PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW PART – C QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

“SHARE KNOWLEDGE” - MOHAMMAD RAFIUZAMA – MSS LAW COLLEGE

A poor laborer was accused of committing theft in a Jewellery shop and he was arrested by
the police and produced before the court. The poor laborer has no money to pay for engaging
an advocate. What is the duty of the state? Discuss.

Poor Laborer Accused of Theft, Unable to Afford Advocate

Facts of the Case: A poor labourer is accused of theft in a Jewellery shop, arrested by the police,
and produced before a court. He lacks the financial means to engage an advocate to defend
himself.

Issues in the Case:

 What is the duty of the state to ensure a fair trial for an indigent accused?
 Does the labourer’ s inability to afford legal representation violate his constitutional or
human rights?

Principle/Section/Clause Reference:
 Article 39A, Constitution of India: Directs the state to provide free legal aid to ensure
equal access to justice, particularly for those with economic disabilities.
 Section 304, Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973: Mandates that if an accused
cannot afford a pleader, the court shall assign one at the state’s expense.
 Article 21, Constitution of India: Guarantees the right to life and personal liberty,
including the right to a fair trial.
 Article 14(3)(d), ICCPR: Ensures the right to legal assistance for indigent accused in
criminal cases.
 Landmark Case: Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979) – The Supreme Court
emphasized that free legal aid is integral to a fair trial under Article 21, especially for
indigent persons.

Judgment: The state is constitutionally obligated to provide free legal aid to the labourer under
Article 39A and Section 304 of the CrPC. Failure to do so would violate his right to a fair trial
under Article 21 and international human rights standards. The court must appoint a legal aid
advocate to represent him.

Page 1 of 32
 PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW PART – C QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
“SHARE KNOWLEDGE” - MOHAMMAD RAFIUZAMA – MSS LAW COLLEGE

A man was arrested on charges of killing his wife and he was kept in judicial custody. Every
time he was brought to the court from prison he was handcuffed. He has written a letter to
the Chief Justice of the High Court requesting that handcuffing be stopped as it violates his
human rights. Will he succeed?

Handcuffing of Accused in Judicial Custody

Facts of the Case: A man arrested for allegedly killing his wife is kept in judicial custody. He is
handcuffed each time he is brought to court from prison. He writes to the Chief Justice of the
High Court, claiming that handcuffing violates his human rights.

Issues in the Case:

 Does routine handcuffing of an accused during court appearances violate his human
rights?
 Can the court intervene to stop such handcuffing?

Principle/Section/Clause Reference:
 Article 21, Constitution of India: Protects the right to life and personal liberty, including
dignity during judicial proceedings.
 Article 14, Constitution of India: Ensures equality before the law, prohibiting arbitrary
treatment.
 Article 7, ICCPR: Prohibits cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.
 Landmark Case: Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration (1980) – The Supreme
Court ruled that handcuffing is an extraordinary measure, permissible only with specific
justification (e.g., risk of escape or violence). Routine handcuffing violates dignity and
human rights.
 Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1978): Reinforced that prisoners retain fundamental
rights, subject to reasonable restrictions.

Judgment: The man’s plea is likely to succeed. Routine handcuffing without evidence of
necessity violates Article 21 and Article 7 of the ICCPR. The Chief Justice may direct the
authorities to cease handcuffing unless justified by specific circumstances, such as a
demonstrated risk of escape or violence.

Page 2 of 32
 PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW PART – C QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
“SHARE KNOWLEDGE” - MOHAMMAD RAFIUZAMA – MSS LAW COLLEGE

A person aged 28 years was detained by the Sub-Inspector of Police at a police out post on
the charge of theft. Later his dead body with wounds was found near a Railway track. All the
evidence indicated custodial death. The victim’s mother has filed a writ petition against the
government and police for monetary compensation. Is she entitled to get compensation.
Discuss.

Custodial Death and Compensation Claim

Facts of the Case: A 28-year-old person is detained by a Sub-Inspector at a police outpost on

theft charges. His body, bearing wounds, is later found near a railway track. Evidence suggests
custodial death. The victim’s mother files a writ petition against the government and police,
seeking monetary compensation.

Issues in the Case:

 Is the state liable for custodial death caused by police misconduct?
 Is the victim’s mother entitled to monetary compensation through a writ petition?

Principle/Section/Clause Reference:
 Article 21, Constitution of India: Guarantees the right to life, which includes protection
from arbitrary state action.
 Article 32 and Article 226, Constitution of India: Allow writ petitions for enforcement of
fundamental rights, including compensation for violations.
 Article 6, ICCPR: Protects the right to life and prohibits arbitrary deprivation.
 Landmark Case: Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993) – The Supreme Court held that
the state is liable for custodial deaths caused by police excesses, and monetary
compensation can be awarded via writ jurisdiction as a public law remedy.
 D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997): Established guidelines to prevent custodial
torture and ensure accountability.

Judgment: The mother is entitled to compensation. The evidence of wounds and custodial death
indicates a violation of Article 21. The court may award monetary compensation under its writ
jurisdiction (Article 226) and direct an investigation to hold the responsible officers accountable,
following precedents like Nilabati Behera.
In A country, women are subjected to discrimination, gender bias and exploitation the said
country is a number of U N. What remedies do women have?

Remedies for Women Facing Discrimination in a UN Member State

Page 3 of 32
 PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW PART – C QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
“SHARE KNOWLEDGE” - MOHAMMAD RAFIUZAMA – MSS LAW COLLEGE

Facts of the Case: In a UN member state, women face discrimination, gender bias, and
exploitation.
Issues in the Case:
 What remedies are available to women under international human rights law?
 What obligations does a UN member state have to address gender-based violations?
Principle/Section/Clause Reference:
 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW),
1979: Obligates states to eliminate discrimination against women in all forms (Article 2).
 Optional Protocol to CEDAW: Allows individual complaints to the CEDAW Committee if
domestic remedies are exhausted.
 Articles 55 and 56, UN Charter: Require member states to promote human rights and
cooperate with the UN.
 Article 3, ICCPR and ICESCR: Ensure equal rights for men and women.
 Landmark Case: Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) (Indian context) – Established
guidelines against workplace sexual harassment, reflecting CEDAW principles.
 UN Human Rights Council Resolution 6/30: Encourages special procedures, such as the
Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women, to address gender issues.
Judgment: Women can seek remedies by:
1. Exhausting domestic legal avenues (courts, national human rights institutions).
2. Filing complaints with the CEDAW Committee if the state is a party to the Optional
Protocol.
3. Engaging UN mechanisms like the Human Rights Council or Special Rapporteur.
4. Collaborating with NGOs to advocate at UN forums like the Commission on the Status of
Women. The state is obligated to address these violations under CEDAW and UN Charter
obligations.
A member of Watch Peace Organization was making preparations to go abroad. The
government suspecting that after going abroad the member may make unnecessary
allegations against the government, has impounded his passport. Is it Justifiable?

Impounding Passport of Watch Peace Organization Member

Facts of the Case: A member of the Watch Peace Organization plans to travel abroad. The
government, suspecting the member may make allegations against it, impounds their passport.

Issues in the Case:

 Is impounding the passport justifiable under domestic and international law?
 Does the action violate the member’s fundamental or human rights?

Page 4 of 32
 PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW PART – C QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
“SHARE KNOWLEDGE” - MOHAMMAD RAFIUZAMA – MSS LAW COLLEGE

Principle/Section/Clause Reference:
 Section 10, Passports Act, 1967 (India): Allows passport impoundment for reasons like
national security or public interest, subject to due process.
 Article 19(1)(d), Constitution of India: Guarantees freedom of movement within India.
 Article 21, Constitution of India: Protects the right to travel abroad as part of personal
liberty (Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978).
 Article 12, ICCPR: Ensures freedom of movement, including the right to leave a country,
subject to reasonable restrictions.
 Landmark Case: Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) – Held that impounding a
passport must follow due process and cannot be arbitrary.

Judgment: Impounding the passport solely to prevent allegations abroad is unlikely to be

justifiable unless supported by evidence of a threat to national security or public order. The
action risks violating Article 21 and Article 12, ICCPR. The member can challenge the
impoundment via a writ petition under Article 226, and the court may quash the order if it lacks
reasonable grounds.

Page 5 of 32
 PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW PART – C QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
“SHARE KNOWLEDGE” - MOHAMMAD RAFIUZAMA – MSS LAW COLLEGE

The Government of Germany has detained Joy Adamson on the charges of committing
terrorist activities. He has been kept in prison for more than 6 months without trial. He has
challenged his detention as violative of Articles 5 and 6 of the European Convention on Human
Rights. Decide.

Detention of Joy Adamson Under ECHR

Facts of the Case: Joy Adamson is detained in Germany for over six months without trial on
charges of terrorist activities. He challenges his detention as violating Articles 5 and 6 of the
European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

Issues in the Case:

 Does prolonged detention without trial violate Article 5 (right to liberty)?
 Does the lack of a fair trial within a reasonable time violate Article 6?

Principle/Section/Clause Reference:
 Article 5, ECHR: Guarantees the right to liberty and security, requiring prompt judicial
review and trial or release for detained persons.
 Article 6, ECHR: Ensures the right to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time.
 Landmark Case: Brogan v. United Kingdom (1988) – The ECtHR held that detention for
terrorism charges must comply with Article 5, and delays beyond a reasonable period are
impermissible without justification.
 Wemhoff v. Germany (1968): Established that “reasonable time” under Article 6 depends
on case complexity and state diligence.

Judgment: Adamson’s challenge is likely to succeed. Detention for over six months without trial
likely violates Article 5 unless Germany justifies it with compelling evidence of terrorist activity
and ongoing investigation. The lack of a trial also breaches Article 6. Adamson can seek remedies
through the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) after exhausting domestic remedies,
potentially securing release or compensation.

Page 6 of 32
 PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW PART – C QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
“SHARE KNOWLEDGE” - MOHAMMAD RAFIUZAMA – MSS LAW COLLEGE

A country, which is a member state of U.N. Violated and crushed peoples human rights by
torture and killing. What is the role of U.N. in protection of people of their country?

UN’s Role in Protecting Human Rights in a Member State

Facts of the Case: A UN member state violates human rights through torture and killings.

Issues in the Case:

 What mechanisms can the UN employ to address human rights violations?
 What obligations does the member state have under international law?

Principle/Section/Clause Reference:
 Articles 55 and 56, UN Charter: Obligate member states to promote human rights and
cooperate with the UN.
 Article 6, ICCPR: Prohibits arbitrary deprivation of life.
 Article 7, ICCPR: Bans torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.
 Rome Statute of the ICC (1998): Allows prosecution of individuals for crimes against
humanity (e.g., torture, killings) if the state is a party or the case is referred by the Security
Council.
 Landmark Case: Prosecutor v. Tadić (ICTY, 1995) – Established jurisdiction of
international tribunals to address systematic human rights violations.

Judgment: The UN can respond through:

1. Human Rights Council: Investigating via Universal Periodic Review or special rapporteurs.
2. Security Council: Imposing sanctions or authorizing intervention under Chapter VII if
violations threaten international peace.
3. Treaty Bodies: Allowing individual complaints to the Human Rights Committee (ICCPR) if
the state is a party.
4. ICC: Prosecuting perpetrators if applicable. The state is bound to comply with UN Charter
and treaty obligations, and victims may seek remedies through these mechanisms.

Page 7 of 32
 PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW PART – C QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
“SHARE KNOWLEDGE” - MOHAMMAD RAFIUZAMA – MSS LAW COLLEGE

When a Magistrate arrests a person X without a warrant, is the Magistrate required to inform
the person arrested, of the grounds of such arrest? If so, under what provision of code or of
any other law.

Magistrate’s Duty to Inform Grounds of Arrest

Facts of the Case: A magistrate arrests person X without a warrant.

Issues in the Case:

 Is the magistrate required to inform X of the grounds of arrest?
 Under what legal provision is this obligation imposed?

Principle/Section/Clause Reference:
 Section 50, CrPC, 1973: Mandates that a person arrested without a warrant be informed
of the full particulars of the offence or grounds of arrest.
 Article 22(1), Constitution of India: Requires that an arrested person be informed of the
reasons for arrest and have the right to consult a legal practitioner.
 Article 9(2), ICCPR: Ensures prompt notification of reasons for arrest.
 Landmark Case: Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. (1994) – The Supreme Court emphasized
that informing the grounds of arrest is a fundamental right to prevent arbitrary detention.

Judgment: The magistrate is required to inform X of the grounds of arrest under Section 50,
CrPC and Article 22(1). Failure to do so violates X’s constitutional and human rights, rendering
the arrest unlawful. X can challenge the arrest via a writ of habeas corpus under Article 226.

Page 8 of 32
 PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW PART – C QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
“SHARE KNOWLEDGE” - MOHAMMAD RAFIUZAMA – MSS LAW COLLEGE

A woman approaches an office for employment, but the employer misbehaves with her.
Explain whether employer committed any offence?

Employer Misbehavior with Woman Seeking Employment

Facts of the Case: A woman approaches an employer for a job, and the employer misbehaves
with her.

Issues in the Case:

 Does the employer’s misbehavior constitute an offence?
 What legal remedies are available to the woman?

Principle/Section/Clause Reference:
 Section 354A, Indian Penal Code (IPC): Criminalizes sexual harassment, including
unwelcome advances or remarks.
 Section 509, IPC: Punishes acts intended to insult a woman’s modesty.
 Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal)
Act, 2013: Mandates workplaces to address sexual harassment.
 Article 15, Constitution of India: Prohibits discrimination based on sex.
 Article 3, CEDAW: Ensures equality between men and women.
 Landmark Case: Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) – Established guidelines for
preventing workplace sexual harassment, incorporating CEDAW principles.

Judgment: If the misbehavior involves sexual advances, remarks, or insults, it constitutes an

offence under Sections 354A or 509, IPC, and may violate the 2013 Act. The woman can:
1. File a criminal complaint with the police.
2. Approach the Internal Complaints Committee (if applicable) under the 2013 Act.
3. Seek remedies through a civil suit or writ petition under Article 226 for discrimination or
harassment.

Page 9 of 32
 PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW PART – C QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
“SHARE KNOWLEDGE” - MOHAMMAD RAFIUZAMA – MSS LAW COLLEGE

Telangana State enacted a law to prevent religions conversions due to inducements and force.
A Christian father challenged the constitutional validity of the same on the ground that right
to convert others into his own religion is his fundamental right and that the same is violated
by the State law. Decide.

Constitutional Validity of Telangana’s Anti-Conversion Law

Facts of the Case: Telangana enacts a law preventing religious conversions due to inducements
or force. A Christian father challenges its constitutional validity, claiming the right to convert
others is his fundamental right.

Issues in the Case:

 Is the right to convert others a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution?
 Is Telangana’s anti-conversion law constitutionally valid?
Principle/Section/Clause Reference:
 Article 25, Constitution of India: Guarantees freedom to profess, practice, and propagate
religion, subject to public order, morality, and health.
 Landmark Case: Rev. Stanislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1977) – The Supreme Court
held that propagation does not include the right to convert others, and anti-conversion
laws regulating forced or induced conversions are constitutional.
 Article 21, Constitution of India: Protects personal liberty, but restrictions for public order
are permissible.
 Article 18, ICCPR: Guarantees freedom of religion but allows restrictions for public safety
or order.

Judgment: The challenge is unlikely to succeed. The right to propagate under Article 25 does
not include a fundamental right to convert others. Telangana’s law, if aimed at preventing
coerced or induced conversions, is constitutional, as per Rev. Stanislaus. However, if the law
unduly restricts voluntary conversions, it could be struck down for violating Article 25. The court
will assess whether the law is proportionate and serves public order.

Page 10 of 32
 PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW PART – C QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
“SHARE KNOWLEDGE” - MOHAMMAD RAFIUZAMA – MSS LAW COLLEGE

B' a diplomatic agent from India travels to Russia to negotiate a treaty. During his stay at
Russia, he commits a traffic violation. Can 'B' be made liable for his offence?

Liability of Indian Diplomatic Agent in Russia

Facts of the Case: ‘B’, an Indian diplomatic agent, commits a traffic violation in Russia while
negotiating a treaty.

Issues in the Case:

 Can ‘B’ be held liable for the traffic violation in Russia?
 Does diplomatic immunity apply to such offences?

Principle/Section/Clause Reference:
 Article 31, Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961: Grants diplomatic agents
immunity from the criminal, civil, and administrative jurisdiction of the receiving state,
except in specific cases (e.g., commercial activities), which do not include traffic
violations.
 Landmark Case: Re Diplomatic Immunity (UK) – Courts have consistently upheld
immunity for diplomats unless waived by the sending state.

Judgment: ‘B’ cannot be held liable due to diplomatic immunity under Article 31 of the Vienna
Convention. Russia can request India to waive immunity or take diplomatic measures (e.g.,
declaring ‘B’ persona non grata), but prosecution is barred unless immunity is waived.

Page 11 of 32
 PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW PART – C QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
“SHARE KNOWLEDGE” - MOHAMMAD RAFIUZAMA – MSS LAW COLLEGE

State 'A' grants de facto recognition to State 'B'. Later, State 'B' engages in behavior which
violates its international commitments due to which State 'A' decides to revoke the 'de facto
'recognition given to State 'B'. Justify the action of State 'A'.

Revocation of De Facto Recognition by State ‘A’

Facts of the Case: State ‘A’ grants de facto recognition to State ‘B’. State ‘B’ violates international
commitments, prompting State ‘A’ to revoke the recognition.

Issues in the Case:

 Can State ‘A’ revoke de facto recognition of State ‘B’?
 Is the revocation justifiable under international law?

Principle/Section/Clause Reference:
 De Facto Recognition: Acknowledges a state’s existence based on effective control
without formal diplomatic relations. It is revocable, unlike de jure recognition, which
implies permanence.
 Article 2(4), UN Charter: Prohibits states from violating international obligations, which
may justify diplomatic responses.
 Landmark Case: Tinoco Arbitration (Great Britain v. Costa Rica, 1923) – Established that
recognition is a political act, and revocation of de facto recognition is permissible based
on state discretion.

Judgment: State ‘A’ can revoke de facto recognition, as it is a political act and not legally binding.
The violation of international commitments by State ‘B’ provides a justifiable basis for
revocation, as it reflects a loss of confidence in ‘B’s governance. However, revocation does not
affect ‘B’s statehood under international law.

Page 12 of 32
 PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW PART – C QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
“SHARE KNOWLEDGE” - MOHAMMAD RAFIUZAMA – MSS LAW COLLEGE

States 'Y' and 'Z' claim sovereignty over Island 'Q'. State 'Y' claims sovereignty as it has
established the will to act as sovereign and has actually exercised sovereignty. State 'Z' claims
sovereignty based on a treaty through which it has acquired the island. Decide to whom would
Island 'Q' belong to and state reasons for the same.

Sovereignty Dispute Over Island ‘Q’

Facts of the Case: States ‘Y’ and ‘Z’ claim sovereignty over Island ‘Q’. State ‘Y’ claims it based on
effective control and exercise of sovereignty, while State ‘Z’ relies on a treaty granting it the
island.

Issues in the Case:

 Which state has a stronger claim to Island ‘Q’?
 How do effective control and treaty-based claims compare under international law?

Principle/Section/Clause Reference:
 Article 38, ICJ Statute: Sources of international law include treaties, custom, and general
principles.
 Principle of Effective Control: Sovereignty can be established through continuous and
peaceful exercise of authority (Island of Palmas Case, 1928).
 Treaty Law: A valid treaty conferring title takes precedence if clear and undisputed (Legal
Status of Eastern Greenland, 1933).
 Landmark Case: Clipperton Island Case (France v. Mexico, 1931) – Effective control can
establish sovereignty absent competing claims, but treaties may override.

Judgment: State ‘Z’ likely has a stronger claim if the treaty is valid, clear, and undisputed, as
treaties are a primary source of title under international law. However, if the treaty is ambiguous
or contested, State ‘Y’s effective control and continuous exercise of sovereignty could prevail,
as seen in Island of Palmas. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) would assess the treaty’s
validity and the extent of ‘Y’s control.

Page 13 of 32
 PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW PART – C QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
“SHARE KNOWLEDGE” - MOHAMMAD RAFIUZAMA – MSS LAW COLLEGE

State 'A' sought extradition of 'C' who is accused of an offence in its state but is not an offence
in State 'B' to which 'C' escaped. Is extradition possible in this case? Examine and elaborate.

Extradition of ‘C’ for Offence Not Recognized in State ‘B’

Facts of the Case: State ‘A’ seeks extradition of ‘C’, accused of an offence in ‘A’ but not in State
‘B’, where ‘C’ has fled.

Issues in the Case:

 Is extradition possible when the offence is not recognized in the requested state?
 What principles govern extradition under international law?
Principle/Section/Clause Reference:
 Principle of Double Criminality: Extradition requires the act to be an offence in both the
requesting and requested states.
 UN Model Treaty on Extradition (1990): Codifies double criminality as a standard
requirement.
 Landmark Case: Soering v. United Kingdom (1989) – The ECtHR emphasized that
extradition must comply with human rights and mutual criminality principles.

Judgment: Extradition is unlikely to succeed due to the principle of double criminality. Since the
offence is not recognized in State ‘B’, it is not obligated to extradite ‘C’. State ‘A’ may negotiate
an ad hoc agreement or reformulate the charge to align with an offence in ‘B’, but absent this,
extradition is barred.

Page 14 of 32
 PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW PART – C QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
“SHARE KNOWLEDGE” - MOHAMMAD RAFIUZAMA – MSS LAW COLLEGE

Petitioner who is a social worker filed Writ Petition bringing the information that some
lunatics were imprisoned in the central jail on orders of Executive Magistrate? What relief can
the prisoners have under Human Rights Law?

Imprisonment of Lunatics in Central Jail

Facts of the Case: A social worker files a writ petition stating that lunatics are imprisoned in a
central jail on an Executive Magistrate’s orders.

Issues in the Case:

 Is the imprisonment of lunatics in a jail lawful?
 What remedies are available under human rights law?

Principle/Section/Clause Reference:
 Article 21, Constitution of India: Protects the right to life and liberty, prohibiting arbitrary
detention.
 Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 (India): Mandates treatment, not imprisonment, for
persons with mental illness (Section 4).
 Article 9, ICCPR: Prohibits arbitrary detention.
 Article 12, CRPD: Ensures equal recognition before the law for persons with disabilities.
 Landmark Case: Sheela Barse v. Union of India (1986) – The Supreme Court ordered the
release of mentally ill persons from jails, emphasizing treatment over detention.

Judgment: The imprisonment of lunatics in a jail is unlawful under Article 21 and the Mental
Healthcare Act, 2017. The court may issue a writ of habeas corpus under Article 226, directing
their release and transfer to mental health facilities for treatment. The state must comply with
CRPD obligations to protect the rights of persons with mental disabilities.

Page 15 of 32
 PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW PART – C QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
“SHARE KNOWLEDGE” - MOHAMMAD RAFIUZAMA – MSS LAW COLLEGE

A group of people belonging to state A migrated into state B where both countries are
member States of U.N. The migrated workmen of state A were subjected to torture, cruelty
and other inhuman treatment and crushed their human rights by killings. What remedies do
the workmen of country A have under International Human Right Laws?

Torture of Migrated Workmen in State ‘B’

Facts of the Case: Workmen from State ‘A’ migrate to State ‘B’, both UN member states. In ‘B’,
they face torture, cruelty, and killings, violating their human rights.

Issues in the Case:

 What remedies do the workmen have under international human rights law?
 What obligations does State ‘B’ have as a UN member?

Principle/Section/Clause Reference:
 Article 7, ICCPR: Prohibits torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.
 Article 6, ICCPR: Protects the right to life.
 Articles 55 and 56, UN Charter: Obligate member states to promote human rights.
 Convention Against Torture (CAT), 1984: Requires states to prevent torture and provide
remedies (Article 13).
 Landmark Case: Filartiga v. Peña-Irala (1980, US) – Established that torture violates
customary international law, actionable in domestic courts.

Judgment: The workmen can:

1. Seek remedies through State ‘B’s domestic courts or human rights institutions.
2. File complaints with the UN Human Rights Committee (ICCPR) or Committee Against
Torture (CAT) if ‘B’ is a party to their protocols.
3. Request State ‘A’ to exercise diplomatic protection or raise the issue with the UN Human
Rights Council.
4. Engage NGOs to advocate at UN forums. State ‘B’ is obligated to investigate, prosecute,
and provide reparations under CAT and ICCPR.

Page 16 of 32
 PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW PART – C QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
“SHARE KNOWLEDGE” - MOHAMMAD RAFIUZAMA – MSS LAW COLLEGE

War broke out between two countries X & Y which lead to quite lot of destruction of homes,
caused death and fear because of which nationals of State A moved to Z country which is a
neighboring country. What can be the legal status of nationals of country A in country Z? Can
they claim any legal rights under international conventions discuss?

Legal Status of Nationals of State ‘A’ in State ‘Z’

Facts of the Case: War between States ‘X’ and ‘Y’ causes destruction, prompting nationals of
State ‘A’ to flee to neighboring State ‘Z’.

Issues in the Case:

 What is the legal status of State ‘A’ nationals in State ‘Z’?
 Can they claim rights under international conventions?

Principle/Section/Clause Reference:
 1951 Refugee Convention: Defines refugees as persons fleeing persecution or conflict and
grants rights like non-refoulement (Article 33).
 Article 13, UDHR: Protects freedom of movement, including seeking asylum.
 Article 14, UDHR: Guarantees the right to seek asylum from persecution.
 Landmark Case: R v. Immigration Officer at Prague Airport (2004, UK) – Clarified that
refugees fleeing conflict may claim protection under the 1951 Convention.

Judgment: State ‘A’ nationals are likely refugees under the 1951 Refugee Convention, as they
fled due to war-related destruction and fear. They can claim asylum in State ‘Z’, which is
obligated to grant non-refoulement and basic rights (e.g., education, work) if a party to the
Convention. If ‘Z’ is not a party, customary international law and UDHR principles still apply. The
nationals can seek UNHCR assistance.

Page 17 of 32
 PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW PART – C QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
“SHARE KNOWLEDGE” - MOHAMMAD RAFIUZAMA – MSS LAW COLLEGE

A country was indulging in transporting children from B Country who were subjected to child
labour and sex trafficking in A country. What legal remedies do the children have under
Human Rights Law?

Remedies for Children Subjected to Labour and Trafficking

Facts of the Case: Country ‘A’ transports children from Country ‘B’ for child labour and sex
trafficking.

Issues in the Case:

 What legal remedies do the children have under human rights law?
 What obligations do Countries ‘A’ and ‘B’ have?

Principle/Section/Clause Reference:
 Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), 1989: Protects children from exploitation,
trafficking, and forced labour (Articles 32, 34, 35).
 Optional Protocol to CRC on Sale of Children: Addresses child trafficking and sexual
exploitation.
 Article 8, ICCPR: Prohibits slavery and forced labour.
 Palermo Protocol (2000): Requires states to prevent trafficking and protect victims.
 Landmark Case: Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia (2010, ECtHR) – Held that trafficking
violates human rights, obligating states to investigate and protect victims.

Judgment: The children can seek:

1. Protection and rehabilitation through domestic courts in Countries ‘A’ and ‘B’.
2. Complaints to the CRC Committee if states are parties to the Optional Protocol.
3. UNHCR or IOM assistance for repatriation or asylum. Countries ‘A’ and ‘B’ must
investigate, prosecute traffickers, and provide victim support under CRC and Palermo
Protocol. State ‘B’ may exercise diplomatic protection.

Page 18 of 32
 PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW PART – C QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
“SHARE KNOWLEDGE” - MOHAMMAD RAFIUZAMA – MSS LAW COLLEGE

The Govt. of State 'A' is over thrown and the rebels establish a new Govt. State 'B' continues
to recognize the old Govt. as de jure Govt. But accords de facto recognition to the new Govt.
The new Govt. files a suit in state 'B' for recovery certain monies due to state 'A'. The old. Govt
opposes the suit claiming that the monies belong to it as the lawful representative of the
State. How would you decide?

Suit by New Government of State ‘A’ in State ‘B’

Facts of the Case: State ‘A’s government is overthrown, and rebels establish a new government.
State ‘B’ recognizes the old government as de jure but grants de facto recognition to the new
government. The new government files a suit in State ‘B’ to recover money owed to State ‘A’,
opposed by the old government.

Issues in the Case:

 Which government has the legal standing to represent State ‘A’ in the suit?
 How does recognition affect the claim?

Principle/Section/Clause Reference:
 De Jure Recognition: Confers legal legitimacy to a government as the lawful
representative of a state.
 De Facto Recognition: Acknowledges effective control without full legitimacy.
 Landmark Case: Tinoco Arbitration (Great Britain v. Costa Rica, 1923) – A government
with effective control can represent the state in international matters, even if not de jure
recognized.
 The Arantzazu Mendi Case (1939, UK) – Courts may recognize a de facto government’s
acts if it exercises effective control.

Judgment: The new government, with de facto recognition, likely has standing to file the suit,
as it exercises effective control over State ‘A’. Courts in State ‘B’ will prioritize effective control
over de jure recognition for practical purposes, as per Tinoco Arbitration. The old government’s
claim is weakened unless it regains control. The court will likely rule in favor of the new
government.

Page 19 of 32
 PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW PART – C QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
“SHARE KNOWLEDGE” - MOHAMMAD RAFIUZAMA – MSS LAW COLLEGE

State 'A' installs a wireless section in its territory and broadcasts statements vilifying state B.
what is the remedy of State B?

State ‘A’ Broadcasting Vilifying Statements Against State ‘B’

Facts of the Case: State ‘A’ broadcasts statements from its territory vilifying State ‘B’.

Issues in the Case:

 What remedies does State ‘B’ have under international law?
 Does State ‘A’s conduct violate international obligations?

Principle/Section/Clause Reference:
 Article 2(4), UN Charter: Prohibits states from threatening the territorial integrity or
political independence of another state.
 Declaration on Friendly Relations (1970): States must refrain from hostile propaganda
that undermines friendly relations.
 Landmark Case: Nicaragua v. United States (1986, ICJ) – Held that actions undermining a
state’s sovereignty or stability may violate international law.

Judgment: State ‘B’ can:

1. Protest diplomatically and demand cessation of the broadcasts.
2. Raise the issue in the UN General Assembly or Human Rights Council, citing the
Declaration on Friendly Relations.
3. Seek ICJ adjudication if the broadcasts threaten peace or violate sovereignty. State ‘A’s
actions may breach customary international law if they incite hostility or violence.

Page 20 of 32
 PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW PART – C QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
“SHARE KNOWLEDGE” - MOHAMMAD RAFIUZAMA – MSS LAW COLLEGE

A Foreigner who, while on board a foreign merchant ship anchored in a harbor of the state,
kills another foreigner. Whether a State can assume jurisdiction to try the following person.

Jurisdiction Over Foreigner Killing on a Merchant Ship

Facts of the Case: A foreigner kills another foreigner on a foreign merchant ship anchored in a
state’s harbor.

Issues in the Case:

 Can the state assume jurisdiction to try the offender?
 What principles govern jurisdiction over crimes on foreign ships?

Principle/Section/Clause Reference:
 Article 11, UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS): The coastal state has
jurisdiction over crimes committed on foreign ships in its territorial waters if they disturb
the peace or good order of the state.
 Territorial Principle: A state has jurisdiction over crimes within its territory, including
territorial waters.
 Landmark Case: Lotus Case (France v. Turkey, 1927, PCIJ) – Established that states may
exercise jurisdiction unless prohibited by international law.

Judgment: The state can assume jurisdiction, as the crime occurred in its territorial waters
(harbor), affecting its peace and order under UNCLOS Article 11. The state may prosecute the
offender unless the flag state of the ship asserts exclusive jurisdiction and no significant local
impact is shown.

Page 21 of 32
 PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW PART – C QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
“SHARE KNOWLEDGE” - MOHAMMAD RAFIUZAMA – MSS LAW COLLEGE

'A' is extradited on the request of State X to IOCO charge of murder. After extradition A is
failed for causing grevious can A contends that the trial is barred.

Trial of Extradited Person ‘A’ for Different Charge

Facts of the Case: ‘A’ is extradited from State ‘X’ to another state on a murder charge but is tried
for causing grievous hurt. ‘A’ contends the trial is barred.

Issues in the Case:

 Can ‘A’ be tried for an offence other than the one for which he was extradited?
 Does this violate the principle of specialty?

Principle/Section/Clause Reference:
 Principle of Specialty: An extradited person may only be tried for the offence for which
extradition was granted.
 UN Model Treaty on Extradition (1990): Codifies the specialty principle (Article 14).
 Landmark Case: United States v. Rauscher (1886, US) – Established that trying an
extradited person for a different offence violates extradition agreements.

Judgment: ‘A’s contention is valid. The principle of specialty bars trial for causing grievous hurt
unless the extraditing state (State ‘X’) consents. The trial is unlawful, and ‘A’ can challenge it
through domestic courts or international arbitration if the extradition treaty is breached.

Page 22 of 32
 PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW PART – C QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
“SHARE KNOWLEDGE” - MOHAMMAD RAFIUZAMA – MSS LAW COLLEGE

A report of kidnap was received by Canadian Police who raided house and did not find anyone
and waited in the house. Police saw few civilians no way connected with kidnapping coming
towards house and started shooting at them without warning. The deceased wife wants
justification in the case.

Canadian Police Shooting Civilians

Facts of the Case: Canadian police, investigating a kidnapping, raid a house, find no suspects,
and shoot civilians approaching the house without warning. The deceased’s wife seeks
justification.

Issues in the Case:

 Was the police action lawful?
 Is the wife entitled to remedies for the unlawful killing?

Principle/Section/Clause Reference:
 Section 96, Canadian Criminal Code: Allows reasonable force by police but prohibits
excessive force.
 Article 6, ICCPR: Protects the right to life, prohibiting arbitrary deprivation.
 Landmark Case: R v. Nasogaluak (2010, Canada) – Held that excessive police force
violates rights and warrants remedies.
 ECtHR, McCann v. United Kingdom (1995): Established that lethal force must be strictly
proportionate and necessary.

Judgment: The police action appears unlawful, as shooting civilians without warning or evidence
of threat violates Article 6, ICCPR and Canadian law. The wife can seek:
1. Criminal prosecution of the officers.
2. Civil damages for wrongful death.
3. A human rights complaint under Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Section 7). An
investigation is warranted, and compensation is likely.

Page 23 of 32
 PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW PART – C QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
“SHARE KNOWLEDGE” - MOHAMMAD RAFIUZAMA – MSS LAW COLLEGE

There were some tribals living in forests depended on forest produce and fishing in ponds of
forests for their living. The State Government has displaced the tribals and banned fishing in
ponds. Tribals were subjected to hardships of living. Explain the remedies.

Displacement of Tribals and Ban on Fishing

Facts of the Case: Tribals dependent on forest produce and fishing are displaced by the State
Government, which also bans fishing in forest ponds, causing hardships.

Issues in the Case:

 Does the displacement and fishing ban violate the tribals’ rights?
 What remedies are available?

Principle/Section/Clause Reference:
 Article 21, Constitution of India: Protects the right to life, including livelihood.
 Forest Rights Act, 2006 (India): Grants tribals rights to forest resources and traditional
livelihoods (Section 3).
 Article 27, ICCPR: Protects the cultural rights of indigenous peoples.
 Landmark Case: Samatha v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1997) – The Supreme Court upheld
tribal rights to land and resources, prohibiting arbitrary displacement.

Judgment: The displacement and fishing ban likely violate Article 21 and the Forest Rights Act.
The tribals can:
1. File a writ petition under Article 226 for restoration of rights.
2. Seek compensation for livelihood loss.
3. Approach the National Human Rights Commission or UN Special Rapporteur on
Indigenous Peoples. The state must justify the measures or restore access to resources.

Page 24 of 32
 PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW PART – C QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
“SHARE KNOWLEDGE” - MOHAMMAD RAFIUZAMA – MSS LAW COLLEGE

John belonging to country A moved to country B and started working as musician. The
Government ordered John to leave the country and while was preparing to move was
detained and tortured with kicks and electric shocks. What remedies does John have?

Torture of John in Country ‘B’

Facts of the Case: John, a musician from Country ‘A’, moves to Country ‘B’. The government
orders him to leave, and while preparing to do so, he is detained and tortured with kicks and
electric shocks.

Issues in the Case:

 What remedies does John have under human rights law?
 Does Country ‘B’s conduct violate international obligations?

Principle/Section/Clause Reference:
 Article 7, ICCPR: Prohibits torture and cruel treatment.
 Convention Against Torture (CAT), 1984: Requires states to prevent torture and provide
remedies (Articles 2, 13).
 Article 13, UDHR: Protects freedom of movement, including leaving a country.
 Landmark Case: Ireland v. United Kingdom (1978, ECtHR) – Held that torture violates
human rights, warranting investigation and reparations.

Judgment: John can:

1. File a complaint in Country ‘B’s courts for torture.
2. Approach the UN Committee Against Torture if ‘B’ is a party to CAT.
3. Seek diplomatic protection from Country ‘A’.
4. File a complaint with the UN Human Rights Council. Country ‘B’ is obligated to investigate,
prosecute, and compensate John under CAT and ICCPR.

Page 25 of 32
 PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW PART – C QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
“SHARE KNOWLEDGE” - MOHAMMAD RAFIUZAMA – MSS LAW COLLEGE

The Govt. of Kelontan involved into a contract with a British Company in respect of certain
mining operations. The Cartell contained on Arbitration clause, pursuant to this clause there
was an award. The British Company sued in England for enforcement of the award. Kelontan
claims immunity from jurisdiction.

Kelontan’s Claim of Sovereign Immunity in Arbitration

Facts of the Case: The Government of Kelontan contracts with a British company for mining
operations, with an arbitration clause. An award is issued, and the company sues in England to
enforce it. Kelontan claims sovereign immunity.

Issues in the Case:

 Can Kelontan claim sovereign immunity to avoid enforcement?
 Does the arbitration clause waive immunity?

Principle/Section/Clause Reference:
 State Immunity Act 1978 (UK): Grants immunity to states for sovereign acts but not
commercial transactions (Section 3).
 UN Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States (2004): Excludes immunity for
commercial activities or arbitration agreements (Article 17).
 Landmark Case: Trendtex Trading v. Central Bank of Nigeria (1977, UK) – Held that states
engaging in commercial transactions waive immunity.

Judgment: Kelontan’s claim of immunity is unlikely to succeed. The mining contract and
arbitration clause constitute a commercial transaction, waiving immunity under Article 17 of
the UN Convention and UK law. The English court will likely enforce the arbitration award.

Page 26 of 32
 PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW PART – C QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
“SHARE KNOWLEDGE” - MOHAMMAD RAFIUZAMA – MSS LAW COLLEGE

State A launches on earth satellite which falls on the territory of State B. State A asks for its
return while State B counter-claims for damage caused to its property.

Satellite Falling on State ‘B’s Territory

Facts of the Case: State ‘A’ launches a satellite that falls on State ‘B’s territory, causing damage.
State ‘A’ demands its return, while State ‘B’ counter-claims for damages.

Issues in the Case:

 Is State ‘A’ entitled to the satellite’s return?
 Is State ‘B’ entitled to compensation for damages?

Principle/Section/Clause Reference:
 Outer Space Treaty (1967): States are liable for damage caused by their space objects
(Article VII). Objects remain the property of the launching state (Article VIII).
 Liability Convention (1972): Provides for absolute liability for damage caused by space
objects on the surface of the earth (Article II).
 Landmark Case: Cosmos 954 Incident (Canada v. USSR, 1978) – The USSR compensated
Canada for damage caused by a satellite crash.

Judgment: State ‘A’ is entitled to the satellite’s return under Article VIII but must compensate
State ‘B’ for damages under Article VII and the Liability Convention. The states may negotiate
or refer the dispute to the ICJ.

Page 27 of 32
 PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW PART – C QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
“SHARE KNOWLEDGE” - MOHAMMAD RAFIUZAMA – MSS LAW COLLEGE

State A obtains the custody of an accused person who took refugee in State B, and by
extradition but by means involving a violation of the law of the latter state. Can he plead that
this circumstance constitutes a bar to his trail in the Farmer State.

Trial After Unlawful Extradition

Facts of the Case: State ‘A’ obtains custody of an accused from State ‘B’ through extradition
involving a violation of ‘B’s laws. The accused claims this bars his trial in State ‘A’.

Issues in the Case:

 Does unlawful extradition bar trial in the requesting state?
 What principles govern such cases?

Principle/Section/Clause Reference:
 Male Captus Bene Detentus: A court may retain jurisdiction over an accused despite
irregular extradition, unless human rights are grossly violated.
 Landmark Case: Ker v. Illinois (1886, US) – Held that irregular extradition does not bar
trial unless it involves egregious violations.
 R v. Horseferry Road Magistrates’ Court (1994, UK) – Courts may dismiss cases if
extradition violates fundamental rights.

Judgment: The accused’s claim is unlikely to succeed unless the violation of State ‘B’s laws
involved gross human rights abuses (e.g., torture). State ‘A’s courts may proceed with the trial,
as per Ker v. Illinois, unless the irregularity undermines fairness.

Page 28 of 32
 PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW PART – C QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
“SHARE KNOWLEDGE” - MOHAMMAD RAFIUZAMA – MSS LAW COLLEGE

State 13 granted recognition to state A on the condition that state A shall not discriminate its
citizens on the basis of religion. Subsequently the state A defaulted on this condition. Can the
recognition given be revoked. Examine the international practice.

Revocation of Recognition for Discrimination

Facts of the Case: State ‘B’ grants recognition to State ‘A’ on the condition of non-discrimination
based on religion. State ‘A’ violates this condition, prompting ‘B’ to consider revoking
recognition.

Issues in the Case:

 Can recognition be revoked for violating conditions?
 What is the international practice on recognition?

Principle/Section/Clause Reference:
 Montevideo Convention (1933): Recognition is based on statehood criteria (population,
territory, government, capacity for relations), not conditions like non-discrimination.
 Landmark Case: Tinoco Arbitration (1923) – Recognition is a political act, and revocation
is within a state’s discretion but does not affect statehood.
 Article 2(1), UN Charter: Emphasizes sovereign equality, limiting interference in domestic
policies.

Judgment: State ‘B’ can revoke recognition as a political act, particularly if conditioned on non-
discrimination. However, revocation does not negate State ‘A’s statehood under international
law. The action is symbolic and may strain diplomatic relations but is permissible.

Page 29 of 32
 PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW PART – C QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
“SHARE KNOWLEDGE” - MOHAMMAD RAFIUZAMA – MSS LAW COLLEGE

State X commenced conducting marine scientific research in the exclusive economic zone of
state Y. Examine the legal position under law of the seas.

Marine Scientific Research in EEZ

Facts of the Case: State ‘X’ conducts marine scientific research in the exclusive economic zone
(EEZ) of State ‘Y’.

Issues in the Case:

 Is State ‘X’s research lawful under international law?
 What rights does State ‘Y’ have over its EEZ?

Principle/Section/Clause Reference:
 Articles 56 and 246, UNCLOS: Coastal states have sovereign rights over their EEZ,
including jurisdiction over marine scientific research. Research requires the coastal state’s
consent.
 Landmark Case: M/V Saiga Case (Saint Vincent v. Guinea, 1999, ITLOS) – Clarified coastal
state jurisdiction in the EEZ.

Judgment: State ‘X’s research is unlawful without State ‘Y’s consent, as per Article 246, UNCLOS.
State ‘Y’ can demand cessation and take enforcement measures. The dispute may be referred
to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS).

Page 30 of 32
 PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW PART – C QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
“SHARE KNOWLEDGE” - MOHAMMAD RAFIUZAMA – MSS LAW COLLEGE

The State of Romiro was a disturbed state as these was political unrest all the time. However,
the state applied for the membership of the U.N. will the state be given membership. Examine
the portion as per the U.N. Charter.

UN Membership for Romiro

Facts of the Case: Romiro, a politically unstable state, applies for UN membership.

Issues in the Case:

 Can Romiro be granted UN membership despite political unrest?
 What criteria apply under the UN Charter?

Principle/Section/Clause Reference:
 Article 4, UN Charter: Membership is open to peace-loving states that accept Charter
obligations and are able and willing to carry them out.
 Landmark Case: Conditions of Admission Case (1948, ICJ) – The ICJ clarified that
membership criteria are limited to Article 4 and cannot include extraneous conditions.
Judgment: Romiro’s political unrest does not automatically bar membership if it meets Article
4 criteria (peace-loving, willing to fulfill obligations). The General Assembly, on Security Council
recommendation, will assess Romiro’s ability to maintain peace and Charter commitments.

Page 31 of 32
 PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW PART – C QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
“SHARE KNOWLEDGE” - MOHAMMAD RAFIUZAMA – MSS LAW COLLEGE

The American Secretary of state fearing arrest by the U.S. Government escaped to Jamaica.
The U.S. Govt. initiated proceedings with the state of Jamaica for extradition of the said
person. Will he be extradited? Examine the legal position under International Law.

Extradition of American Secretary of State

Facts of the Case: The American Secretary of State, fearing arrest, flees to Jamaica. The US seeks
extradition.

Issues in the Case:

 Can the Secretary be extradited under international law?
 Does their diplomatic status affect extradition?

Principle/Section/Clause Reference:
 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961: Does not apply to a diplomat’s own
state’s jurisdiction.
 UN Model Treaty on Extradition (1990): Extradition depends on treaty terms and double
criminality.
 Landmark Case: US v. Alvarez-Machain (1992) – Extradition treaties govern, but irregular
extradition does not bar trial unless rights are violated.

Judgment: The Secretary can be extradited if the US-Jamaica extradition treaty covers the
offence and double criminality is satisfied. Diplomatic status does not protect against the home
state’s jurisdiction. Jamaica will assess the request based on treaty obligations and human rights
considerations.

Page 32 of 32