TABLE 8

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

(ST. PRIYAH AND MIYAH)

I. RIGHT TO LIFE

St. Priyah and Miyah (PM) did not violate the right to life of Martinez, del Junko, and,
Moto. As expressly provided under the Racoons Convention, it states that “Everyone’s right to
life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the
execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is
provided by law.” Following this article, the cases of Martinez, del Junko, and, Moto fall under
the exception of the above-mentioned article. Further, their respective cases underwent from a
thorough investigation and full blown trials and thereafter rendered judgment convicting all of
them for the respective crimes charged against them, and sentencing them the penalty of capital
punishment.

II. RIGHT TO FREEDOM AGAINST TORTURE

In relation to the right to freedom against torture, PM did not violate the rights of del
Junko, as his citizenship was never established in his case as shown by the fact that his name
does not appear in the population or criminal records of either in Nehiko or PM. Therefore, he is
not clearly entitled of the protection given to ordinary citizens of states who ratified the article
enforcing the right to freedom against torture. His case was likewise aggravated by the fact that
he succeeded acts of human trafficking. Further, even if he is entitled under such protection, still
he cannot be granted such claim under the jurisdiction of PM because even though it ratified
most of the major UN human right treaties, it excluded the Convention against Torture and Other
Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), therefore inapplicable.

III. RIGHT TO FAMILY

PM did not violate this right as Diaz and Martinez have not been legally married under
PM’s marriage laws. As provided under the Anti-Child Marriages Act of 2015, as amended, the
minimum age of marriage for men and women shall be 18 years of age. Given the fact that Diaz
was 17 years old at the time she contracted marriage with Martinez, the said marriage was
therefore void from the beginning. Ergo, the same cannot be acknowledged by the state of PM
and no rights will be conferred upon them, making them incompetent to challenge the PM
marriage law. Furthermore, their contention of being married by virtue of the Sokotah religion,
the same shall not be recognized under the law. State laws supervene customs and traditions.

IV. LEGAL STANDING

Although, the courts may allow Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) like Humanity
First (HF) as applicant to institute cases involving violation of human rights, the HF possesses
no legal standing over the matter for it did not meet the conditions set forth under Article 5 (3)
of the Protocol of Raccoons Human Rights Court which expressly states “The Court may entitle
relevant Non Governmental Organizations (NGOs) with observer status before the Commission,
and individuals to institute cases directly before it, in accordance with Article 34 (6) of this
Protocol.” Accordingly, this Article provides that before NGOs may be accepted by the Courts to
submit relevant cases, the State shall make a declaration accepting the competence of the Court
to receive cases under Article 5 (3) of this Protocol. Moreover, the Court shall not receive any
petition under Article 5 (3) involving a State Party which has not made such a declaration.

Essentially, PM has not made such a declaration in accepting the competence of the
Court to accept HF as a relevant NGO, therefore the applicant HF has no locus standi to bring
this case before the Court.

V. ADMISSIBILITY

It appears that applicant Humanity First failed to bring the action first before the PM
Constitutional Court before instituting its claims to the RHRC. It failed to observe the
established hierarchy of venue on submitting such claims. In view of the foregoing, as it is well
known that the RHRC observed strict application in admissibility requirements, the evidence
submitted by the applicant shall be denied admission. Because as provided under the admission
requirements of the RHRC, evidence tendered to the Commission shall form part of the case
filed, provided that it has been received through adversarial proceedings. However, there were no
adversarial proceedings took place.

VI. MERITS AND REPARATION

The claims submitted by HF are bereft of merit considering that it is not recognized as a
relevant NGO to institute this action, hence, it possesses no legal standing before the RHRC.
Moreover, PM did not violate any international treaties contrary to the claims of HF, because the
truth is, PM has observed all the necessary measures in the enforcement of its judgment against
Martinez, del Junko, and Moto in a manner provided and in accordance with its ratified human
rights treaties. In conclusion, the evidences submitted have no room for admissibility pursuant to
the current law of admission of evidence in the Court. Therefore, the case should be dismissed.

The respondent therefore prays the following:

1. That the case of the applicant HR be dismissed for its failure to observe the governing legal
procedures and requirements of admissibility of evidence under the Protocols of this Court.

2. That the HF’s observer status be invalidated within the Raccoons human rights system and be
barred from performing similar acts thereof.

3. That the granted stay of execution in Moto’s case be lifted as the alleged unfair trial and the
claim of violation of his rights lacks merit.

Respectfully submitted,

ST. PRIYAH AND MIYAH

Respondent