CLEA (ASIA - INDIA) MOOTING COMPETITION 2016

BEFORE THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

TEAM NO: CLEA014

REPUBLIC OF ANDORRA

(APPLICANT)
v.
UNITED REPUBLIC OF ASIAN

(RESPONDENT )
For filed under a Special Agreement pursuant to Article 36, Paragraph 1 of the
ICJ Statute

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HONBLE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF

JUSTICE

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPODENT

CLEA (ASIA - INDIA) MOOTING COMPETITION 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents .1
Index of Authorities..3
Table of Cases..3
Books.......................................................................................................................3
Legal Data Base .......3
Statement of Facts...4
Summary of Arguments.....9
Arguments Advanced.11
1. WHETHER THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS INITIATED IN UNITED REPUBLIC OF
ASIAN AGAINST THE SECOND VICE-PRESIDENT OF REPUBLIC OF ANDORRA ARE
LEGAL?.......
...13
2. WHETHER THE SEIZURE OF PROPERTY OWNED BY GOVERNMENT OF ANDORRA
FOR DIPLOMATIC MISSION IS JUSTIFIABLE OR
NOT?. ........21
Prayer..25

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

Page 2

CLEA (ASIA - INDIA) MOOTING COMPETITION 2016

INDEX OF AUTHORITY

TABLE OF CASES
1. Equatorial Guinea vs France

Books
1)

Kapoor S.K.,International Law & Human Rights 20th Edition, Central Law Agency

2)

Shaw N. Malcolm International Law 6th Edition, Cambridge

3)

Dr. Agarwal H.O. International Law and Human Rights 4th Edition, Central Law Agency

LEGAL DATABASES
1.

International Court of Justice

2.

Vienna convention on diplomatic relation

3.

National Convention Against Tractional Organised Crime

DICTIONARY
Blacks Law Dictionary

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

Page 3

CLEA (ASIA - INDIA) MOOTING COMPETITION 2016

STATEMENT OF FACTS
1.

That the United Republic of ASIAN (hereinafter URA) is one of the highly industrialized country with a
population of approximately 60 million people. It is one of the founding members of United Nation (UN)
and is the permanent member of UN Security Council (UNSC).

2. That the Republic of Andorra is a developing economy having a population of approximately 10 million
people. It is one of the small coastal economy having an area of around 28,000 sq. Km.The territorial
sovereignty of Republic of Andorra is also recognised on four neighbouring Island (which are mostly
inhabitable) in the Sea of Aresia.
3.That Mr. Kian Ganzard has ruled the Republic of Andorra for over three decades since seizing power from a
democratically elected government in the year 1986 in a military coup. Currently, Mr. KianGanzard is the
constitutional head i.e. President of Republic of Andorra. Although nominally a constitutional democracy
since 1995, the subsequent presidential elections as well as the legislative elections were widely seen as
flawed and electoral fraud.
4.That in last decade, the Republic of Andorra experienced rapid economic growth due to the discovery of large
offshore oil reserves, and in recent times it has become one of the leading oil exporters.
5. That the International Civil society and NGOs working in the field of Human Rights and eliminating poverty
and corruption, have alleged against and questioned the (mis)rule of Mr. KianGanzard in last 30 years by
suppressing dissent and maintaining tight control over the countrys wealth. It is one of the common
allegation in all the report of last decade that under his leadership, the people endures grinding poverty,
illiteracy and continue to lead an abysmal life-standards due to abject poverty and rampage corruption while
oil money flows into the private bank accounts of Ganzards family members and their affiliates.
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

Page 4

CLEA (ASIA - INDIA) MOOTING COMPETITION 2016

6. That URA and Republic of Andorra are founding members of the United Nations, Parties to the Statute of
the International Court of Justice, to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, to the Vienna
Convention on Diplomatic Relations (VCDR) and all its optional protocol, to the Nations Convention against
Transnational Organized Crime (UNCTOC), both the countries have ratified the UNCTOC.
7.

That the eldest son of President Kian Ganzard and his possible successor, Mr. TTK Ganzard was elevated
to the post of second Vice-President of the Republic of Andorra in the year 2007, this post is not recognised
in the basic law i.e. Constitution of Republic of Andorra. It only recognises the post of Vice President who
is the deputy head of the Government in absence of its President. Besides, this post, he was holding the
countrys portfolio of Defence and Strategic Administration.

6. That in year 2009, a human rights group on behalf the ACCOUNTABILITY INTERNATIONAL (nongovernment, non-party and not-for-profit civil society organization), URA brought a criminal complaint
against several world leaders including Mr. TTK Ganzard for allegedly using public funds to buy luxury
properties and goods in URA through various modes of money- laundering and corruption.
7. Based on the complaint, the investigation agency of URA swung into action Mr. TTK Ganzard of Money
laundering charges, and discovered various assets owned exclusively by him including a palatial House at
18, Rose Avenue Manhattan, URA and other rare luxurious goods. The estimated value of this palatial
House at Rose Avenue is approximately $190 million besides a $30 million luxury mansion in one of the
Island city of URA,a $49 million Gulfstream jet.
8. In the year 2010, the UNICEF - GANZARD Global Prize for Social Work was approved when the Executive
Board of the UNICEF accepted the offer of $3 million from President of Republic of Andorra to endow an

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

Page 5

CLEA (ASIA - INDIA) MOOTING COMPETITION 2016

award in his name. The timing and purpose of this award was questioned by the leading Human Rights
Activists and Institutions of the world.
9. That URA and its prosecution agency prepared a case against Mr. TTK Ganzard on charges including
corruption, money-laundering and embezzlement of public funds. He denied the charges and wrongdoing as
well as also questioned the jurisdiction of domestic Courts of URA. It is popularly known as Kleptocracy
Ill Gotten Money Case in URA.
10. That in January 2011, the President of Andorra appointed his son i.e. Mr. TTK Gazard as Andorras Deputy
Permanent Delegate to UNESCO.
11. That the UNCTOC, is the main international instrument in the fight against transnational organized crime.
Countries must become parties to the Convention itself before they can become parties to any of the
Protocols and the Republic of Andorra is neither a party nor a signatory to the Protocol against the Illicit
Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Their Parts and Components and Ammunition,
supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime. However, URA has
ratified all the three protocols supplementing UNCTOC.
12. That in March, 2011 itself, before the competent court of URA started the trial of case, Mr. TTK Ganzard
sold his palatial House at Rose Avenue to the Govt. of Andorra for an allegedly sum of .$310 million. On
dated 18.03.2011 from the office of Ambassador of Andorra conveyed to the URA that the said House at
Rose Avenue is owned and controlled by Govt. of Andorra. It is no longer a private property and is being
used for the purpose of diplomatic mission of Republic of Andorra.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

Page 6

CLEA (ASIA - INDIA) MOOTING COMPETITION 2016

13. That in April 2011, in the process of investigating of the Case against MR. TTK Ganzard- the police of
URA has stormed into palatial House at 18, Rose Avenue Manhattan, URA and seized the same along with
other known properties(owned and controlled) by him.
14. The Republic of Andorra through its diplomatic note registered the strongest possible protest against the
said seizure of building by the police of URA and termed its occupation as unauthorised and illegal in the
eye of International Law violating the principle of Sovereignty and provisions of VCDR. The
communiqu dated11.04.2011 in which they refused to constitute the criminal proceeding in the URA
against the Second Vice President of Republic of Andorra is an unlawful interference with its internal affairs
of the Republic of ANDORRA because alleged wrongdoing would fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of
Republic of ANDORRA. and that Mr. TTK Ganzard is entitled to immunity from the criminal jurisdiction
of URA as Second Vice-President of republic of ANDORRA and Deputy Permanent Delegate to UNESCO.
The search, seizure and occupation of the building at 18, Rose Avenue Manhattan, URA is in breach of the
Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961.
15. That the URA has responded to Republic of Andorra on dated 21.06.2011 as there are ample of legal basis
which validates the search, seizure and occupation of House located at Rose Avenue, URA which
constitutes Mr. TTK Ganzards private property and does not belong to the diplomatic mission.and their
action in April 2011 is justified as he is accused of various offences under the Domestic law of URA as well
as international law. The claim of diplomatic immunity is a dwarfing principle in the changed circumstances and
realities of the International Framework.

16. The Republic of Andorra in year 2014, under its basic law i.e. Constitution of Andorra has appointed Mr.
TTK Ganzard as Vice- President of it having portfolio of Defence and Strategic Administration.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

Page 7

CLEA (ASIA - INDIA) MOOTING COMPETITION 2016

17. In December- 2014, another international NGO i.e. Association for Trade against Arms (ATAA) working
towards the abolition of the international arms trade, had come up with a report as titled ILLEGAL ARMS &
AMMUNITIONS ISLAND states that one of the island of Republic of Andorra is owned and controlled by Mr.
TTK Ganzard for the manufacturing of Illicit Firearms, their Parts and Components and Ammunition and its
trafficking to the different corner of world. The report highlights the repressive regime and recourse adopted by
manufacturing company while manufacturing these arms and ammunitions by involving the children and women. The
Report further fears that most of the children and women working on Island may be trafficked at the behest of him
through various means including the abuse of diplomatic privileges.

18.

After these diplomatic exchanges, and series of incidents involving the Government of two States (i.e.

Republic of Andorra and URA) tried to negotiate, but failed to resolve the dispute bilaterally including the
principles of the sovereign equality of States and non-interference in the internal affairs of another State and
the prosecution of Mr. TTK Ganzard in URA is in violation of United Nations Convention against
Transnational Organized Crime and general international law. However, the parties agreed to submit these
matters to the International Court of Justice.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

Page 8

CLEA (ASIA - INDIA) MOOTING COMPETITION 2016

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. WHETHER THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS INITIATED IN UNITED REPUBLIC OF ASIAN

AGAINST THE SECOND VICE-PRESIDENT OF REPUBLIC OF ANDORRA ARE LEGAL?

It is most humbly submitted before the Honble court that on the very first stage The evident lack of a basis of
jurisdiction for Republic of Andorras requests with regard to the immunities of Mr. TTK Ganzard. The
post of Second vice president is not recognized under the constitution on Andorra further, the Republic of
Andorra has never mentioned to URA the nature of the function of Second vice president
He alleged to have committed the crime in the sole capacity of Second vice president, as investigation initiated
against him in year 2009. Wherein he was alleged of using public fund to buy luxury property and goods in URA
through various modes of money laundering and corruption.
Republic of Andorra was aware of the fact that self created post of Second vice president of the country does not
enjoy diplomatic immunity in order to safe TTK Ganzard from the criminal prosecution subsequently in the year
2011, just 2 month before the start of the trial of the case relating to Kleptocracy Ill gotten money case, the
President of Andorra appointed his son ie TTK Ganzard as Andorras Deputy Permanent Delegate to UNESCO,
so that if not on the basis of post of Second vice president then definitely on the basis of the post of Andorras
Deputy Permanent Delegate to UNESCO, he will be given diplomatic immunity under international law. But
unfortunately the republic of Andorra failed to take the note of the fact that the post which the person held at the
time of commission of the act is taking into consideration rather than the subsequent post held by him.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

Page 9

CLEA (ASIA - INDIA) MOOTING COMPETITION 2016

2. WHETHER THE SEIZURE OF PROPERTY OWNED BY MR. TTK GANZARD AT THE

TIME OF INVESTIGATION IS JUSTIFIABLE OR NOT?
Property located at 18 Rose Avenue, Manhattan, URA cannot be said to be protected by immunity on any relevant
legal basis because it does not form part of the diplomatic mission of the Republic of Andorra. It is clear that the

building on 18 Rose avenue, Manhattan was not, on the critical date, part of the premises of the
[diplomatic] mission of Republic of Andorra in URA and that it was disguised, in haste and with a
certain amount of improvisation, either as the Deputy Permanent Delegate to UNESCO, or as the Vice
President of Republic of Andorra in. But this cannot hide the fact that it never legally acquired the status
of premises of the mission. It is prima facie clear that the alleged transformation of the building at
18, Rose Avenue Manhattan, URA into a diplomatic mission is sheer legal window-dressing. This
attempt, which was made after the dispute had arisen, cannot, of course, alter the nature of the building.
It is evident that the rights invoked by Republic of Andorra have not a whiff of legitimacy or an ounce of
credibility to them.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

Page 10

CLEA (ASIA - INDIA) MOOTING COMPETITION 2016

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. WHETHER THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS INSTITUTED IN UNITED REPUBLIC OF

ASIAN AGAINST THE SECOND VICE-PRESIDENT OF REPUBLIC OF ANDORRA ARE
LEGAL?

It is most humbly submitted before the Honble court that on the very first stage, the post of Second
Vice President is not recognized under the constitution on Andorra further, the Republic of Andorra has
never mentioned to URA the nature of the function of Second vice president
He alleged to have committed the crime in the sole capacity of Second vice president, as investigation
initiated against him in year 2009. Wherein he was alleged of using public fund to buy luxury property
and goods in URA through various modes of money laundering and corruption.
Republic of Andorra was aware of the fact that self created post of Second vice president of the country does not
enjoy diplomatic immunity in order to safe TTK Ganzard from the criminal prosecution subsequently in the year
2011, just 2 month before the start of the trial of the case relating to Kleptocracy Ill gotten money case, the
President of Andorra appointed his son ie TTK Ganzard as Andorras Deputy Permanent Delegate to UNESCO,
so that if not on the basis of post of Second vice president then definitely on the basis of the post of Andorras
Deputy Permanent Delegate to UNESCO, he will be given diplomatic immunity under international law. But
unfortunately the republic of Andorra failed to take the note of the fact that the post which the person held at the
time of commission of the act is taking into consideration rather than the subsequent post held by him.
1.1

THE COURTS LACK OF PRIMA FACIE JURISDICTION

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

Page 11

CLEA (ASIA - INDIA) MOOTING COMPETITION 2016

The applicant State seeks merely to found the jurisdiction of the Court on Article 35 of the Convention on
Transnational Organized Crime, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 15 November 2000, a treaty
commonly referred to as the United Nations Convention, and on the Optional Protocol to the Vienna
Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 18 April 1961. Yet neither of these instruments can be regarded as
providing a credible basis for the exercise of the Courts jurisdiction.
Of course, a cursory perusal of those texts might lead one to think the opposite, at least in respect of part of
Republic of Andorras Application. But, first, the Court cannot take a global approach and it is evident that the
applicant States claims with regard to the immunities to which Mr. TTK Ganzard might be entitled are not
covered by the provisions of those instruments and, second, regarding other aspects of the Application, or rather
the other aspect, since it concerns solely the status of the so-called diplomatic mission of Republic of Andorra ,
the mere mention of a jurisdiction clause does not suffice to establish the Courts jurisdiction, even if it is prima
facie: in the circumstances of this case, these requests are not only improbable, they are very clearly frivolous.
1.2 The evident lack of a basis of jurisdiction for Republic of Andorras requests with

regard to the immunities of Mr. TTK Ganzard.

The essence of Republic of Andorras case rests on this: the acts of which it accuses URA are internationally
unlawful because they violate the jurisdictional immunity of the Vice-President. But he is not a diplomat the is the
Vice-President, a post that does not fall within the scope of the 1961 Vienna Convention, and this consequently
renders the Protocol inoperative, the first article of which states that only disputes arising out of the interpretation
or application of the Convention shall lie within the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice.
Nor is it any more relevant to pose the question of whether Mr. TTK Ganzard, as Second Vice-President, might
enjoy the immunities of the troika: those afforded to the Head of State, Head of Government and Minister for
Foreign Affairs. He is none of these, and it seems extremely dubious to apply such an extension. But, in any event,
the question is irrelevant: if it were to arise, it could only be considered in the light of customary international law
which Republic of Andorra does indeed invoke in this regard. There is thus no basis of jurisdiction on which it can
rely that would enable the Court to pronounce on this point (and indeed it claims none).
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

Page 12

CLEA (ASIA - INDIA) MOOTING COMPETITION 2016

Secondly, the applicant State asks the Court to ensure respect for the principles of the sovereign equality of
States and non-interference in the internal affairs of another State, the alleged lack of respect for these principles
is the subject of the first submission in Republic of Andorras Application and is also mentioned in the Request
for the indication of provisional measures. This request meets with the same objection as the previous one: there
is no jurisdiction clause on which Republic of Andorra can rely that would enable the Court to pronounce on these
claims.
It is true that our opponents attempt to tie this request to the United Nations Convention, Article 4 of which is
entitled Protection of sovereignty and provides: States Parties shall carry out their obligations under this
Convention in a manner consistent with the principles of sovereign equality and territorial integrity of States and
that of non-intervention in the domestic affairs of other States.
This is a general guideline, however, which clarifies the manner in which the other provisions of the treaty should
be implemented, but which does not impose on States any specific obligation, the violation of which the other
parties to the Convention could invoke before this Court. As the Court stated in respect of the first article of the
1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Rights between the United States and Iran, the object and
purpose of that instrument was not to regulate peaceful and friendly relations between the two States in a general
sense. Consequently, Article I cannot be interpreted as incorporating into the Treaty all of the provisions of
international law concerning such relations
The same applies here: the object and purpose of the United Nations Convention is not to protect the sovereignty of
the States parties in a general sense; nor is it to codify the prohibition of intervention in the internal affairs of other
States. The reference to these principles in Article 4 indicates the manner in which the other provisions must be
applied; it can be used to interpret them, but in no way can it serve as an autonomous basis of the Courts
jurisdiction.
But to interpret does not mean to neutralize or prevent the realization of the object and purpose of the Convention.
To achieve its object and purpose, the United Nations Convention requires States parties to adopt the necessary
legislation to criminalize and make punishable the transnational offences that it defines money laundering in
particular when such offences are committed on their territory. But the Convention, in itself, cannot and does not
constitute a jurisdictional basis for the exercise of criminal jurisdiction. What is more, the proceedings against
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

Page 13

CLEA (ASIA - INDIA) MOOTING COMPETITION 2016

Mr.TTK Ganzard were not initiated on the basis of that Convention. And I defy our opponents to cite a single
provision that is applicable in this case.
It thus seems very clear that the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the claims of Republic of Andorra with regard
to:
the alleged violation of sovereignty or the equally alleged interference by URA in its internal affairs;
violations of the jurisdictional immunities claimed by Mr. TTK Ganzard, which are guaranteed neither by the
1961 Convention on Diplomatic Relations
he is not a diplomat
nor, even less so, by the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime.
In all these respects,

the only possible finding is that the Court lacks prima facie jurisdiction, which of course

means that the corresponding request sought by Republic of Andorra must be rejected. And that applies to the
entire immunities and criminal proceedings chapter of the case, and therefore the first of the requested
provisional measures must be rejected.

whether or not Mr. TTK Ganzard can claim to enjoy immunities from jurisdiction and execution in
respect of the acts of money laundering of which he stands accused. Is there a dispute on this point
between the Parties? Yes, there is. Does this question go to the merits of the case? Yes, it does. But the
only relevant question at this stage is whether you have jurisdiction to address it. And our answer to that
key question is a firm no: no, there is no provision binding the Parties that confers jurisdiction on the
Court to make a ruling, and you so clearly and unarguably lack. jurisdiction that, it is the only possible
finding, prima facie. Further, I note in passing that paragraph 2 of Article 4 clarifies the scope of the instruction
contained in paragraph 1, stating that nothing in this Convention entitles a State Party to undertake in the territory
of another State the exercise of jurisdiction and performance of functions that are reserved exclusively for the
authorities of that other State by its domestic law. So that is the effect to be given to paragraph 1. This would
apply if URA were seeking to prosecute a national of Republic of Andorra (or anyone else) for offences committed
in Republic of Andorra which is not the case for the money laundering offence of which Mr. TTK Ganzard is
suspected in URA.
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

Page 14

CLEA (ASIA - INDIA) MOOTING COMPETITION 2016

1.3 Mr. TTK Ganzard is accused of various offences under the Domestic law of URA and also faces

serious criminal charges under the domestic as well as international law.

It is most humbly submitted before the Honble court that the investigation which proceeds the trial phase, in year
2009 a human rights group on behalf of Accountability International, URA brought a criminal complaint against
Mr TTK Ganzard for using public funds to buy luxury properties and goods in URA through various modes of
money-laundering and corruption.

a) TTK Ganzard is accused of various offences under the Domestic law of URA and also faces
serious criminal charges under the domestic as well as international law.
In year March, 2011, before the competent court of URA started the trial of case relating to Kleptocracy Ill
Gotten Money Case The URA investigators found that the international Civil society and NGOs working
in the field of Human Rights and eliminating poverty and corruption from different quarter of the world,
have alleged against and questioned the (mis)rule of Mr. Kian Ganzard in last 30 years by suppressing
dissent and maintaining tight control over the countrys wealth. It is one of the common allegation in all the
report of last decade that under his leadership, the people of Republic of Andorra endures grinding poverty,
illiteracy and continue to lead an abysmal life-standards due to abject poverty and rampage corruption while
oil money flows into the private bank accounts of Ganzards family members and their affiliates.
Next, most of the population of Republic of Andorra is mired in desperate poverty, with more than 60
percent living on less than $1 per day according to the United Nations Development Assistance Framework
and as per the recent Human Development Report of the UNDP, the Republic of Andorra was the worst
governed country of all surveyed, as measured by the disconnect between available wealth and
development. It should be recalled that the criminal proceedings initiated in URA, starting in 2009,
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

Page 15

CLEA (ASIA - INDIA) MOOTING COMPETITION 2016

concerned private activities carried out by Mr. TTK Ganzard in URA activities suspected of being
related to money laundering offences.
Also Mr. TTK Ganzard is accused of various offences under the Domestic law of URA and also faces
serious criminal charges under the domestic as well as international law. It is further important to mention
that the URA has not only highest respect for its duty and obligation for United Nations Convention against
Transnational Organized Crime and existing international legal framework to which even Republic of
Andorra is party and signatory. We share a long standing bilateral and multilateral relationship which
further strengthened by the economic cooperation and investment. The menace of corruption has severe
impact on the basic human dignity and other human rights while the money-laundering is one of the
instance of international crime of our generation. We consistently face the threat of terrorism finance which
not only poses a threat to the life and liberty of citizens of URA rather than to the entire globe.
The claim of diplomatic immunity as requested by Republic of Andorra in present case is a dwarfing
principle in the changed circumstances and realities of the International Framework.
The URA is committed to bring justice to the victim and uphold rule of Law while respecting the binding
international legal framework.
Thereafter, in year 2009, a human rights group on behalf of Accountability International, URA brought a
criminal complaint against several world leaders including Mr. TTK Ganzard for allegedly using public
funds to buy luxury properties and goods in URA through various modes of money- laundering and
corruption.
Also, In December- 2014, another international NGO i.e. Association for Trade against Arms (ATAA)
working towards the abolition of the international arms trade, had come up with a report and evidence which
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

Page 16

CLEA (ASIA - INDIA) MOOTING COMPETITION 2016

further exposes the (mis)rule of Mr. Kian Ganzard and his family members as well as certain affiliates. The
report as titled ILLEGAL ARMS & AMMUNITIONS ISLAND states that one of the island of Republic
of Andorra is the manufacturing hub of Illicit Firearms, their Parts and Components and Ammunition and its
trafficking to the different corner of world. The manufacturing unit and company operating on this Island is
owned and controlled by Mr. TTK Ganzard. The report highlights the repressive regime and recourse
adopted by manufacturing company while manufacturing these arms and ammunitions by involving the
children and women. The Report further fears that most of the children and women working on Island may
be trafficked at the behest of Mr. TTK Ganzard through various means including the abuse of diplomatic
privileges.
These investigations discovered various assets owned exclusively by Mr. TTK Ganzard including a palatial
House at 18, Rose Avenue Manhattan, URA and other rare luxurious goods. The estimated value of this
palatial
House at Rose Avenue is approximately $190 million besides a $30 million luxury mansion in one of the
Island city of URA, a $49 million Gulfstream jet which all were privately owned by Mr. TTK Ganzard.
b). The building constitutes Mr. TTK Ganzards private property and does not belong to the
diplomatic mission.
It was surprising, to say the least, that the Protocol Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which is
the main point of daily contact for diplomatic missions based in URA, had no previous knowledge of these
purported premises of the Andorras diplomatic mission. Not a single piece of correspondence relating to
the Embassy was ever sent from that address. Nor did the Embassy of Andorra request any particular
measures concerning protection, in particular in relation to these premises.
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

Page 17

CLEA (ASIA - INDIA) MOOTING COMPETITION 2016

The URA consequently through its communiqu dated 21.06.2011. refused to consider the building to form
part of the premises of the diplomatic mission. And observed that there exists ample legal basis which
validates the search, seizure and occupation of House at 18, Rose Avenue Manhattan, URA. The building
constitutes Mr. TTK Ganzards private property and does not belong to the diplomatic mission.
In April 2011, in the process of investigating the Kleptocracy Ill Gotten Money Case against MR. TTK
Ganzard- the police of URA has stormed into palatial House at 18, Rose Avenue Manhattan, URA and
seized the same along with other known properties(owned and controlled) by Mr. TTK Ganzard. It was
motivated by the fact that the investigations had revealed that the townhouse at 42 avenue Foch had, in all
likelihood, been wholly or partly paid for out of the proceeds of the offences under judicial investigation.
c). Sovereignty of Andorra.
The first thing to note is that this trial includes only the offence of money laundering committed in URA. The trial
therefore confirms that the URA criminal proceedings are the result of URA exercising its sovereignty, and do not
constitute an attack on the sovereignty of Andorra.
Moreover, it is important to make it clear that Mr. TTK Ganzuard will not be obliged, in principle, to attend the
hearings in person. Indeed, he can choose to be represented by his lawyers, by sending a letter to the URA Court to
that effect.
first, supposing that Mr. TTK Ganzuard enjoys personal immunity on account of his functions quod non and that he
is

exposed, before your Judgment on the merits, to the effects of a measure affecting his liberty which is very

unlikely there is no basis for prima facie jurisdiction enabling the Court to take cognizance of TTK Ganzard
which is solely a matter of customary

d). Criminal proceedings -

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

Page 18

CLEA (ASIA - INDIA) MOOTING COMPETITION 2016

The ACCOUNTABILITY INTERNATIONAL is a non-government, non-party and not-for-profit civil

society organization working towards promoting transparent and ethical governance and to eradicate
corruption. It has its presence in more than 157 country of the world. In year 2009, a human rights group on
behalf of Accountability International, URA brought a criminal complaint against several world leaders
including Mr. TTK Ganzard for allegedly using public funds to buy luxury properties and goods in URA
through various modes of money- laundering and corruption.
Reports of NGO International Civil Socity and NGOs working in the field of human rights and eliminating
poverty and corruption from different quarter of the world, have alleged that under the leadership of Kian
Ganzard people of Andorra endures proverty and illiteracy due to rampage corruption while oil money
flows into the private bank account of Ganzards family members and their affiliated. As per United Nation
Development Assistance Framework, most of the population of the Andorra is mired in desperate poverty,
with more than 60 percent living on less than $ 1 per day and also human development report of UNDP
ranks the republic of Andorra as the worst governed country as measured by the disconnect between
available wealth and development.
Mr. TTK Ganzrad is not entitled to any personal immunity because the function of the TTK Ganzard is not
those of the head of the state, head of government or minster of foreign affairs. Also regarding substantive
immunity, all the alleged offences, the proceeds thereof having been laundered in URA, and should they be
established, were committed for personal gain. Further the property at palatial house 18, rose Avenue
Manhattan, URA does not enjoy any legal protection since it is not part of the diplomatic mission of the
Republic of Andorra, same was observed in Equatorial Guinea vs France- On 15 December 2015, the
Cour de cassation rejected the immunities of Mr. TTK Gandard, and confirmed the decision that he be
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

Page 19

CLEA (ASIA - INDIA) MOOTING COMPETITION 2016

placed under judicial examination23. In its judgment, the Cour de cassation asserted, in respect of Mr. TTK
Ganzard personal immunity, that the functions of the applicant are not those of a Head of State, Head of
Government or Minister for Foreign Affairs. Regarding substantive immunity, it stated that all the alleged
offences, the proceeds thereof having been laundered in France, and should they be established, were
committed for personal gain before he took up his current functions, at a time when he was performing the
functions of the Minister for Agriculture and Forestry
The final submissions of 23 May 2016, seeking the referral of Mr. TTK Ganzard before the Competent
court of URA, further state that the property at Palatial House At 18, Rose Avenue Manhattan, URAdoes
not enjoy any legal protection since it is not part of the diplomatic mission of the Republic of Andorra.
The property located at 18 Rose Avenue Manhattan, URA owned exclusively MR. TTK Ganzard was sold
to Government of Andorra for allegedly whooping sum of $310 million where as initial purchase of the
palatial house of $190 million. The republic of Andorra through his communique dated 18 march 2011,
from the office of ambassador convey to the URA that the said house is owned and controlled by
Government of Andorra and is no longer a private property. It is being use for diplomatic mission of
republic of Andorra, this step by TTK Ganzard is delebrate step as he has sold this palatial house before the
competent court started the trial in march 2011 but to their disappointment transaction which took place the
case was filed against him.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

Page 20

CLEA (ASIA - INDIA) MOOTING COMPETITION 2016

2. WHETHER THE SEIZURE OF PROPERTY OWNED BY MR. TTK GANZARD AT THE

TIME OF INVESTIGATION IS JUSTIFIABLE OR NOT?

It is most humbly submitted before the hon'ble court that:

2.1

18, Rose Avenue was not for the purpose of diplomatic mission
The preliminary inquiry had produced sufficient evidence that Mr. TTK Ganzard had assisted in making
hidden investments or in converting the direct or indirect proceeds of a felony or misdemeanor, property
located at 18 Rose Avenue, Manhattan, URA cannot be said to be protected by immunity on any relevant legal
basis because it does not form part of the diplomatic mission of the Republic of Andorra. It is clear that the

building on 18 Rose Avenue, Manhatten was not, on the critical date, part of the premises of the
[diplomatic] mission of Republic of Andorra in URA and that it was disguised, in haste and with a
certain amount of improvisation, either as the Deputy Permanent Delegate to UNESCO, or as the Vice
President of Republic of Andorra in. But this cannot hide the fact that it never legally acquired the status
of premises of the mission. Just like the other assets that were owned and controlled by Mr. TTK
Ganzard seized there, the building at 18, Rose Avenue Manhattan, URA is private property and property
that is suspected of being the product of money laundering.
As this case is concerned assets that have been acquired by means of laundering dirty money, and also
the assets seized on the premises of 18, Rose Avenue Manhattan, URA are not, in any conceivable way,
the assets of a diplomatic mission,
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

Page 21

CLEA (ASIA - INDIA) MOOTING COMPETITION 2016

All these possessions whether various assets owned exclusively by Mr. TTK Ganzard including a
palatial House at 18, Rose Avenue Manhattan, URA and other rare luxurious goods. have the same
function: to satisfy the compulsive buying disorder which has taken hold of Mr. TTK Ganzard, because it
is plain to see that none of this spending has the least thing to do with the eminent functions he occupies
or has occupied. They are purely private purchases made for purely private ends and financed officially
by private funds, albeit funds that may come from money laundering, At the time the investigation was
launched, this building was evidently not entitled to the protection accorded by the 1961 Convention to
premises of a diplomatic mission. To claim that it was is a very gross abuse of right.
Of course, under Article 22 of the Convention on Diplomatic Relations, the premises of the mission,
their furnishings and other property thereon enjoy immunity from jurisdiction and enforcement. But the
premises in question must be premises of the mission, which Article 1 (i) of the Vienna Convention
defines as the buildings or parts of buildings and the land ancillary thereto, irrespective of ownership,
used for the purposes of the mission including the residence of the head of the mission. This was clearly
not the case before Republic of Andorra attempted to carry out its legal makeover, rushing to appoint Mr.
TTK Ganzard as Deputy Permanent Delegate at UNESCO However, the simple fact of that appointment
or attempted appointment clearly attests to Republic of Andorras wish to disguise a private building as a
piece of public property for diplomatic use. This is known as an abuse of process.
It is prima facie clear that the alleged transformation of the building at 18, Rose Avenue Manhattan, URA
into a diplomatic mission is sheer legal window-dressing. This attempt, which was made after the
dispute had arisen, cannot, of course, alter the nature of the building.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

Page 22

CLEA (ASIA - INDIA) MOOTING COMPETITION 2016

It is evident that the rights invoked by Republic of Andorra have not a whiff of legitimacy or an ounce of
credibility to them:
The Vienna Convention concerning the premises of the diplomatic mission applies to diplomatic
missions, and it is indisputable that the building at 18, Rose Avenue Manhattan, URA did not fall into this
category on the date of its seizure; and to recognize it today as an office of the mission would be to
sanction a fait accompli resulting from a clear and flagrant abuse of right;
As the property located at 18, Rose avenue Manhattan, URA owned exclusively MR. TTK Ganzard was sold to
Government of Andorra for allegedly whooping sum of $310 million where as initial purchase of the palatial house
of $190 million, this fact itself establishes that the intention of Mr. TTK Ganzard was to make money out of his
personal assets and transfer to government of Andorra is just a gimmick. The republic of Andorra through his
commique dated 18 March 2011, from the office of ambassador convey to the URA that the said house is owned
and controlled by Government of Andorra and is no longer a private property. It is being use for diplomatic mission
of republic of Andorra, this step by Mr. TTK Ganzard is deliberate step as he had sold this palatial house before the
competent court started the trial in March 2011 but to their disappointment transaction which took place when the
investigation was made in a case against him, is taken into consideration.
2.2 URA has jurisdiction

Court might perhaps consider, ante prima facie, that the 1961 Protocol establishes jurisdiction in this
respect, since Article 22 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations guarantees immunities for the
premises of the mission. However, even prima facie, court should not content themselves with mere
appearances. Suppose that Republic of Andorra, lacking space at 18, Rose Avenue Manhattan, URA,
announces an extension of its office, for example if a country asks to extend its office on the first floor of
the Eiffel Tower, by putting up a little notice there; and suppose the French Republic, somewhat taken
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

Page 23

CLEA (ASIA - INDIA) MOOTING COMPETITION 2016

aback at this manner of proceeding, declares its opposition; would that constitute a dispute about the
application of the Convention between the two States? Would the Protocol give ICJ prima facie jurisdiction
to rule on the matter? That would be absurd and untenable prima facie.
Well, the same applies in the present case. Republic of Andorra has had the bright idea of calling the
premises at 18, Rose Avenue Manhattan, URA owned and controlled by government of Andorra in order to
help one of its nationals Mr. TTK Ganzard escape from criminal proceedings and the potential
consequences for the assets he had accumulated in URA. That is blatant and also well-established. Prima
facie, looking at a proven abuse of law.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

Page 24

CLEA (ASIA - INDIA) MOOTING COMPETITION 2016

PRAYER
Wherefore, in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, may this Honble Court be
pleased to-

1. To remove the case of its list.

2. Or, failing that, to reject all the request for provincial measures made by Republic of Andorra

And any other relief that the Honble Court may be pleased to grant in the interests of Justice, Equity
and Good Conscience.
All of which is respectfully submitted & humbly prayed.

Sd/COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

Page 25