School of Law and Governance

Memorial For the Applicant

Claim 2

Submitted by:

Solon, Daniell Claire

EH 309

Submitted to:

Atty. Edmar Lerios

May 25, 2019

Table of Contents

List of Abbreviations 2

Index of Authorities 3

Summary of the Facts 7

Summary of Arguments 8

Preliminary Issues 9
Arguments on Merits 12

I. Violations of Freedom of Expression. 13

A. Ragnar Lodbrok. 13

B. Daybreak News Chronicle (DNC) 17

II. Violations on the Concept of Equality Before the Law. 20

Conclusion and Prayer for Relief 22

List of Abbreviations

BRO Baspian Rights Organization

CHR Corona Human Rights

DNC Daybreak News Chronicles

1
HRC Human Rights Commission

ICCPR International Covenant of Civil and Political

Rights
PTL Plume Trees Limited

UDHR Universal Declaration of Human Rights

OHC Office of the High Commissioner

Index of Authorities

Treaties, Conventions & Charters

HRC Human Rights Commission

2
ICCPR International Convention on Civil and

Political Rights, opened for signature 16

December 1966, 999 UNTS 171, (entered
into force 23 March 1976)

ICP OHCHR Individual Complaint Procedures,

United Nations Office of the High

Commissioner on Human Rights

OPICCPR Optional Protocol to the International

Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
Article V §12 (March 23, 1976)

UDHR Universal Declaration on Human Rights

Vienna Convention Ratified by 22

States signed 18 April 1961, effective 24

April 1964

Vienna Convention Ratified by 22 States signed 18 April

1961, effective 24 April 1964.

Inter-American Court on Human Rights

Annual Report Annual Report of the Office of the

Special Rapporteur for Freedom of

Expression 2017 Volume 2 (OEA/Ser.L/ V/
II/Doc.210/17 v.2)

NCFE-ORFE National Case Law on Freedom of

Expression , Office of the

3
 Special Rapporteur for Freedom of
Expression of the Inter-American
Commission on Human Rights (2017)
accessed last May 8, 2019 at
http://www.oas.org

General Resolutions and Commentaries

General Comment no. 34 General Comment No. 34 ,

Human Rights Convention 102nd

Session (July 11-29,2011).

HRC no. 32 Human Rights Committee,

General Comment No. 32, Article 14

(9-27 July 2007).

HRC no. 35 Human Rights Committee GC

no. 35 (date and time accesed May

10, 2019 8:00pm).

IL RFP International Law on the Right to

Freedom of the Press, Dr. Dang Dung

Chi & Chu Thi Thuy Hang, M.A p. 5
.(date and time accessed May 9,2019
7:55 pm).

International Cases, Communications & Ad Hoc Tribunal Judgements

New York Times v. Sullivan New York Times v. Sullivan, 376

U.S. 254 (1964) March 8, 1964).

4
Bible Believers v.Wayne Bible Believers v. Wayne Country

Country 805 F.3d 228 (2015) (October 28,

2015).

Womah Mukong v. Cameroon Woma Mukong v. Cameroon

(CCPR/C/51/D/458/1991)

(August 10, 1994).

Nilsen and Johnsen v. Norway Nilsen and Johnsen v. Norway

(ECHR 25) (November 25, 1999).

Sekmadienis v. Lithuania Sekmadienis v. Lithuania

(ECTHR) (January 30, 2018).

Mwende v. Attorney General Mwende v. Attorney General

Uganda Constitutional Court

(August 5, 2010).

Yorty v. Chandler Yorty v. Chandler (Civ. No. 35021)

(Dec. 15, 1970).

Aroon Purie & Others v. State Aroon Purie & Others v. State of

Of Haryana and Another Haryana and Another (May 8,

2007).

WIC Radio Ltd. v. Simpson WIC Radio Ltd. v. Simpson (2

S.C.R. 420) (June 27, 2008).

5
Books, Dictionaries and Internet Sources

Black’s Dictionary of Law, 9th Edition.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Office of the Human

Rights High Commissioner
https//www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CCPR.aspx (accessed
May 10, 2019, 8pm).

National Paralegal College, Law Shelf Educational Media

https://lawshelf.com/courseware/entry/limitations-on-expression.(accessed
May 8.2019, 5:45 am).

On the Constitutionality of Bolivia’s Desacato Law, Constitutional Court of

Bolivia, Case No 1250/2012.

Summary of the Facts

The Republic of Baspia lies on the southern tip of the continent of

Corona where Andria, being an archipelago in the Njord Ocean to the east of
of Baspia forms a part of Corona. Both countries are members of the United
Nations.
Due to global warming, the Andrian islands are warming up rendering
its islands uninhabitable. The environmental disasters in Andria resulted to
migration of thousands of Andrians to Baspia.
A Baspian company called Plume Trees Limited (PTL) was
commissioned by the Baspian government to start planting special Plume
trees to combat the effects of global warming.

6
 However, difficulties arose when the areas designated for the planting
of the Plume trees were currently being occupied by Andrian immigrants
feeling the effects of global warming. The Baspian government then rounded
up the Andrians from their tents and sent them back to Andria where they
died from either starvation or diseases.
During the celebrations of the Baspian festival, 'In and Out Boradway'
under the leadership of Ragnar Lodbrok performed a stereotypical show that
depicts the culture of the Andrians, both good and bad. Ragnar Lodbrok
along with his performers were then arrested and charged under the Anti-
Discrimination Act.
When they were released on bail, they found out that Daybreak News
Chronicle (DNC), a newspaper, produced cartoons showing Ragnar Lodbrok
being dragged off the stage with Baspian Gods laughing and pointing at him.
Ragnar Lodbrok and a few other leaders tried to get the police and the court
to arrest the cartoonists and owner of DNC. The Baspian High Court held
that such depictions were within the bounds of freedom of expression.
In an interview in the local radio station, Ragnar Lodbrok lambasted
both DNC and the President of Baspia. After the interview, Ragnar Lodbrok
and those accompanying him were arrested for insulting the President under
the Public Order Act which criminalizes subversive statements against the
person of the President.
Baspian Rights Organization (BRO) then filed a case against Baspia
in the Corona Human Rights Court.

Summary of Arguments

1. Applicant submits that the government of Baspia has interfered

with Ragnar Lodbrok and his companions’ freedom of expression, an
exercise guaranteed by international law as a fundamental human
right. We submit that the arbitrary arrest of the accused was
unreasonable and unjustifiable due to the fact that the act or crime of
the accused was not intended to discriminate but to show, under good
faith, an honest depiction of a culture; that such performances fall
squarely under the protected freedom of expression.

7
 2. Applicant places emphasis that the law serves to protect the rights
of the people without prejudice; that the accused has been treated
unfairly in violation of the general principle of equality under the law;
that the court was impartial and bias upon the deliberation of the
charges imposed upon the accused.

3. Applicant submits that an offender already detained on a criminal

charge is also detained to face an unrelated criminal charge, that the
offender must be brought immediately before a judge for control; that
prolonged detention without judicial control may increase the risk of
ill-treatment which constitutes a violation to one’s right to life as well
as one’s right to liberty.

Preliminary Issues

I. Jurisdiction of the Court

It is so stated that the Corona Human Rights Court can apply the
Corona Human Rights Convention and United Nations human rights treaties
and states which ratified the treaty of the United Nations are legally bound
by it, while states that did not are neither bound by the treaty obligations or
entitled to invoke those obligations against other state parties.
Similar to the admissibility and requirements of the Corona Human
Rights Court to the Optional Protocol of the International Convention of
Civil and Political Rights, it follows that:
The Committee shall not consider any communication from an
individual unless it has ascertained that:
(a) The same matter is not being examined under another
procedure of international investigation or settlement;

8
 (b) The individual has exhausted all available domestic
remedies. This shall not be the rule where the application of the
remedies is unreasonably prolonged1.
Applicant manifests that the case in question is being filed exclusively
in the Corona Human Rights Convention and that it is not under
investigation by any other international court other than that of the Corona
Human Rights Court and is therefore within the rules of Section A on the
admissibility of the case.
Applicant submits that it has exhausted all the available domestic
remedies by asserting the fact that the accused up to this day from the time
of his arrest still remains in custody due to the constant postponement of the
case by the High Court of Baspia.
In further compliance with the requisites under the rules for individual
complaint procedures2,we submit that that the present case is ripe for
admissibility due to the violations of the freedoms invoked having falled
squarely under Articles 9 (deprivation of liberty and undue delay) and 19
(freedom of expression) of the ICCPR. The complaint is substantiated
sufficiently by the testimonies given by the victims themselves and copies of
the applicable laws and treaties applicable to the said case.
The incidents happened after the ratification of Baspia of the ICCPR
which includes the herein complaints mechanism.

II. Locus Standi of Applicant

The Corona High Court allows an NGO to represent victims of

violations of fundamental human rights freedoms. In the present case, the
BRO is a NGO that seeks to represent Lodbrok and his companions in the
case against the state of Baspia and DNC, both for violations of freedom of
expression. Therefore, BRO has legal standing and is allowed to represent
Lodbrok and his companions in the present case.
The rights of Lodbrok and his companions to freedom of expression
and equal protection before the law were violated as they sustained direct
injury from the acts of the state as well as those of DNC.
The rule on exhaustion is not absolute. When domestic remedies
presented fails to address the issue sufficiently and effectively causing undue
delay, the Court may render the case admissible.

III. Undue Delay

1
Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article
V §12 (March 23, 1976).
2
Individual Complaint Procedures, United Nations Office of the High Commissioner
on Human Rights 2013 accessed last May 08, 2019 from
https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/FactSheet7Rev.2.pdf.

9
 The Baspian Government as well as the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights clearly recognizes in its provisions the protection
of liberty and security of a person from arbitrary arrest and detention.
The right to review the legality of detention by the court is provided
for in Article 9 of the ICCPR where it reads that “anyone who is deprived of
his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings before
a court, in order that that court may decide without delay on the lawfulness
of his detention and order his release if the detention is not lawful.”
The same article also provides that any person arrested or detained
and awaiting for trial shall be brought promptly before the judge or any
officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power. If a person already
detained on a criminal charge is also detained to face an unrelated criminal
charge, that person must be brought immediately before a judge for control.
Fast action is required because prolonged detention without judicial control
increases the risk of the detained to receive ill-treatment. Maltreatment is
violative of the fundamental right to life.
The general consensus for sufficient amount of time to prepare for a
judicial hearing is 48 hours after the arrest. As can be found in the Human
Rights Committee GC No. 35, “In the view of the Committee, 48 hours is
ordinarily sufficient to transport the individual and to prepare for the judicial
hearing; any delay longer than 48 hours must remain absolutely exceptional
and be justified under the circumstances. Longer detention in the custody of
law enforcement officials without judicial control unnecessarily increases
the risk of ill-treatment.”
After the arrest of Ragnar Lodbrok, they remained in custody and
their case had been postponed many times by reason of overwhelming
workload of cases suffered by the courts. This fact prejudices the right of
Ragnar Lodbrok, putting to stress that the case of Lodbrok had been
postponed not just once, not twice but many times and thus violating his
right to liberty. The courts must take into consideration the right of the
accused to a speedy disposition and should as well take into consideration
that detaining the accused for over a long period of time would tantamount
to a violation of his right to liberty.
The failure of the Baspia Courts to perform its duties within a
considerable amount of time without impairing the rights of the accused
leaves us to resort to availing remedies from the Corona Human Rights
Court.

Arguments on Merits

10
I. Violations of Freedom of Expression

Applicant submits that the government of Baspia has interfered with

Ragnar Lodbrok and his companions’ freedom of expression, an exercise
guaranteed by international law as a fundamental universal human right.
Before delving into the substantive merits of the case, we first discuss the
pertinent international laws applicable.
Article 19 of both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the
International Convention of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) provides that
each person has the right to freedom of opinion and expression without
interference, as well as to seek, receive and impart information or ideas
through any media which is substantially similar to the Corona Human
Rights Convention to which Baspia is a member of. Needless to say, the
obligation to respect freedoms of speech and expression are binding in every
State Party as a whole.3
It must be noted that while the same provisions underscore limitations
to the exercise of such right, only two limitative areas are provided which
are related to either respect of reputations of others or to the protection of
national security or public order. These restrictions may not jeopardize the
right itself and must follow the strict tests of (1) necessity and (2)
proportionality.4

A. Ragnar Lodbrok

Ragnar Lodbrok was arrested twice and in both cases involved an

unjustified intervention of the State in his fundamental right to the freedom
of expression.
a. Arresting Lodbrok for a performance depicting culture is violative
of his freedom of expression

Freedom of Expression under the ICCPR guarantees the right of every

individual to express freely without interference from the state provided that
(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others; (b) For the protection of
national security or of public order or of public health or morals. In Bible
Believers vs. Wayne County, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Sixth Circuit ruled that free speech includes “distasteful, loathsome and
unpopular opinions” and that it cannot be curtailed just because it is
offensive to some. In the said case, Bible Believers, a Christian Evangelical
Group was escorted out of a culture festival because they were causing the
crowd to be hostile against their preaching. The Court ruled that the group
did not meet the test which prevents speech being regarded as incitement to

3
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Human Rights Committee
United Nations 2011 accessed from Office of the Human Rights Commission last May
9, 2019 from https://www2.ohchr.org.

4
Ibid.

11
riot nor did the incident fall under the”fighting words doctrine” where insults
were directed at a specific individual. The decision stated that:

“...excluding a particular speech from the marketplace of ideas

is a form of content-based discrimination. A Heckler’s veto is
considered a form of content-based discrimination and therefore
subject to strict scrutiny. According to the Court: “[p]unishing,
removing, or by other means silencing a speaker due to crowd
hostility will seldom, if ever, constitute the least restrictive
means available to serve a legitimate government purpose.”
Notably, in Sekmadienis v. Lithuania5, European Court of Human
Rights warned that it was not compatible with the European Convention on
Human Rights for a minority’s right to freedom of expression to be
conditional on acceptance by the majority.
In the said case, an advertising company was sued for depicting on
their merchandise, allegedly offensive images that bore a resemblance to
religious leaders of the Roman Catholic Church. The Court ruled that the
local authorities have given primacy to protecting the feelings of religious
people over the said company’s right to freedom of expression. It said that
the religious references were “emotional interjections common in spoken
Lithuanian and for comedic effect” and that the images did not appear
profane to incite hatred nor against public morals.
Lodbrok’s performance could not be said to have justified State
interference based on the exceptions provided as there was no malice or
intent to disrespect the Andrian culture but merely to demonstrate the good
and bad of the said race during the Baspian Festival which has been an
ongoing tradition of the country of Baspia long before the questions on his
alleged crimes were questioned. Therefore, the performance of Lodbrok is
protected under freedom of expression.
b. Reasonable criticism of public officials are protected under
international law

The second time Lodbrok was arrested was for what was alleged as
subversive commentary. Reasonable criticism, notwithstanding the use of a
derogatory term “Zvidum-dum” invoked to the Baspian President, is not
enough to justify the arrest of Lodbrok with accusations of subversion.
Accordingly, subversive activity is a pattern of acts designed to
overthrow a government by force or other illegal means.6Lodbrok’s
emotional outburst can hardly apply which therefore does not justify his
arrest. Under the ICCPR, citizens are safeguarded by the protection of the

5 Sekmadienis v. Lithuania, ECTHR (Jan. 30, 2018).

6
Black’s Dictionary of Law, 9th Edition.

12
law and their universal right to criticize and scrutinize public officials as this
forms part of a functional democracy.
In the case of Mukong v. Cameroon7 , HRC explained that “Any
restriction of the freedom of expression pursuant to paragraph 3 of article 19
must cumulatively meet the following conditions: it must be provided for by
law, it must address one of the aims enumerated in paragraph 3(a) and (b) of
article 19, and must be necessary to achieve the legitimate purpose.
Furthermore, the HRC held that “the legitimate objective of safeguarding
and indeed strengthening national unity under difficult political
circumstances cannot be achieved by attempting to muzzle advocacy of
multi-party democracy, democratic tenets and human rights”.
In the case at bar, the State party has indirectly justified its actions on
grounds of national security and/or public order, by arguing that the author's
right to freedom of expression was exercised without regard to the country's
political context and continued struggle for unity. While the State party has
indicated that the restrictions on the author's freedom of expression were
provided for by law, it must still be determined whether the measures taken
against the author were necessary for the safeguard of national security
and/or public order.”
An applicable principle is also evident in the case of Nilsen and
Johnsen vs. Norway8 where the Norwegian Supreme Court held that there
was a violation of freedom of expression when the government through their
agencies maliciously impugned the integrity of a professor who published a
book on the increasing incidents of police brutality by the Norwegian Police
Association. In the said case, the Court emphasized that the issues
highlighted in the book was of “serious public concern” and was based on
credible information. The Court ruled that being so, it constitutes forms of
political speech or debate on questions of public interest that should be
protected.
Similarly, in New York Times vs. Sullivan9, the US Supreme Court
emphasized that criticism should be “free, open, robust and even
unrestrained” to balance the power of politicians and the “seductive
influence” such power creates upon corrupt men and women. The decision
in this case demonstrated “the right to make false statements” where Court
ruled that in cases of libel, a “public official” must show that the newspaper
acted with actual malice-- that is, with knowledge that it was false or with
reckless disregard for truth.
c. Criminalizing criticisms against a public official bears resemblance to
a desacato law which is incompatible with the provisions of the ICCPR

7 Mukong v Cameroon, CCPR/C/51/D/458/1991, Aug. 10, 1994

8 Nilsen and Johnsen v. Norway, ECHR 25 (Nov. 25, 1999).
9 New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 US 254 (1964).

13
 The provisions of the Public Order Act of Baspia which criminalize
criticisms against the President bears similarity with a desacato law which is
incompatible with Article 13 of the Convention.
The use of “desacato laws” to protect the honor of public officials
acting in their official capacities is an illegitimate restriction that does not
serve any real purpose in a democratic society. It runs counter to the
fundamental principle that in a democratic country, a government must be
subject to controls and scrutiny to prevent abuse of its expansive powers. It
runs contrary to the essence of Article 19 of the ICCPR since it imposes
subsequent punishment for the exercise of freedom of expression.
Further, according to article 27th of the Vienna Convention —of
which Baspia is also bound by reason of its membership of the ICCPR—a
State party cannot invoke the provisions of its domestic law to justify the
breach of a treaty.10
In 2012, the Bolivian Constitutional Court ruled unconstitutional the
article which prohibited “slandering or defaming a public official by any
means because of his or her duties”. In this case, a citizen was imprisoned
for publishing a report which alleged that a public prosecutor asked her for
money to confirm a judgement. The Court ruled that
“...the offense of desacato is not necessary in a democratic society to
protect interests such as the honor of officials. First, because there are
other less onerous methods; and, secondly, because this results in a
disproportionate impact that affects the legitimate “interest of the
public in learning of certain factors that could influence [the]
performance of [public] duties.”11
This is also reflected in the case of Mwenda v. Attorney General12
where a journalist was charged with a crime of sedition for criticizing the
President on his live radio talk show. The Constitutional Court of Uganda
ruled that the state needed to provide evidence to prove that the remarks of
the journalist unduly affected public interest and that the law on sedition was
too vague as to inhibit the enjoyment of freedom of expression under article
29 of the very same Ugandan Constitution.

B. Daybreak News Chronicle (DNC)

DNC was found to not have violated their freedom of expression

when they published cartoons that went viral on the internet which was
offensive to the Baspian religion. Not even a censure was enacted. On the
10
National Case Law on Freedom of Expression , Office of the Special Rapporteur for
Freedom of Expression of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (2017)
accessed last May 8, 2019 at http://www.oas.org

On the Constitutionality of Bolivia’s Desacato Law, Constitutional Court of

11

Bolivia, Case No 1250/2012

12 Mwende v. Attorney General, Uganda Constitutional Court (Aug. 5, 2010).

14
other hand, Ragnar Lodbrok and four others were arrested for insulting the
DNC and the President of Baspia over the radio. Applicant submits that the
arrest of Ragnar Lodbrok is invalid for it should also be considered a valid
exercise of the freedom of expression as the court ruled for the case which
involves DNC.

a. Freedom of Press is a fundamental right

Daybreak News Chronicle is a newspaper company. Their freedom to

publish was held by the high court to be a valid exercise of their freedom of
expression. Corollary to the freedom of expression is the freedom of the
press. The freedom of the press is recognized all over the world as an
absolute right. It is related to having the right to express one’s ideas and
opinions. However, the freedom of the press has to be more objective than
simple freedom of expression. According to Dr. Dang Dung Chi, “it is the
special role of the press that it demands the press to have the special
qualities. It is the objectivity, truth, fairness, respect of justice, respect of
human dignity of all individuals, without any discrimination when they do
their job.”13 The Court explained that, “Both freedom of opinion and
freedom of information can be exercised by any person by any means of
expression, but when they are exercised through the mass media, the content
of freedom of the press is incorporated. This includes, in addition to the
freedom to disseminate information and opinions through the media, the
right to establish and operate such media.”
b. There are valid restrictions to the freedom of press

One must remember that no right is absolute and freedom of press is

no exception. The subject matter the press delivers to the public and the vast
audience that mass media can reach is what makes the freedom of press so
essential and crucial but at the same time prone to censorship and restriction.
Freedom of press may only be restricted by law and for protection of
national security or of public order or public health or morals. Such
restrictions must be thought through and established for valid reasons for the
curtailment of freedom of expression and the freedom of the press seriously
violates fundamental human rights. For the restriction to be considered
reasonable, it was held in Papnasam Labour Union v. Madura Coats Ltd.14
that
“(1) it should not go beyond the need to avoid the mischief or
injustice. It should not be arbitrary
(2) The restriction should have a direct or proximate or
reasonable connection or link between itself and the object sought to
be achieved.

13 International Law on the Right to Freedom of the Press, Dr. Dang Dung Chi & Chu Thi Thuy Hang, M.A p.
5 .(date and time accessed May 9, 2019 7:55 pm)
14
Papnasam Labour Union vs. Madura Coats Ltd., 1995 AIR 2200 (December 8, 1994).

15
 (3) The restriction to be reasonable should not be abstract. But
no fixed principles can be laid down and the standards of reasonability
would vary from case to case and time to time.
(4) While interpreting the term reasonable, the court should
keep in mind the complex issues of the society and the intention of the
legislature of the statute in question.
(5) The term reasonable is of dynamic nature and hence the
judiciary should keep an elastic and practical approach while
interpreting the term.
6) It is imperative for the court to analyse the social
control before any restrictions can be imposed on the
fundamental rights.
(7) For the interpretation of term reasonable, it is
necessary for the court to examine the social welfare and the
need of prevailing social norms and values.
(8) The word reasonable has to satisfy the test of
procedural reasonability as well as substantive reasonability.”
Though it was held that DNC published those comics and statements
under the privilege of freedom of expression, it cannot be held that they
acted with “truth, justice and objectivity.” According to Yorty v. Chandler15,
a cartoon may be subject to a case of libel if it is found to be malicious and
made to appear as fact a false defamatory material. The applicant holds that
DNC acted with malice regarding their publications. The cartoons were not
factual or based on reality. It was mere opinion and malicious content.
Malice is defined as “knowledge that statements are false or in
reckless disregard of the truth.” 16 Publications done with malice is not what
the laws intend to protect. The press is protected from arbitrary regulation,
especially with how vulnerable it is to censorship and abuse, even if they
criticize the government or any of its instruments. This is in line with their
duty to spread information and make the public aware of the happenings in
society. However, pure malicious imputations are not what the law
contemplates of protecting. Such are biased and against public order and
good morals.
c. Content-based restriction is not a valid regulation of speech

Moreover, the speech of Lodbrok must not be curtailed and should be

considered as a valid freedom of expression, like that of the DNC’s. That
First Amendment protection indeed includes distasteful, loathsome and
unpopular opinions. The Court expressed that in several occasions the
Supreme Court has deemed that speech cannot be curtailed just because it

15
Yorty v. Chandler. Civ. No. 35021 (Dec. 15, 1970).
16 New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 US 254 (1964).

16
can be offensive to some. Such discrimination is called content-based
restriction. Content-based restriction is a regulation of speech or expression
that is based on the substance of the message being communicated, rather
than just the manner or method in which the message being expressed.
Content-based restriction is against the values American laws aim to protect
under the freedom of expression. As more popularly quipped: “I disapprove
with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it.”17
This type of speech also falls under the “fair comment doctrine.” The
Fair Comment Doctrine “encompasses that if a publication which broadly
speaking true in fact and not made to satisfy any personal agenda or vendetta
would seemingly be protected.”18 Fair comment doctrine protects a
defamatory statement because the statement concerns an opinion on a matter
of public interest.19 The law aims to encourage debate and avoid censorship
and self-censorship.20 The speech of Ragnar Lodbrok should be considered
as fair comment because though it may seem defamatory, it concerns public
interest.
II. Violations on the Concept of Equality Before the Law

Applicant claims that Ragnar Lodbrok has been treated unfairly in

violation of the general principle of equality under the law.
Ragnar Lodbrok, as a member of the Baspian community, believes
that the President is permitting the harassment of their theater group when
they simply aim to preserve their culture and religion. Applicant sees this as
violation of the protection of equality under the eyes of the law that has been
pushed for by various groups throughout history. It is associated with
liberality and the treatment of the people with justice, fairness and equity.
The law serves to protect the rights of the people without prejudice. The
ICCPR provides a foundation for equal protection against discrimination as
can be seen in Article 26 whereby it is provided that “all persons are equal
before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal
protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any
discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection
against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language,
religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth
or other status.”21 Hence, as stipulated in the above provision of ICCPR, it
follows that all persons of the same kind are entitled to be treated alike under
our law. Therefore, the law should not favor any person nor shall have no
impartiality when it deals and renders justice.
In the case at bar, it is evident Ragnar Lodbrok and his companions
are denied of equal protection of laws before the high court of Baspia
primordially, it politically favors the President and his harassment towards
17 Evelyn Beatrice Hall, Friends of Voltaire (1906).
18
Aroon Purie and Others v. State of Haryana and Another (May 8, 2007).
19
WIC Radio Ltd. v. Simpson, 2 S.C.R. 420 (June 27, 2008).
20
Ibid.
21
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Mar. 23, 1976).

17
them and secondly, it allowed the DNC to religiously mock and racially
discriminate Ragnar Lodbrok and his companions by the publishing of the
comical skit contrary to the moral and religious views of the latter. These
acts are of harassment, religious mockery, racial discrimination and
impartiality towards the accused constitute a clear violation to equal
protection of laws granted and enjoyed by all men including Ragnar
Lodbrok and his companions. Therefore, the President of Baspia and DNC
violated the rights of the accused.

Conclusion and Prayer for Relief

18
 As, advocates to the rule of law, we must be guided by the existing
laws which paves way to stability of the people and for the people. Hence,
the applicant presents our conclusion to this case:
1. That Ragnar Lodbrok and the members of In and Out Broadway’s
freedom of speech was impaired by as set forth by Art. 19 of ICCPR.
2. That Ragnar Lodbrok and his companions were treated unfairly in
violation of the general principle of equality under the law as
stipulated in the Article 26 of the ICCPR.
3. That Ragnar Lodbrok and his companions were deprived of their
Right to Liberty based on Article 9 of the ICCPR.
4. That the accused, Ragnar Lodbrok and his companions were
innocent.
Wherefore, with all respect reserved to the Honorable Court of
Corona Human Rights, we pray and implore the following: Primordially is
for the dismissal of the case and acquittal of Ragnar Lodbrok and his
companions. Secondly, we pray for the recognition of the freedom of speech
within the bounds of law. Third, we implore the observation and
implementation of the equal protection of laws. Lastly, we pray for
compensation to any damage dealt by the opposing party.

19