committed serious international crimes, including crimes against humanity, war crimes and other serious violations of international humanitarian law, and thus they do not enjoy any immunity from the prosecution. Therefore Adova could prosecute them as they have committed crimes against its citizens.

Pleadings

I. THE APPREHENSION AND RENDITION OF SAMARA PENZA AND OTHER ADOVAN CITIZENS WAS A VIOLATION OF ADOVA’S SOVEREIGHNTY AND IN CONTRAVENTION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

A. Extradition Must Be Exercised Only In The Presence Of Bilateral Extradition Treaty

The Republic of Adova considers extradition of Samara Penza and other Adovan citizens to be contrary to the rules of international law. Extradition is the surrender of an individual accused or convicted of a crime by the state within whose territory he is found to the state under whose laws he is alleged to have committed or to have been convicted of the crime.¹ According to the definition, Samara Penza and other Adovan citizens, being accused of committing terror attack, should have been extradited to Rotania.

Following the logic, applied in Factor v. Laubenheimer, the court ruled, that “the principles of international law recognize no right to extradition apart from treaty”.² Apart from this, the extraditable crimes should be enumerated in the treaty between states. Though in our case, there was no bilateral agreement neither with Rotania, nor with Merkistan. As a result, the actions of the 373^rd Infantry Battalion concerning the apprehension and rendition of Samara Penza and other Adovan citizens, are unlawful.

Even if there was a bilateral extradition treaty between Adova and Rotania or between Adova and Merkistan, a Contracting Party shall have the right to refuse extradition of its nationals³. The question regarding the nationality is meaningless, because Rotania wanted Adova to extradite Adovan citizens and Samara Penza, who is an Adovan national too (Comp.9).