Moot Court Exercise - Case Study Example

Moot Court Exercise

The US was justified to partake in the questioning of Mr. Abu Nasr. Referencing the Arab uprising that took place in Egypt and numerating the damages that took place in the country during the revolt, it was important for the US to act neutrally and bring the perpetrators of the violence to book. With the knowledge that Mr. Abu Nasr is a political militant who was against the regime of Hosni Mubarak, there was a need to question his knowledge on the uprising as well their driving intentions (Schwartz and Taylor, 1147). The Nuremberg Principles have set guidelines that indicate what war crime constitutes. On that regard, the principles allow any neutral force to try individuals who are thought to have taken part in war crimes. According to the first principle of Nuremberg any person who takes part in actions that might perpetrate crime against humanity is liable to legal punishment (Sayapin, 1032). The first Nuremberg principle, therefore, upholds the actions of the US in arrest and questioning of Mr. Abu Nasr.

In the arrest of Mr. Abu Nasr, the US upheld article 6 of the Africa Charter on Human and People’s Rights which indicates that any individual may be denied his or her freedom when he or she goes against other articles of the charter (O'Keefe 485). As stipulated in the study, Mr. Nasr may have taken part in perpetrating the Arab uprising in Egypt which led to death of quite a number of people. On that regard, he should be viewed as an individual who does not respect and value human life by any chance. Although the article exempts individuals from random manner arrests, it does not comment on the arrest of people who have been under investigation. The case explains that the CIA agents had been investigating the actions of Mr. Nasr and were, therefore, right to arrest him. Moreover, being a political militant who led to Egypt’s disarray deserved to be arrested by any chance.

The arrest of Mr. Nasr complies with the European Convention on Human Rights Article 5 subsection 1b. The subsection advocates for lawful arrest of people in a bid to secure consummation of law prescription (Stark, 411). Under this subsection, an individual can be arrested to enhance the upholding the law by any means. Although Nasr was protected by refugee order, he needed to be arrested for the crimes against humanity he had committed. The universal mediation law indicates that two warring parties should seek mutual settlement of the conflict amicably. Therefore, Nasr had broken the humanitarian law by inciting the public against the incumbent regime. There was a need to arrest him to consummate the law of crime against humanity. Nasr’s incitement led to loss of lives and deportation of people in Egypt and he was, therefore, liable to legal punishment. Although the US contravened his liberty and freedom, the act was necessary for the mutual benefit of the Egyptian citizens (Duff and Blumenthal, 396). Had Nasr used the right path to express his concerns, he would not have been arrested by the CIA. The arrest was, thence, done in accordance with the law.

Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights indicates that everyone has the right to liberty and his security (Drumbl and Bassiouni, 287). Moreover, the section indicates that no individual shall be denied their liberties and securities. However, the article indicates that the upholding of the securities and liberties could be denied under certain conditions. Such rights could only be violated to people who violated the framework of this convention and other established laws. Individuals who act in manners that are meant to harm or instigate crime against individual citizens may be exempted from the rights guaranteed by this article. The article justifies the action of the US CIA by indicating that the arrested persons may be detained and later released even without facing the judge or trial. In the case under study, the CIA released Nasr after questioning him indicating an upholding of the convention’s Article 9 (Ambos, 436). The CIA did not prevent Nasr from taking them to court indicating that they are aware of the Convention’s proceedings. The action undertaken by the CIA is, therefore, justifiable under the Convention’s providence. The court should deprive the CIA off the charges submitted by Mr. Nasr.

The Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention prohibits armed violence in which case rebel forces attacking the government in the presence of people are termed to be violating humanitarian law (Giacco, 354). On that note, Nasr should be termed as having contravened the universal humanitarian law. He, therefore, needed to be arrested for being a political militant in an armed conflict that killed and deported a lot of people. Moreover, the common article indicates that individuals should be tried based on the level under which they scale their conflict. In a conflict between rebels and the government, the perpetrators should be tried under the domestic laws. On that note, the US was right to extradite Nasr back to US for trial and questioning. The US agents were right to confine the trial of Mr. Nasr to the laws of Egypt having transported him to Cairo. The case between Spain and the US should be given a memorandum of no case to answer as the American agents comported to the Geneva Conventions common article 3 (Alexandria Valeria, 33).

The actions of Mr. Nasr may also have violated the Geneva Convention’s Common Article 2. It is important to recall that the Egyptian revolt was the catalyst to the extensive Arab Uprising. The culmination of the Arab Uprising from the Egyptian revolt is creation of an international conflict (Helenius, 22). Under such circumstance the UN Security Council is tempted to invoke the powers vested in its charter and intervene to solve the unrest. On that regard, the US was right to extradite Mr. Nasr as it is a permanent member of the UN Security Council. Permanent members of the Security Council are allowed to take part in activities that are meant to salvage the human rights from armed conflicts.

The rule of law advocates that countries should not be ruled through an individual’s actions but rather through legal actions. The actions of Mr. Nasr are indicative that he wanted to rule Egypt using violent means and not through arbitrated methods. On that regard, the CIA agents were significantly justified to arrest him and take him to Egypt. The rule of law is quite clear that individual should not break the regulations that are stipulated in the constitution. Mr. Nasr broke the law in that he participated in calling for mass action and ousting of Hosni Mubarak. The call for action broke the rule of law in the sense that he led to the killing of so many people through his unconstitutional method of presidential impeachment. In respect to the rule of law, Mr. Nasr should not have used the violent methods in the ousting of President Mubarak. Nasr failed to honor the constitution in his ousting of the incumbent president.

The rule of law advocates for the respect of the human life through respect of the stipulated regulations in the constitution. Nasr failed to uphold the rule of law since his actions led to killing of many people. Nasr being a political militant distanced himself from the rule of law by calling of mass action in Egypt. Moreover, his actions led to people having to persevere with harsh conditions such as living in constant cold outside the streets of Cairo. Exposing human beings to harsh conditions is against the conventional rule of law regulations. On that regard, the CIA agents were quite right in making his arrest and later questioning him. There was, therefore, a need for the CIA to arrest him for leading to exposure of human beings to the harsh conditions. The rule of law is against using the people for individual interests. It was, therefore, not right for Mr. Nasr to use human beings in his call for the ousting of the incumbent leader.

The rule of law is against autocratic methods of leadership. In his actions, Mr. Nasr used autocratic methods in that he failed to observe the constitution. He used violent methods that are not advocated by the rule of law. In autocracy, most leaders are held above the law enabling them to take part in actions that enhance their interests. Mr. Nasr used methods that could indicate he was way above the law. Under such circumstances, there was need to question his actions as they contravened the rule of law. The CIA agents were, therefore, right in arresting him in the sense that they were trying to uphold the rule of law. The jury needs to understand that the agents were fulfilling their responsibility as guardians of the conventional rule of law and fighting for the human rights. The United Nation’s Security Council allows any permanent to take action against individuals who try to uphold autocracy as a method of leadership. The CIA was, therefore, right in their arrest of Mr. Nasr as he tried to lead the masses using autocracy. Had he used lawful methods of leading the people he could not have been arrested by the agents.