Mr. President, Your Excellencies, Good evening.

Once again, I am
Brigette Domingo, appearing on behalf of applicant Republic of Arrepy.
(FLAVOR TEXT: Freedom is but an elusive mirage for…) the For the next
20 minutes I will be discussing the remaining two submissions;
namely, (1) THE OFFICIAL ACTS OF RESTHELIAN CUSTOMS AND
POLICE AGENTS
AGAINST ARREPYAN NATIONALS WHO ARE PRACTITIONERS OF THE
LATHAN FAITH VIOLATE THEIR RIGHT TO FREE EXERCISE OF
RELIGION and FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT and (2) RESTHEL MUST
IMMEDIATELY RETURN THE DIENTE SAGRADO TO ARREPY, ITS
LAWFUL OWNER. If there are no preliminary questions I would like to
proceed to my submissions.

For States, two of the most pressing concerns violative of human

rights are the infringement of the freedom of exercise of religion and
the freedom of movement. To this, I will now proceed to our second
submission that the official acts of resthelian customs and police
agents against practitioners of the Lathan faith violate their right to
free exercise of religion and freedom of movement.

First, I will be discussing how the Resthelian customs and police

agents violated the Arrepyans' right to free exercise of religion and
second, how there was also a violation of their right to freedom of
movement.

Under our first argument, the Arrepyan nationals have been plagued by
the arbitrary acts of Resthelian officials in violation of the right to free
exercise of religion,

First case in point is that the officials violated the pilgrims' right to
manifest their religion contrary to Art. 18 (1) of the ICCPR. It provides
for the protection of everyone's right to manifest one's thought,
conscience and religion including the right to adopt and have a religion
or a belief of his choice either individually or in community with others
through practice, teaching, worship, and observance. It also
encompasses a broad range of acts such as ritual and ceremonial acts
giving direct expression to belief, as well as various practices integral
to such acts, including the building of places of worship, the use of
ritual formulae and objects, the display of symbols, and the
observance of holidays and days of rest. In the case of the Lathans, it
is the conduct of the rituals and festivals such as the Sacred
Pilgrimage and the El Diente Sagrado.

Furthermore, Art. 18 distinguishes freedom of thought, conscience and

religion from freedom to manifest one's thought, conscience and
religion. While the former is not subject to any limitations, the freedom
of exercising religion is more susceptible to restrictions. Paragraph 3
of the same Article permits the limitation of the free exercise of
religion in the name of national security and provided it is supported
by law. As were manifested in paragraphs 33-36 of the compromis
which may be found in page 14 of the record and paragraph 9 of the
clarifications and corrections, Article 18(1) is violated by the acts of
the Resthelian customs and police officers all of which occurred in
2017. First, by the extortion of money of the Resthelian officials from
Lathan practitioners under the guise of settling the alleged violation
when in fact such a violation is merely a concerted act by the
Resthelian task force to cause burden upon them in the conduct of
their pilgrimage; second, by the interception of Resthelian customs
officers stationed at the Colgando Bridge upon the paraphernalia being
carried by pilgrims and Vicarios; third, the detention of Arrepyan
nationals the majority of which are composed of Lathan practitioners
and even Vicarios after having been accused of possessing opium
poppy; and lastly, the conduct of the Sacred Pilgrimage while being
prohibited to perform a procession or to hold the El Diente Festival due
to the confiscation of the Diente Sagrado and other paraphernalia of
the pilgrims at the time of interception which resulted in the parade of
an image of Latha instead of the Diente Sagrado itself. All of these
corroborate the pilgrims' inability to exercise their religion in violation
of their right to free exercise of religion under Article 18 of the ICCPR.

Second case in point, the Resthelian officials committed religious

discrimination in violation of Article 26 of the ICCPR. Religious
discrimination is essentially an offshoot of Art. 18 of the ICCPR that is
embodied in Article 26. As defined by the UN Human RIghts Committee
in General Comment No. 18, religious discrimination implies any
distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference which is based on any ground
such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion,
national or social origin, property, birth or other status, and which has the
purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or
exercise by all persons, on an equal footing, of all rights and freedoms. Thus,
as a general rule the possibility for pilgrims to journey to sacred places as
acts of devotion prescribed by their religion or belief — whether inside or
outside their own country — should be assured. In paragraphs 33-36 of the
compromis found in page 14 of the record, Resthelian Customs and Police
Officers violated Art. 26 of the ICCPR and committed religious discrimination
when in June 2017, under the Drug Intelligence Board, a special task force is
created to specifically search Lathan pilgrims absolutely eradicating any
room for doubt as to who may be the culprit. This is so regardless of the fact
that not all drug mules are actually Arrepyan nationals. Religious
discrimination was also present when Lathan practitioners were subjected to
humiliating body searches and accused them of smuggling opium poppy
after the Resthelian police officers planted the same in their pockets.
This is further exemplified when a hashtag trended on social media
referred to as "#Planting Happiness" posted by Kolegians in blatant
mockery of the Lathan faith. Even those detained by the Resthelian
officers during the arbitrary search and interception at the Colgando
Bridge represent a majority of the Lathan practitioners and even
Vicarios. Here, it is quite apparent that these instances evidence a
violation of Article 26 of the ICCPR.

All things considered, the freedom of religion of the Arrepyan nationals

are infringed through the conduct of Resthelian customs and police
officers manifested in various ways and alongside this, the Resthelian
officers committed religious discrimination all of which violated their
freedom of exercise of religion enshrined in Articlr 18 (1) and Art. 26 of
the ICCPR.

Our last argument under the second submission is that the Resthelian
customs and police officers violated the freedom of movement of the
Lathan practitioners.

The first point to consider is that the Lathan pilgrims are entitled to
liberty of movement as provided in Art. 12 of the ICCPR as being
lawfully within the country. This provides that the freedom of movement
includes the right to liberty of abode and security of a person which is
corollary to Article 9 of the ICCPR. Article 12 is not an absolute right because
it may be subject to limitations found in Article 12 (3) one of these is being
subject to national security. In the General Comment No. 27, it was provided
that The permissible limitations which may be imposed on the rights
protected under article 12 must not nullify the principle of liberty of
movement, and are governed by the requirement of necessity provided
for in article 12, paragraph 3, and by the need for consistency with the
other rights recognized in the Covenant. That being the case, Once a
person is lawfully within a State, any restrictions on his or her rights
guaranteed by article 12, paragraphs 1 and 2, as well as any treatment
different from that accorded to nationals, have to be justified under the
rules provided for by article 12, paragraph 3. This was not adhered to by
the Resthelian customs and police officers when they intercepted along
Colgando bridge. Such act by the officers amounts to a violation of
Article 12 of ICCPR.

The last point is that baseless detention of the Lathan pilgrims by the
Resthelian officials also violated the Lathan pilgrims’ right to freedom
of movement and security of person under Article 9 of the ICCPR. In
General Comment 35, it was stated that The right to security of person protects
individuals against intentional infliction of bodily or mental injury, regardless of whether
the victim is detained or non-detained. For example, officials of States parties violate the
right to personal security when they unjustifiably inflict bodily injury Par. 34 of the facts
shows the conduct of humiliating unreasonable searches and seizure among the Lathan
Pilgrims. Par. 2 of Article 9 of the ICCPR mposes two requirements for the benefit of
persons who are deprived of liberty. First, they shall be informed, at the time of arrest, of
the reasons for the arrest. Second, they shall be promptly informed of any charges against
them. The first requirement applies broadly to the reasons for any deprivation of liberty.
The second, additional requirement applies only to information regarding criminal
charges.76 If a person already detained on one criminal charge is also ordered detained to
face an unrelated criminal charge, prompt information must be provided regarding the
unrelated charge. The detention of Lathan practitioners after having been intercepted by
the Resthelian police officers in the Colgando bridge failed to meet these requirements
which is one reason why their detention is baseless. Paragraph 3 Article 9 requires,
firstly, that any person arrested or detained on a criminal charge shall be brought
promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power.
That requirement applies in all cases without exception and does not depend on the
choice or ability of the detainee to assert it. 89 The requirement applies even before formal
charges have been asserted, so long as the person is arrested or detained on suspicion of
criminal activity.90 The right is intended to bring the detention of a person in a criminal
investigation or prosecution under judicial control. Prompt delivery to judicial officials is
absent in the facts obtained as was shown in Par. 7 and 8 of the clarification of facts when
it was stated that. (PAR 10, 11)

In sum, the acts of the Resthelian officers violated the right of Lathan pilgrims to
freedom of religion and freedom of movement.
Proceeding to our last submission, Resthel must immediately return the Diente Sagrado
to Arrepyt, its lawful owner.

My first discussion will be Arrepy's ownership of Diente Sagrado and lastly, Resthel's
obligation to return the Diente Sagrado.

Our first argument is that the Arrepy is the lawful owner of the Diente Sagrado under the
philosophy of cultural internationalism. There are two governing regimes on cultural
property: cultural nationalism and cultural internationalism. 34 Under cultural
internationalism, ownership of cultural property is not
dependent on the geographical location of such property, but is vested in the country
where such
property is better protected and for.35 The 1972 World Heritage Convention, which both
Arrepy and Resthel are Parties to,36 is ndicative of adherence to the regime of cultural
internationalism, when it recognizes in its Preamble that “parts of the cultural or natural
heritage are of outstanding interest and therefore need to be preserved as part of the world
heritage of mankind as a whole.” Seeing that a preamble forms part of the context of a
treaty, under the light of which it is to be interpreted,37 the intent to recognize and adhere
to the philosophy of cultural internationalism applies to both parties. Arrepy owns Diente
Sagrado and is therefore entitled to its immediate return.

The last argument under the third submission is that As a possessor of a stolen cultural
object, Resthel has an obligation to return the Diente Sagrado.

First case in point DS is a cultural object. And a cultural object is one that is important to
history, literature, and art (among others), on religious grounds. The Diente Sagrado is a
large 4-foot piece of ivory used consistently in connection with the El Diente Festival, an
annual religious festival in Resthel, celebrated by devotees and pilgrims of the Lathan
faith.39 As a cultural object, it falls under the application and protection of the 1995
UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects.

Second point is that 2.The Diente Sagrado is a stolen cultural object in the possession of
Resthel. A stolen cultural object is one that has been unlawfully excavated, or lawfully
excavated but unlawfully retained.40 Likewise, the possessor of a cultural object which
has been stolen has the obligation to return it. The Diente Sagrado is a cultural object
belonging to Arrepy that was unlawfully excavated
by Resthel when the latter confiscated the Diente Sagrado because the carriage in which
it was
placed contained 500g of poppy bulbs inserted in various joints and hollowed-out
components.42
The excavation was unlawful because no drugs were ever hidden or kept in the Diente
Sagrado;
the clandestine placement of opium poppy was confined to the carriage containing the
Diente
Sagrado. In any case, even assuming the legality of the excavation, the continued
retention of the
Diente Sagrado—absent any compelling reason for such retention—is unlawful, and thus
still
entails the obligation on the part of the possessor to return the Diente Sagrado to Arrepy.
That being said, Resthel has the obligation to return the DS to Arrepy.

In fine, Resthel has the obligation to return the DS because Arrepy is the lawful owner of
the diente sagrado and Resthel's retention of the DS is unlawful.

In conclusion, Your excellencies, we respectfully request this court to declare that The
Customs and River Bridges Act and the Expanded Anti-Euphoria Act are illegal for
being contrary to Resthels international obligations under the 1941 Pelligrino Concordat
and other treaties and conventions between the Parties;
2. The official acts of Resthelian customs and police agents against Arrepyan nationals
who
are practitioners of the Lathan faith violate their right to free exercise of religion, freedom
of movement, and right to consular assistance; and
3. Resthel must immediately return the Diente Sagrado to Arrepy, its lawful owner.

Thank you your excellencies and may it please this honorable court.