ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

Your Excellencies, good day. I am Marrie Angela Santiago and I am honored to appear on behalf of the
Applicant, the Republic of Amira. With me is my co-counsel, Fatima Aurelio.

PRELIMINARIES

Your Excellencies, I will speak for the following 10 minutes and I will be addressing Amira’s first (1 st)
submission as to Rophan’s attributability of the acts of its agents and Amira’s second (2 nd) submission as to the
breaches of Rophan’s international obligations, particularly those under the [(A)] Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and [(B) (1) (2)] the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights.

I will then yield the floor to my co-counsel who will speak for 10 minutes. She will likewise be
addressing Amira’s second (2nd) submission as to the breaches of Rophan’s international obligations,
particularly on [(B) (3)] the invalid derogation of rights of the Amirans, Rophan’s violations under [(C)] the
International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination and [(D)] the Draft Articles on
the Expulsion of Aliens.

We will reserve 5 minutes for our rebuttals.

Your Excellencies, may it please the court.

ORAL PLEADING

Your Excellencies, it is our contention that Rophan, in issuing and implementing the Joint Statement
regarding deportation of Amiran citizens, acted in violation of international law.

As provided by Articles 1 and 2 of the 2001 United Nations Responsibility of State for Internationally
Wrongful Act (UNRSIWA), every internationally wrongful act of a State entails the international responsibility of
that State and there is an internationally wrongful act of a State when conduct consisting of an action or
omission: (a) is attributable to the State under international law; and (b) constitutes a breach of an international
obligation of the State.

Your Exellencies, we submit that Rophan is internationally responsible, since…

First [I], the threat of mass deportation of Amirans on the strength of the Joint Statement issued by the
Secretary of Justice and the Secretary of Interior is attributable to Rophan under international law; and

Second [II], the issuance and implementation of the Joint Statement constitute breaches of Rophan’s
International Obligations.

Your Exellencies, on to our first submission; we respectfully submit that…

I. The threat of mass deportation of Amirans on the strength of the Joint Statement issued by the Secretary of
Justice and the Secretary of Interior is attributable to Rophan under international law.

Article 4 of the UNRSIWA enunciates that the conduct of any State organ shall be considered an act of
that State under international law, whether the organ exercises legislative, executive, judicial or any other
functions, whatever position it holds in the organization of the State, and whatever its character as an organ of
the central Government or of a territorial unit of the State. Furthermore, an organ includes any person or entity
which has that status in accordance with the internal law of the State.

Your Excellencies, it is beyond question that the Secretary of Justice and the Secretary of Interior are
organs or agents of Rophan who are exercising executive functions, by virtue of which they issued and
implemented the Joint Statement, through which Rophan advised all Amirans to voluntarily leave the country
within 48 hours or face deportation. The Joint Statement was the measure taken by Rophan upon arriving at an
impasse after two (2) months of stalled diplomatic negotiations with Amira.

As such, Your Excellencies, we respectfully submit that the requisite attribution to the state is satisfied.

On to our second submission, Your Excellencies, we resectfully submit that…

II. The issuance and implementation of the Joint Statement constitute breaches of Rophan’s International
Obligations based on the following grounds:

First [A], Rophan violated the International Human Rights Law

Second [B], The Conduct of Rophan violated its obligation under the International Convention on Civil
and Political Rights (ICCPR)

Your Excellencies, on to our first ground…

[A. Rophan violated the International Human Rights Law]

[A1. The equal human rights treatment between citizens and aliens is a jus cogens obligation]

The discrimination of Amirans as collective perpetrators of the cyber-terrorist attacks against Mykinos,
by forcing them to leave Rophan without due process of law, is a violation of International Human Rights Law.
Moreover, the economic pressure from Mykinos does not justify such a far-reaching act against Amiran
Nationals without the benefit of due process of law.

 The principles of equality and non-discrimination, including on the basis of nationality, are
peremptory norms of international law or jus cogens and therefore impose binding obligations
on all States, to respect and fulfill them.

 The obligation to respect and ensure the principle of the right to equal protection and non-
discrimination is irrespective of a person’s migratory status in a State. In other words, States
have the obligation to ensure this fundamental principle to its citizens and to any foreigner who
is in its territory, without any discrimination based on regular or irregular residence, nationality,
race, gender or any other cause.

 Your Excellencies, we respectfully submit that the arbitrary identification of Amiran Nationals as
collective perpetrators of the cyber-terrorist attacks against Mykinos violates the principles of
equality and non-discrimination. The Federation of Rophan, which acceded to the International
Human Rights Law, must uphold these rights regardless of whether the incident involves citizens
or non-citizens.
 Moreover, Your Excellencies….

[A2. Rophan violated the Amiran National’s right to equal protection in arbitrarily mandating forced
deportation contrary to Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)]

The Joint Statement requiring Amiran Nationals to either voluntarily leave Rophan within 48 hours or
face deportation violates the latter’s right to equal protection before the law enshrined in Article 7 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).

 Article 7 states that the law is the same for everyone, and must treat everyone in all these
categories fairly. The right to equality before the law means that laws must not be discriminatory
and that judges and officials must not discriminate when enforcing the law.

 While equal protection does not require identical treatment of all persons in all matters, it
forbids different treatment of similarly situated persons without an adequate justification.

 Your Excellencies, it is our submission that, by forcing Amiran Nationals to leave Rophan or face
deportation without an adequate justification or failure to establish factual findings and any
lawful breach within the country to cause such drastic action, State agents of Rophan clearly
violated the right of the former to equal protection before the law.

Lastly, Your Excellencies…

[A3. In forcibly subjecting the Amiran Nationals to a possible mass deportation without due process of law,
Rophan violated these Amiran Nationals’ right to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial
tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations, contrary to Article 10 of the UDHR.]

By arbitrarily requiring to leave Rophan or face mandatory deportation, state agents of Rophan violated
the right of Amiran Nationals to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the
determination of their rights and obligations before the Federation of Rophan, contrary to Article 10 of the
UDHR.

 The hallmarks of a fair trial include: the right to be present in court; to have a speedy public trial
before an independent and impartial court; and to have a lawyer of one’s choice, or one
provided at no cost.

 Article 10 expresses the basic right to fair trial in both civil and criminal proceedings, as well as
in deportation or immigration proceedings. This right applies to the individual in all cases,
whether he or she initiates the proceedings or is the defending party.

 Your Excellencies, we respectfully submit that, in depriving the Amiran Nationals the opportunity
to plead their case before an impartial court or tribunal and obtain a lawyer to represent them
with respect to their rights and obligations before the laws of the Federation of Rophan, the
State agents of Rophan violated the rights of the former to a fair and public hearing by an
independent and impartial tribunal.

Now, Your Excellencies, on to our second ground, it is submission that…

The Conduct of Rophan violated its obligation under the International Convention on Civil and Political
Rights (ICCPR).

Having ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) , Your Excellencies, both
Amira and Rophan, as State parties thereto, must ensure the rights therein to “all individuals within its territory
and subject to its jurisdiction” by virtue of art. 2, par. 2 thereof.

 In general, the rights set forth in the Covenant apply to everyone, irrespective of reciprocity, and
irrespective of his or her nationality or statelessness. Thus, the general rule is that each one of
the rights of the Covenant must be guaranteed without discrimination between citizens and
aliens. Aliens receive the benefit of the general requirement of non-discrimination in respect of
the rights guaranteed in the Covenant, as provided for in Article 2 thereof. This guarantee
applies to aliens and citizens alike.

[B1. Amiran nationals are entitled to the rights set out in the Covenant.]

 While the Covenant does not recognize the right of aliens to enter or reside in the territory of a
State party as it is in principle a matter for the State to decide who it will admit to its territory by
imposing conditions relating to movement, residence and employment, once aliens are allowed
entry into the territory of a State Party, they, however, are entitled to the rights set out in the
Covenant.

 Your Excellencies, in this case, Amirans subject to expulsion were allowed to enter the territory
of Rophan by reason of employment, mostly in the ICT Industry. Thus, Your Excellencies, these
Amiran workers are entitled to the rights set out in the Covenant.

With that, Your Excellencies…

[B2. The state of Rophan violated the Amiran nationals’ right to due process under Article 13 of the Covenant.]

Rophan violated the Amiran nationals’ right to due process under Article 13 of the Covenant.

 Article 13 states that an alien lawfully in the territory of a State Party to the present Covenant
may be expelled therefrom only in pursuance of a decision reached in accordance with law and
shall, except where compelling reasons of national security otherwise require, be allowed to
submit the reasons against his expulsion and to have his case reviewed by, and be represented
for the purpose before, the competent authority or a person or persons especially designated by
the competent authority.

 In its General Comment No. 15 on the position of aliens under the Covenant, the Human Rights
Committee stated that Article 13 directly regulates only the procedure and not the substantive
grounds for expulsion. However, by allowing only those carried out ‘in pursuance of a decision
reached in accordance with law’, its purpose is clearly to prevent arbitrary expulsions. On the
other hand, it entitles each alien to a decision in his own case and, hence, article 13 would not
be satisfied with laws or decisions providing for collective or mass expulsions. This
understanding, in the opinion of the Committee, is confirmed by further provisions concerning
 the right to submit reasons against expulsion and to have the decision reviewed by and to be
represented before the competent authority or someone designated by it. An alien must be
given full facilities for pursuing his remedy against expulsion so that this right will in all the
circumstances of his case be an effective one. The principles of article 13 relating to appeal
against expulsion and the entitlement to review by a competent authority may only be departed
from when ‘compelling reasons of national security’ so require. Discrimination may not be made
between different categories of aliens in the application of article 13.

 In this case, Your Excellencies, we respectfully submit that Rophan violated the said right to due
process set out in Article 13 as….

First,

[a. There was no decision of expulsion reached in accordance with law.]

There was no decision of expulsion reached in accordance with law on which the issued Joint Statement
may be based. At most, the same was only based on the findings of the investigators that the virus used for the
hack was traced to a small company registered under the name of an Amiran company. Worthy to note,
however, Your Excellencies, is the fact that the employees of said small Amiran company are not all Amirans as
it also employed several Rophan workers.

Second, aside from the said investigation, Your Excellencies, no further investigations were conducted
nor were there proof presented to conclusively adjudge them, most especially the ICT workers, as “ criminal
hackers.”

[b. Amirans were not allowed to submit reasons against their expulsion before the competent authority.]

Amirans, who were not otherwise exempt from the orders of the Joint Statement, were not given full
facilities to supposedly pursue their remedy against expulsion. They were only given 48 hours to voluntarily
leave Rophan, otherwise, they would face detention and eventual deportation.

And lastly, Your Excellencies, there were no reasons for Rophan to depart from the said principles of
Article 13 relating to appeal against expulsion before the competent authority as…

[c. There were no compelling reasons for national security.]

There were no compelling reasons for national security.

National security is the safekeeping of the nation as a whole. Its highest order of business is the
protection of the nation and its people from attack and other external dangers by maintaining armed forces
and guarding state secrets.

Here, Your Excellencies, the measure taken by Rophan against Amirans was based merely on
unsubstantiated assertions and outcry of its citizens and the pressure imposed by Mykinos upon them.

 When Rophan did not then perform retaliatory actions against Amira, Mykinos imposed
several sanctions against Rophan.
  On the other hand, by immediately tagging Amirans as “criminal hackers” without
conducting investigation and presenting conclusive proof, it was the government of Rophan
itself which had caused the civil unrest.

Verily, Your Excellencies, we respectfully submit that there was no proven attack and/or other external
dangers which Rophan must be protected from that, by reason of which, the principles of Article 13 relating to
appeal against expulsion before the competent authority may be departed from.

CONCLUSION

In sum, Your Excellencies, the discrimination of Amiran nationals and Rophan’s non-compliance with the
procedural guarantees set out in UDHR and ICCPR are acts in violation of international law.

Your Excellencies, I will now yield the floor to my co-counsel, Fatima Aurelio, who will present our
remaining submissions.