NationStates Jolt Archive

Fair Criminal Trial
[Current Draft]

Strength: Significant

Category: Human Rights

Proposed by: The Narnian Council

ACKNOWLEDGING that justice, free of corruption and prejudice, is a crucial factor in the wellbeing of society,

CONVINCED that an agreement upon basic legal rights will furthermore enhance synchronization in international trade, business and tourism,

ENACTS clear-cut legal standards of fairness and impartiality of trial.

PRE-TRIAL RIGHTS

1. The arrested shall have the right to be visited by and to correspond with persons of their choice, if that person in question consents, and shall be given adequate opportunity to communicate with the outside world - subject to reasonable conditions and restrictions as specified by law or lawful regulations.
2. In the knowledge of the importance of impartiality in Pre-Trial procedures, those responsible for the detainment of the arrested must provide sanitary conditions and basic living needs for the arrested.
i) ‘Basic living needs’ includes, but is not limited to, access to toilets/showers, and enough food, water, shelter and rest to keep the arrested in their normal healthy state.
3. The arrested has the right to know the reason of the arrest, with or without charges, within twenty-four hours of being arrested.
4. All persons are entitled to call upon the assistance of a lawyer, not already involved in the current trial proceedings, of their choice to protect and establish their rights and to defend them in all stages of criminal proceedings.
i) If the arrested lacks readily available finances/assets to afford legal assistance, it becomes the government’s liability to ensure that the arrested acquires a reasonably adequate defense counsel, before the trial commences - as provided by, but not limited to, government funding or a charitable organization.

THE HEARING

1. The accused must be granted, without discrimination, the right of equal access to a court.
2. The accused has the right to a trial without undue delay.
i) ‘Undue delay’ may occur between the time the accused is arrested, and the time when the judgment is passed – and may be caused by any negligence on the part of the prosecutor(s)/defendant(s) in the gathering of evidence, on the part of the government and/or on the part of the court in administering the case. The assessment of which will depend upon the circumstances of the case, which includes, but is not limited to, the case’s complexity, and the conduct of the accused and/or the authorities.
3. The accused has the right to a fair and impartial hearing.
4. The accused has the right to a public hearing.
5. The accused has the right to a competent and impartial tribunal that exercises both procedural and adjudicatorial fairness.
6. The accused has the right to adequate time, that is, enough time to have access to evidence according to the complexity of the case, and adequate facilities, that is, the accused and defense counsel must be granted appropriate information, files and documents necessary for the preparation of a defense and that the defendant must be provided with facilities enabling communication, in confidentiality, with the defense counsel.
7. The accused has the right to defend oneself in person or through legal counsel.
8. The accused has the right to have a witness examined by legal counsel on their behalf, if the witness consents.
9. The accused has the right to understand the proceedings and to be understood through means of an interpreter translating in their native form of communication.
10. The accused may waive any of the above rights.

_________________
CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

Well, its time for a second shot at this.

In April, this proposal (slightly edited) reached quorum rapidly but strangely enough was placed second-in-queue, behind the Fair Trial resolution that was just repealed. Unaware that a better alternative existed, the members voted South Oceana's Fair Trial proposal through - and this was cleaned up for duplication, naturally.

I hope this will receive as much approval as it did the first time around. And its certainly open to further suggestions that the good ambassadors may present, as we still have a little time before this will be submitted.

My sincere thanks to The Dourian Embassy for their assistance and good-will in the matter, and with best of luck, both repeal and replacement will be met with success!

_________________
CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

the government of the emperor of urgench wishes to congratulate the highly respected delegate for the Narnian council on such a well written proposed resolution. we think it is hard though to discern the margin of difference between this proposal and that of the gobbanean delegacy. can the respected delegate please enlighten us as to the principal differences as they see them?


yours e.t.c. Mongkha, khan of kashgar, delegate to the world assembly for urgench

we think it is hard though to discern the margin of difference between this proposal and that of the gobbanean delegacy. can the respected delegate please enlighten us as to the principal differences as they see them?

Here are the primary differences between my Fair Criminal Trial proposal, and that of Gobbannium's representative:

1) This proposal protects the wellbeing of those awaiting trial. It mandates that the arrested are not to be abused or treated unfairly - before the trial has even started. Our competitor fails to accommodate for this.

2) This proposal expands upon the idea of 'undue delay', by establishing a stronger ground to prevent negligence brought about by both the prosecutors and defense council. Our competitor merely uses the vague words 'reasonable speed' and 'properly assembling'.

3) We have been very careful not to include the "all trials are open to the public except when dangerous" instruction. This leaves all trials very vulnerable to oppressive dictators, but the Gobbannium representative has included it nonetheless.

4) We give the witnesses the right to refuse being examined by the accused. The Gobbannium representative provides no such right for the witness.

5) We mandate that "no one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed." Our competitor enforces no such mandate!

6) We provide and expand upon the idea of "adequate time", to allow the defence enough time to gather evidence. In our competitor's proposal, it would be acceptable for the defence counsel to be given 2 minutes warning before the trial commences.

7) This proposal requires that everyone must have equal access to the courts, preventing discrimination. If our competitor's proposal was voted through, unfair discrimination would be perfect acceptable.

These are only a handful of our differences. It seems that Prince Rhodri of Gobbannium leaves far more room in his proposal for totalitarian control than mine does...and really doesn't do alot for 'the furtherment of democracy' - as his category states.
__________________
CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

The People's Republic of Inca Kolastan applauds the initiative of the highly-esteemed Narnian Council however, having already voted for the repeal of the previous fair trail resolution, humbly submits for consideration the following suggested amendments or clarifications:



PRE-TRIAL RIGHTS

1. A detained or imprisoned person shall have the right to be visited by and to correspond with, in particular, members of their family and shall be given adequate opportunity to communicate with the outside world, subject to reasonable conditions and restrictions as specified by law or lawful regulations.
We feel that this is a little too vague in terms of what constitutes reasonable conditions and restrictions on communication with the outside world on the part of the accused. We further submit that the prioritising of family members is too specific and could allow for abuses based on legal definitions or availability of family members. Our proposed alternative wording would thus read:

"A detained or imprisoned person shall have the right to be visited by and to correspond with any individual or individuals that he or she requests and shall be given adequate opportunity to communicate with the outside world, unless it can be proven within a period no longer than 48 hours using established legal procedures that such communication constitutes a significant threat to the integrity of an ongoing legal investigation or poses a significant security risk for the individual, a third party or society generally."

We feel such wording both broadens the rights of the individual to be in contact with a person of their choosing while narrowing the possibilities for what can be considered a "reasonable" restriction of communication to issues involving the integrity of an ongoing criminal investigation and/or public security.

We welcome feedback on this proposed amendment and than you for your consideration.

If we may offer some observations:

REPRESENTING the original Fair Trial proposal as drafted before the WA ambassadors on April 2nd, 2008.

APPLAUDS the repeal of its less effective competitor proposal, and officially stands as its scheduled replacement.
We don't wish to sound like we are simply being bitchy, but we can't think of any other way of saying this; the hubris in these two lines is staggering. We would suggest toning it down, or better replacing it with a discursion as to why fair criminal trials are a good thing, unless the author really wishes to provoke Nemesis so baldly.

INCORPORATES instruction on both pre-trial rights and criminal trial procedure guidelines, in order to establish fair and competent criminal trial principles.
As an observation to the esteemed Khan Mongkha, this is one of the two major points of departure between the Narnian and Gobbannaen proposals. The Lord Chancellor includes considerable work on the pre-trail rights of the accused, something we deliberately eschewed with the intention of devoting separate resolutions to the subject. While there is nothing intrinsically right or wrong with either approach, we have a marked preference for "divide and conquer".

The other principle difference is that the Narnian proposal is a declaration of rights, while ours is more of a statement of actions, if we may grossly simplify the outlook of both.

1. A detained or imprisoned person shall have the right to be visited by and to correspond with, in particular, members of their family and shall be given adequate opportunity to communicate with the outside world, subject to reasonable conditions and restrictions as specified by law or lawful regulations.
The words "in particular" suggest that other visitation rights should exist, but none are specified. Is this perchance an orphaned survivor of a previous edit?

3. The arrested has the right to know the reason of the arrest within twenty-four hours of being arrested.
We are unclear as to whether this is making a distinction between arrest and charging, or is considering "holding without charge" a form of arrest. The latter isn't considered "arrest" in our lawbooks, but is governed by a body of law similar to what the predecessor organisation to this illustrious assembly term "Habeus Corpus". We suspect we are not the only nation to make this distinction. It would be helpful if this point were clarified a little.

4. All persons are entitled to call upon the assistance of a lawyer of their choice to protect and establish their rights and to defend them in all stages of criminal proceedings.
It is perhaps unfortunate that this permits a situation which the repeal currently being voted on criticises the current Fair Trial resolution for permitting. Whilst they might be foolish to do so, defendant are not prohibited from choosing the prosecutor as their defence lawyer.

1. The accused must be granted, without discrimination, the right of equal access to a court.
Equal to what, one is forced to wonder. Our secretaries assure us that this was at one point eludicated, though possibly only in conversation. As it stands, it isn't self-evident.

2. The accused has the right to a trial without undue delay.
i) For the purposes of this section, ‘undue delay’ is applicable between the time the accused is arrested, and the time when the judgment is passed – and refers to any negligence on the part of the prosecutor(s)/defendant(s) in the gathering of evidence and/or on the part court in administering the case. The assessment of which will depend on the circumstances of a case, which includes, but is not limited to, the case’s complexity, and the conduct of the accused and/or the authorities.
The elucidation here left us somewhat confused, at least initially. It reads rather awkwardly to us. Perhaps if the underlined phrases were replaced with "may occur" and "may be caused by" they would read more naturally?

4. The accused has the right to a public hearing.
We have serious issues with such absolute openness. It implies, for instance, that a court cannot go into closed session to consider evidence which, if it were public, might compromise national security.

5. The accused has the right to a competent and impartial tribunal - independent from the involved parties and established by law - that exercises both procedural and adjudicatorial fairness.
Would the "independent from the involved parties" clause have originated when this was concerned with both criminal and civil trials? It reads a little curiously when one considers that one of the involved parties is the government, the body which establishes things by law.

8. The accused has the right to examine, if the witness consents, or to have examined, a witness.
While we believe we know what you mean (and heartily concur), this could be rather unfortunately misinterpreted. Perhaps "to have (legal) counsel examine on their behalf" instead of "to have examined", so that it can't be misconstrued that the accused must have had access to the witness in the past? Then again, this is conflating separate notions -- the right to cross-examine, balanced by the desire to protect witnesses who may be at risk were their identities known. Perhaps it would be less confusing to separate the two?

9. The accused has the right to understand the proceedings and to be understood through means of an interpreter translating in their native form of communication.
May we congratulate the Lord Chancellor on thinking of this issue, which our staff were keen to bring to our attention.

10. The accused has the right not to incriminate themselves.
We find ourselves in mild disagreement; we think the accused has the right not to be forced to incriminate themselves. Aside from anything else, it's a good deal easier to write into law since it bears on the behaviour of the prosecuting counsel. It is, however, a lapse in our own draft; we shall cogitate on the correct fix for this omission in the appropriate debate.

11. No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed
We must say that we feel that this moves out of the subject of trials and onto the nature of national laws. It is also a subject that our illustrious predecessors devoted an entire, albeit succinct, resolution to. We aren't entirely sure it really belongs in this resolution, though we have no objection to it per se.

2) This proposal expands upon the idea of 'undue delay', by establishing a stronger ground to prevent negligence brought about by both the prosecutors and defense council. Our competitor merely uses the vague words 'reasonable speed' and 'properly assembling'.

6) We provide and expand upon the idea of "adequate time", to allow the defence enough time to gather evidence. In our competitor's proposal, it would be acceptable for the defence counsel to be given 2 minutes warning before the trial commences.
We have to say that we don't believe the expansions, particularly as they are written, offer any significant difference to a requirement of reasonability.

4) We give the witnesses the right to refuse being questioned by the accused. The Gobbannium representative provides no such right for the witness.
We apparently misunderstood the honoured Lord Chancellor, and therefore beg him to consider this to be a very bad idea. A trial in which accusations, and particularly detailed witness evidence, cannot be challenged by the accused is by no definition "fair".

I'm not sure your preamble is legal (references to such events probably constitutes meta-gaming) but it is certainly a very bad idea, because it makes this whole proposal look like an act of pique. I know that's not true, and I applaud your genuine motives - wanting to pass a better law - but I would suggest simply striking the first three lines and coming up with some more general preamble ('fair trials are cute, cuddly, and beloved of children everywhere').

Including non-retrospective application of law is also a very bad idea, as it unnecessarily tangles up subjects. I wonder if the same isn't also true for the first pre-trial rights section. The old UN passed entire resolutions on the subjects of Due Process, Habeas Corpus and [No] Ex Post Facto Laws.

Finally, I'm unclear whether this requires the state provide counsel for those who cannot afford it. Does it?

-- Samantha Benson
Office of Sleeping, Napping, Yawning and, Occasionally, WA Affairs
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria

Preamble's a little snarky, too.

Point taken - I'll amend the preamble. I must admit that I wrote this right before discovering that Prince Rhodri's had decided to submit his own Fair Trial proposal - admittedly I was in a rather irritable mood.

One would wonder why the Gobbannium delegation makes the effort to constructively assist us here, when they are already providing an alternative proposal, though?

Prince Rhodri, it would be an admirable thing to lay aside your competing proposal in favor of polishing up this one - but if you consider that impossible (as you most likely do), given that mine is quite different to your own, why do you stand here?

Nevertheless, I'll do the best I can to receive your suggestions positively. Alot of the mild wording inconsistencies were, as you speculated, a result of extensive drafting - and will be fixed accordingly. I'll touch on the points I particularly disagree with.

It implies, for instance, that a court cannot go into closed session to consider evidence which, if it were public, might compromise national security.

Unfortunately, the reverse effect of this allows dictators to close 'inconvenient' trials to the public, in the interest of 'national security'. We believe this to be far more serious than the genuine need for privacy - and unless some sort of middle ground can be found, the stance we have elected to take is certainly the preferable option.

We must say that we feel that this moves out of the subject of trials and onto the nature of national laws.

Here is the most appropriate place to put it. It would be a waste of effort to attempt to expand on this in a separate resolution. This is put in a simple, very self explanatory clause that requires no further clarification at all in any way.

We apparently misunderstood the honoured Lord Chancellor, and therefore beg him to consider this to be a very bad idea.

Ah, actually I believe I used the wrong word...'examine', rather than 'question' would be more precise. You were on the mark the first time.

We feel that this is a little too vague in terms of what constitutes reasonable conditions and restrictions on communication with the outside world on the part of the accused. We further submit that the prioritizing of family members is too specific and could allow for abuses based on legal definitions or availability of family members.

You're quite right. However all we think this needs, is the elimination of the mention of 'family' - and space to allow the outsider to refuse visitation. We'd prefer not to expand upon this clause in order to preserve 'national security', because as we've mentioned in reference to another clause, this can easily be abused.

The old UN passed entire resolutions on the subjects of Due Process, Habeas Corpus and [No] Ex Post Facto Laws.

Fair Criminal Trial doesn't touch on Habeas Corpus (I've included extra clarification on that) - and the UN resolutions of Due Process and [No] Ex Post Facto Laws were already pretty brief and didn't really expand more upon the principle than this proposal has already. A separate resolution for this is really quite unnecessary.

Finally, I'm unclear whether this requires the state provide counsel for those who cannot afford it. Does it?

By briefly requiring assistance to such people - this could allow a street-dweller, for example, access to an unreasonably pricey lawyer at the expense of the government.What are the limits? When is one defined as incapable of affording legal assistance in general? I'm concerned that unless a very well structured charitable organization is established, welfare funds throughout the world's governments would increase excessively - and many economies cannot afford to be thrown out of balance in this way.

In my opinion, that issue is definitely deserving of its own resolution.

_________________
CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

the government of the emperor of urgench wishes to thank the highly esteemed delegate of the Narnian council for their promt and highly edifying reply. however in our nation our supreme court and supreme court of criminal appeal are one in the same, and since this quriltai is of a semi sacrosanct nature it needs must always be in camera. this court is of course the only one of our courts to require this and it is a democraticaly elected body, we feel that certain provisions of this proposed resolution are in conflict with the character of our system of justice therefore. in light of this we are unlikely to be able to vote for this proposed resolution if it comes to vote.
we also wonder if the proposed resolution does not tend toward curtailing the rights of member nations to manage their own legal sytems as they see fit. while this might be very desirable were any member to be seen to be comitting terrible crimes against its own people through their courts, in more reasonable circumstances ( which pertain in more reasonable nations)this pretension is offensive and unecessary.


yours e.t.c. Monghka, khan of kashgar, delegate to the world assembly for urgench

One would wonder why the Gobbannium delegation makes the effort to constructively assist us here, when they are already providing an alternative proposal, though?
Because we wish to see the best possible resolution concerning Fair Trials enacted, and should your proposal rather than ours be the one to come to the vote, we would not wish to see it blemished by flaws that we might have brought to your attention. Also, while we believe our proposal to have advantages over yours, we do not pretend for one moment that it is perfect. Since we are desirous of constructive comment on our work, it would be selfish of us to withhold our own constructive comments on the works of others.

Unfortunately, the reverse effect of this allows dictators to close 'inconvenient' trials to the public, in the interest of 'national security'. We believe this to be far more serious than the genuine need for privacy - and unless some sort of middle ground can be found, the stance we have elected to take is certainly the preferable option.
We shall have to agree to differ, we fear. Likely there is a middle path, but we cannot think of it at the moment.

Here is the most appropriate place to put it. It would be a waste of effort to attempt to expand on this in a separate resolution. This is put in a simple, very self explanatory clause that requires no further clarification at all in any way.
We must again agree to disagree.

Ah, actually I believe I used the wrong word...'examine', rather than 'question' would be more precise. You were on the mark the first time.
We are relieved to hear it, but consequently believe the Lord Chancellor is in error concerning our proposal.

You're quite right. However all we think this needs, is the elimination of the mention of 'family' - and space to allow the outsider to refuse visitation. We'd prefer not to expand upon this clause in order to preserve 'national security', because as we've mentioned in reference to another clause, this can easily be abused.

The People's Republic of Inca Kolastan thanks you for your consideration and would happily vote in favour of the Narnian Council's resolution as currently proposed.

The United Socialist States of Tatec congratulates you on your work on making the court systems more fair for WA members however I must point out on reading this proposal it came across to me that some of the points were to vague and need to be reconsidered

We accept your congratulations with much appreciation, both of you. Whereabouts would you like to see further clarification, good representative for Tatec, and/or what suggestions might you have?
________________
CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

Fair Criminal Trial doesn't touch on Habeas Corpus (I've included extra clarification on that) - and the UN resolutions of Due Process and [No] Ex Post Facto Laws were already pretty brief and didn't really expand more upon the principle than this proposal has already. A separate resolution for this is really quite unnecessary.
It would only take a few words to add in 'prohibits the use of biological weapons' or 'requires the provision of paid family leave' or 'flobbity mangrove jibble-jibble KAH!'. All would be irrelevant. A proposal about fair trials shouldn't cover the due process of law. I'm not saying they necessarily need expansion; I'm saying resolutions should cover one subject at a time.
By briefly requiring assistance to such people - this could allow a street-dweller, for example, access to an unreasonably pricey lawyer at the expense of the government.What are the limits? When is one defined as incapable of affording legal assistance in general? I'm concerned that unless a very well structured charitable organization is established, welfare funds throughout the world's governments would increase excessively - and many economies cannot afford to be thrown out of balance in this way.
Well, then provide an appropriate definition instead of booking a vacation on the shiny pistes of Mount Slippery Slope. You could say that the state has to provide some provision towards legal counsel within a reasonable margin. But I'd point out a 'street-dweller' is unlikely to be able to afford any kind of legal representation: giving them a right to something they can afford is a meaningless gesture, which won't help the people who are probably more likely than other segments of society to be falsely accused.
In my opinion, that issue is definitely deserving of its own resolution.
That's hilarious. You think a resolution on fair trials should cover aspects of law completely unrelated to trials, but shouldn't cover right to counsel? Just what are you using to determine the appropriate scope of your proposal?

-- Samantha Benson

Ambassador Samantha Benson, as I have before stated, this proposal is designed for the benefit of the fair trial and of the accused. Not for the establishment of a charitable organization - especially one of this complication. As I've said, its far more befitting of another resolution - I prefer to see more than a few lines dedicated to such issues.

The proposal doesn't ban torture, nor does it ban solitary confinement or any other such act in the general sense. It indirectly prohibits the implementation of such actions only upon those awaiting trial in the interest of impartiality of justice and the prevention of 'punishment' before verdict.

_________________
CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

Narnian, I would offer that Ms. Benson has quite a bit of experience with these things, and that listening to her advice on that subject may be prudent.

Despite this making it to quorum once already, it would be good to treat it as still a draft, and actually take some of the changes suggested and put them to use.

Not an Ambassador, you haven't even responded to two of my three objections, and I'm not saying this should be administered through a centralised charitable organization. Leave it to individual nations to work out how they're going to pay for it. This proposal is not 'for the benefit of the accused' if it doesn't require that they have access to legal counsel! Can you think of anything more basic to the conduct of a fair trial than the accused being defended?

-- Samantha Benson

Can you think of anything more basic to the conduct of a fair trial than the accused being defended?

It would be an unfortunate nation that considered the welfare of their people to be in such a disastrous state - that legal assistance would be far from the reaches of enough of their citizens to warrant serious attention from the government.

I do acknowledge that such an issue is important, but again - I’m very reluctant to include this, as I believe it can be tackled far more proficiently in a separate resolution. It would be disappointing to see a perfectly capable proposal, addressing this issue, disallowed passage because the content in Fair Criminal Trial or Fair Trial justified the proposal’s deletion on grounds of duplication.

I will, however, see what I can come up with, as far as a brief mention goes. But I admit it certainly runs against what we believed to be more efficient.

_________________
CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

It would be an unfortunate nation that considered the welfare of their people to be in such a disastrous state - that legal assistance would be far from the reaches of enough of their citizens to warrant serious attention from the government.
What? I never noticed my fellow lawyers in Quintessence of Dust being spendthrift and charitable when charging their clients, and I hadn't assumed that was particular to our nation. (A portion of our fees do, admittedly, do get sucked up by the QBA for lobbying against Congressional efforts to limit medical liability.) It's often suggested that half the world's population lives on less than $2 a day. That doesn't warrant serious government attention?
I do acknowledge that such an issue is important, but I’m very reluctant to include this, as I believe it can be tackled far more proficiently in a separate resolution. It would be disappointing to see a perfectly capable proposal, addressing this issue, disallowed passage because the content in Fair Criminal Trial or Fair Trial justified the proposal’s deletion on grounds of duplication.

I will, however, see what I can come up with, as far as a brief mention goes. But I admit it certainly runs against what I believed to be more efficient.
Ok, well, you can start by making room in the proposal by removing all the irrelevant bits (#10 and #11 in particular). That'll allow for a more 'efficient' definition.

-- Samamtha Benson

It's often suggested that half the world's population lives on less than $2 a day. That doesn't warrant serious government attention?

Then governments around the world are going to have a serious problem when providing cheap legal assistance to the needy then, yes?

[OOC: We're lucky that rulers of nations don't get a big red stamp slapped on their screen "Your economy has hit a recession. Your welfare programs are killing it." In that case, this proposal would be shot on sight.]

Nevertheless, I'll see what middle ground I can find...

That'll allow for a more 'efficient' definition.

*Raises eyebrows*

Hmm. We'll overlook that, Ms. Benson.

________________
CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

I'm not sure you have time to play catty. The repeal will pass (if it does indeed pass) tomorrow afternoon. That means that in about 36 hours, it will be time to submit the replacement; and I guarantee other people will be submitting alternate versions.

-- Samantha Benson

First, my government generally prefers the text of this proposal. We also second the recommendation to submit a draft proposal soon after the likely repeal. However, it might take a few tries before establishing quorum, therefore we would like to encourage the Narnian Council to consider continued proposal discussions up until a quorum is reached.

With that in mind, though the new preamble is good, Mikitivity would like to see the preamble include language as to the international benefits from having general agreement on standards for fair trials.

ACKNOWLEDGING that justice, free of corruption and prejudice, is a crucial factor in the wellbeing of society,

INCORPORATING instruction for both pre-trial rights and criminal trial procedure guidelines,

ENACTS precise legal standards of impartiality and fairness of trial for the benefit and safety of all citizens of WA nations.

The above could be changed slightly, to something along the lines of:

RECOGNIZING that nations have many different legal systems, based on local needs and history,

OBSERVING that citizens from many nations travel to other nations for various reasons, including to conduct business transactions,

CONVINCED that international agreement amongst member states on the basic legal rights individuals have concerning trials can further protect travelers and improve relations between nations,

Howie T. Katzman

It would only take a few words to add in 'prohibits the use of biological weapons' or 'requires the provision of paid family leave' or 'flobbity mangrove jibble-jibble KAH!'. All would be irrelevant. A proposal about fair trials shouldn't cover the due process of law. I'm not saying they necessarily need expansion; I'm saying resolutions should cover one subject at a time.

Well, then provide an appropriate definition instead of booking a vacation on the shiny pistes of Mount Slippery Slope. You could say that the state has to provide some provision towards legal counsel within a reasonable margin. But I'd point out a 'street-dweller' is unlikely to be able to afford any kind of legal representation: giving them a right to something they can afford is a meaningless gesture, which won't help the people who are probably more likely than other segments of society to be falsely accused.

That's hilarious. You think a resolution on fair trials should cover aspects of law completely unrelated to trials, but shouldn't cover right to counsel? Just what are you using to determine the appropriate scope of your proposal?

-- Samantha Benson


the government of the emperor of urgench wishes to associate itself with the points made by the respected delegate for Quintessence of dust, this resolution does seem to cover issues un-related to matters of fair trial, and it singularly fails to address some of the most important aspects of this area of law.
we feel that an obligation for the state to provide adequate legal council to those who cannot afford it is axiomatic to the concept of a fair trial, it's ommission from this proposed resolution is anomalous to say the least.


since the respected delegate for the Narnian council sees fit to ignore our requests for clarification of how this resolution would conflict with our nations legal system we can only suppose that the respected delegate wishes to hear the voices of those who's opinions most closely resemble their own.
any actual debate engaged in here being between the Narnian delegacy and those it cannot afford to ignore.
this is the character we have observed in your great nations conduct and in it's legislative theories too.


your e.t.c. Mongkha, khan of kashgar, delegate to the world assembly for urgench

OBSERVING that citizens from many nations travel to other nations for various reasons, including to conduct business transactions,
And non-citizens from some nations, too...
The inclusive term is 'nationals'.

With all due respect to Prince Rodhri and Deputy Ambassador Willing, and despite Ms Benson and others' criticisms of this proposal, I feel this to be the superior draft.

I note with regret that again the presumption of innocence until guilt has been proven is not a part of this proposal. We of Minyos have observed some nations' enactment of legislation enabling the holding of suspects, without charge, simply because it is assumed that said suspect is guilty until proven otherwise. This seems to have happened mainly regarding suspected terrorists - however, in some cases the person/s involved have been innocent of any wrongdoing.

We feel that, in the World Assembly at least, the presumption of innocence until proven guilty should be sacrosanct. Perhaps this is just Minyosian bias (our legal system being based upon this presumption), however on behalf of my fellow people, I must express sadness that a clear indication of commitment to this presumption is lacking in both proposals.

However, I commend The Narnian Council for including a comprehensive and humane pre-trial procedure; contact with relatives and others during detention and a specific time limit in which the suspect must be informed of the reason for their incarceration especially.

The repeal of the current resolution will pass very shortly.

I earnestly hope that we shall not see a repeat of both proposals (should both be proposed post-repeal) reaching quorum and one be deleted. Is this possible again? That would be most unfortunate.

I have invited the Prince and Mr. Willing to a rather nice Devonshire tea (my own excellent if I may say so myself scone recipe, wild strawberry jam from my country cottage and organic double cream given to me by a neighbour), the invitation has been accepted; it occurs to me that the Narnian Council Ambassador might like to attend so we may settle this matter prior to any proposal being submitted.

There is no obligation for the Narnian Council Ambassador to make an appearance, and I do hope that Prince Rodhri and Deputy Ambassador Willing will still attend (the scones are to LIVE for :) ) regardless of which proposal I feel best serves Minyos and the WA. It was merely meant to be a civilised tea. Perhaps it is not best to mix politics with pleasure...but a nice cup of high-grade Assam tea soothes the soul, and may soothe this possible looming crisis - if indeed the crisis is possible again.

I fear I have been most impolite, I should have asked the current guests! My apologies, and we shall leave it at the three of us, and simply a relaxing tea and chat, unless I hear otherwise.

Lars Inki.

With that in mind, though the new preamble is good, Mikitivity would like to see the preamble include language as to the international benefits from having general agreement on standards for fair trials.

With limited word space, I've altered it a little but it still retains the point. What do you think?

ACKNOWLEDGING that justice, free of corruption and prejudice, is a crucial factor in the wellbeing of society,

CONVINCED that an agreement upon basic legal rights will furthermore enhance synchronization in international trade, business and tourism,

ENACTS clear-cut legal standards of fairness and impartiality of trial.

Here's the extra clause for the provision of legal counsel to the needy.

If the arrested lacks readily available assets/finances to afford legal assistance, it becomes the government’s liability to ensure that the arrested acquires a reasonably adequate defense counsel before the trial commences - as provided by, but not limited to, government funding or a charitable organization.

How does it look? That should clarify what it means by someone ‘unable’ to afford legal assistance - they would have no readily available (or liquid) money or assets to help pay for the trial proceedings. “Before the trial commences” is quite an important insertion. I’ve also made reference to this new government liability in the ‘undue delay’ clause.

There is no obligation for the Narnian Council Ambassador to make an appearance, and I do hope that Prince Rodhri and Deputy Ambassador Willing will still attend (the scones are to LIVE for :) ) regardless of which proposal I feel best serves Minyos and the WA.

I would be most pleased to attend! However, I would come not as an ambassador, but Lord Chancellor. Our librarians have already informed us of the rich and learned culture of Minyos, who's national preferences don't seem too dissimilar to our own, and I'm certain it will be a most pleasant outing.

You must excuse my absence - beginning this evening, though, as we still have much to prepare for and little time to accomplish such tedious political tasks. Not to mention, apparently, a vast crowd of Fair Trial fanatics in my vacant courtyard demanding their rights back.
__________________

CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

3. The arrested has the right to know the reason of the arrest, with or without charges, within twenty-four hours of being arrested.
We apologise for failing to come back to this earlier, due to our observations of your redrafting being made in some haste. We still aren't entirely sure of the intent of this clause. It seems to be attempting 'Habeus Corpus' in a single line; if so, it is a flawed attempt. A person who is 'held without charge' under Gobbannaen law has not been arrested in any formal sense, so it does not apply to them. If the clause is not a form of 'Habeus Corpus', we are at some loss as to its utility.

i) If the arrested lacks readily available finances/assets to afford legal assistance, it becomes the government’s liability to ensure that the arrested acquires a reasonably adequate defense counsel, before the trial commences - as provided by, but not limited to, government funding or a charitable organization.
After all the occasions on which the honoured Lord Chancellor has castigated us for our use of the term "reasonably", we find its inclusion here somewhat difficult to understand. Surely a defense counsel is either adequate or not for the purpose of mounting a defense, and there is no grey area in which reasonableness can be a meaningful criterion?

1. The accused must be granted, without discrimination, the right of equal access to a court.
We fear we must repeat that we find the meaning of this right utterly opaque.

6. The accused has the right to adequate time, that is, enough time to have access to evidence according to the complexity of the case, and adequate facilities, that is, the accused and defense counsel must be granted appropriate information, files and documents necessary for the preparation of a defense and that the defendant must be provided with facilities enabling communication, in confidentiality, with the defense counsel.
Whilst we concur entirely that proper facilities for the preparation of a defense must exist, we fear that the section we have marked again offers serious problems as regards national security, much as the blanket requirement of openness does. We apologise for not having noticed this earlier.

8. The accused has the right to have a witness examined by legal counsel on their behalf, if the witness consents.
We fear that the honoured Lord Chancellor has overbalanced this back against the accused in his rephrasing. By a strict reading, if a witness does not consent, the accused has no right to have anyone examine the witness. Perhaps it might be more easily phrased if turned on its head as a right of the witness?

the government of the emperor of urgench is in concurrance with the august delegate for Gobbannium, "reasonable adequacy" is an oxymoron no doubt in frequent use in common parlance but it is hardly a legal definition, still less a guarantee of proper representation before a court.
we also agree that clause 8 is foolish in the extreme, the ability of a court to compel witness testimony is often the only method of maintaining strict fairness of any kind and to allow the witness to consent to the process of exhamination is patently absurd.

we also note that the respected delegate for the Narnian council has still refused to address our nations concerns about the detrimental effects of this resolution on the many and varied legal systems of the nations of the world assembly. not least our own.
we feel that the sloppy and highhanded tone of this resolution and the conduct of it's authors make it entirely inapropriate for any kind of consideration of this institution let alone for it's being at vote.

we urge all nations to carefully read this ill-conceived proposal and then to read the masterfully written proposal of the most wise Gobbannaen delegacy and to call for the latters implimentation and not the dangerous excercise in national vanity proposed here.


yours e.t.c. Mongkha, khan of kashgar, delegate to the world assembly for urgench

My main concern with the proposal is the last clause, about the right to waive the rights. What if the accused was unfit to waive these, because of mental state or blackmail?

Rodney Neman,
Ambassador of Gerainia,
Delegate of the International Democratic Union

This proposal is much flexible. It allows us to ban appeals for murderers, who are clearly proven guilty, because it is a waste of money.

the government of the emperor or urgench suggests that if all the respected delegate for the mind of charlotte ryberg is interested is saving a few shekles and not the proper administration of justice then this probably is the sort of shoddy resolution you might wish to vote for.


yours e.t.c. Mongkha, khan of kashgar, delegate to the world assembly for urgench

My main concern with the proposal is the last clause, about the right to waive the rights. What if the accused was unfit to waive these, because of mental state or blackmail?

If the accused was too sickly to verbally express this, then one is obliged to presume that they desire their rights to be upheld. Blackmail/bribery are all matters for the authorities to handle (one could argue the issue of blackmail over every right listed), and these situations are probably quite irrelevant to the clause in question.

we urge all nations to carefully read this ill-conceived proposal and then to read the masterfully written proposal of the most wise Gobbannaen delegacy and to call for the latters implimentation and not the dangerous excercise in national vanity proposed here.

Please, neither I nor Prince Rhodri, I'm sure, appreciate your flattery on the one hand, and apparent antipathy on the other. Especially since you were quite head-over-heels about this proposal two days ago.

It seems to be attempting 'Habeus Corpus' in a single line; if so, it is a flawed attempt.

Quite right. Extremely flawed, because it clearly allows one to be arrested without charges. What it does do, is prevent someone from being dragged off the street and dumped in jail - then to be left in there for weeks, in dazed confusion.

This clause gives them the right to know the reason for the arrest. [OOC: This was quite a serious problem in Eastern Europe some forty years ago]

After all the occasions on which the honoured Lord Chancellor has castigated us for our use of the term "reasonably", we find its inclusion here somewhat difficult to understand.

Yes, we have resorted to this term - simply because to expand on this word would be to the detriment of other clauses, given the limit. But we do apologize to the Gobbannium representatives for having implemented a method we have before expressed our disapproval of.

We fear we must repeat that we find the meaning of this right utterly opaque.

It shouldn't be. This means that establishing separate courts for different groups of people based on their race, color, sex, language, birth, religion, political or other opinion, would be a contravention of this clause.

Perhaps it might be more easily phrased if turned on its head as a right of the witness?

Agreed - that may have been a preferable way of putting it, but as it stands now, I believe I would be executed on sight for amending a proposal that Delegates have already submitted approvals for.

Whilst we concur entirely that proper facilities for the preparation of a defense must exist, we fear that the section we have marked again offers serious problems as regards national security, much as the blanket requirement of openness does. We apologise for not having noticed this earlier.

Again, neither you nor I can find a way of addressing this issue without giving the government the ability to refuse documents and/or the public nature of the trial, on the basis of 'national security', simply because it's inconvenient. A 'fair trial' that gives totalitarian control this much room would certainly be a disgrace to its title.

We apologise for not having noticed this earlier...

No need to apologize - the repeal has successfully passed (our congratulations to Ambassador Willing), this proposal has been submitted, and with best of luck, should reach quorum very soon.

We're grateful that with the help of various critics this proposal is in a much sturdier shape than it would have been had it passed back in April - and we would like to wish Prince Rhodri good luck in his separate endeavor!

________________
CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

On the off-chance that neither of our proposals meets with the approval of sufficient delegates, and that no other proposal does instead, we will continue the debate.

Quite right. Extremely flawed, because it clearly allows one to be arrested without charges. What it does do, is prevent someone from being dragged off the street and dumped in jail - then to be left in there for weeks, in dazed confusion.
As we have attempted to demonstrate, it precisely does not do this. A nation is entirely at liberty to hold a person without charge -- not, you will note, arrest -- for as long as they like.

It shouldn't be. This means that establishing separate courts for different groups of people based on their race, color, sex, language, birth, religion, political or other opinion, would be a contravention of this clause.
That is certainly a reading of it. An equally valid interpretation would be that courts must be physically located such that no person must travel an unreasonable distance to reach one. Or that the design of court buildings and court rooms should be such as to enable entry to all, regardless of any physical impairment they may be suffering. We are reasonably certain that were we not so tired at this present moment, we could continue in this vein for some while.

We're grateful that with the help of various critics this proposal is in a much sturdier shape than it would have been had it passed back in April - and we would like to wish Prince Rhodri good luck in his separate endeavor!
We thank the Lord Chancellor for his kind words, and naturally reciprocate.

the government of the emperor of urgench wishes for the delegate for the narnian council to understand our position. we welcomed your proposal originally because it was better that the now defunct resolution, on closer reading we found it to be troubling indeed and still do, since it rides roughshod over other nations judicial systems and is doubtless a crudely disguised attempt to force the narnian model upon the w.a. membership at large. if you sense our frustration which you call antipathy, then it is because your delegacy repeatedly refused to address our request for clarification. we could only assume as we have said before that this was because you felt able to ignore us in favour of more powerful nations or your political allies. you may wish for us to simply shut up and go away, but we are a persistant nation and not easily overlooked.
we have never sought to "flatter" the honoured delegate for Gobbannium, their proposal is simply better in almost all ways, and is therfore deserving of praise. and what is more, the respected delegate for gobbannium did us the great honour of deigning to address our concerns, despite the very great burden of work they are facing.

however if your comments are signal of both yours and the gobbannaen delegacys feelings then that somewhat changes things.

rest assured we will continue to oppose your poorly written proposed resolution on it's merits (or lack of such) and look forward with relish to what will undoubtedly be a very interesting debate.


yours e.t.c. Mongkha. khan of kashgar, delegate to the world assembly for urgench

you may wish for us to simply shut up and go away, but we are a persistant nation and not easily overlooked.

I'm quite bewildered. Might I suggest that you would take a look through the entire thread, and find a single question of yours that I didn't answer?

In fact, I answered your first question within minutes of your asking it - and I also altered an entire clause upon the recommendation of Quod and your subsequent support.

So look for a question in this entire thread that I apparently 'ignored', and if there is such one question, I'd wonder whether this is truly grounds enough to suddenly oppose a proposal you thought identical to Prince Rhodri's. Not to mention that he's already issued me a private note assuring me that your delegation in no way accurately reflects his views towards us.

However, I'm really not interested in a debate (seeing a proposal reach quorum isn't necessarily a walk in the park) - I just wished to clarify my surprise and continual good-will in the matter towards you.

________________
CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

Looks good to us, Salzland approves and looks forward to casting its vote in favor of this resolution.

the government of the emperor of urgench wishes to reassure the respected delegate for the Narnian council of our good will toward your nation too. and we respectfully draw to your attention our concerns as exspressed in post #11 in which we asked you about the effects of this proposed resolution on our Quiriltai court. please forgive us for our passion in this matter but it is of the most supreme importance to us ( as we are sure similar matters will be to others) that this court not be destroyed by clumsy legislation.
we humbly suggest that it was never our contention that we represented the opinions of the most wise delegate for Gobbannium, only our own. nor did we seek to cloak ourselves in such spurious justification. our only concern is with legislative rectitude, regardless of fear or favour.


yours e.t.c. Mongkha, khan of kashgar, delegate to the world assembly for urgench

Indeed - and we'd be happy to answer your question. My apologies, it can be quite easy to overlook additional questions when already engaged in multiple discussions with various other delegations.

Unfortunately, to be a member of the WA, one must also be prepared to give up certain 'unique' freedoms, as it is the WA's goal to unify its members - and important issues such as fair trial is one of those issues.

Proposals that are either too vague or too flexible aren't deserving of a place in the WA's halls, as these attributes are quite the contrary to the WA's very foundational goals. We believe that Prince Rhodri's proposal is certainly neither vague nor flexible, and your nation will be similarly affected.

_________________
CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

the government of the emperor is indeed honoured that the respected delegate for the Narnian council has found time in their busy schedule to address us on this point at last. we beg forgiveness for being so troublesome at so important a time for you.
we are dissapointed however that you are unable to bring yourself to allow of difference within the w.a. membership, your vision of an ever increasing level of homogenisation as the mission of this body is most disturbing to us.
if we allow for this point of view then it seems all the more important that the template to be fitted on all be of the broadest and most encompassing nature. not vague mind you, but mutually agreed upon none the less. it seems you are ready to conceed that the template you wish to put upon us in the matter of fair trial is of the most partial kind, being as it is yours and not one considered for it's effect on the rest of the membership. this resolution would therefore represent a form of legal ethnic cleansing irradicating systems that were non Narnian in character. is this the mission of the World assembly?

in our discussions with the wise and honoured ambassador for Gobbannium it became clear that they were sensitive to this matter of cultural heterodoxy and indeed at our request incorperated a clause in to their proposal which explicitly protected aspects of any court system which were ceremonial or religious in nature from the effects of "openess". so we feel that your critique of the alternative proposal as inflexable is deeply flawed, in fact such a charge would more properly be laid at your door. this is of great concern to the generality of this body, who's cultural uniqueness is at stake. we would like to remind the honoured delegate that unity is not conformity.
the nature of our quiriltai is very ancient and it is of paramount importance to our civilisation, it's removal would mean considerable upheaval and possibly even bloodshed followed by severe cultural disturbance. this it seems is of no account to the great delegate for the Narnian council. so be it.

we would like to remind the honoured delegate of our continued desire to see a decent and democraticaly minded resolution on the matter of fair trial be brought before us all for vote. unfortunately we feel it will be impossible for us to vote in the affirmative for yours as it will hardly imbibe of the nature of democracy.

yours in gratitude for your kind attention to our plight, Mongkha, khan of kashgar, ambassador to the world assembly for urgench

Well, congrats on getting your proposal to quorum, I guess. Don't count on our support.

Unfortunately, to be a member of the WA, one must also be prepared to give up certain 'unique' freedoms, as it is the WA's goal to unify its members - and important issues such as fair trial is one of those issues.

Proposals that are either too vague or too flexible aren't deserving of a place in the WA's halls, as these attributes are quite the contrary to the WA's very foundational goals. We believe that Prince Rhodri's proposal is certainly neither vague nor flexible, and your nation will be similarly affected.
We must respectfully disagree with the Lord Chancellor yet again, and suggest that he has mistaken the part for the whole. A proposal that is inflexible is equally undeserving of a place in these halls, as the repeal argument demonstrated most effectively with regard to the insistance of the previous Fair Trial legislation with regard to jury trials.

On considering the honoured Khan's question, we concluded that fairness would not be compromised by privacy provided that (within limits that we have previously disagreed upon) all evidential and directorial interactions with witnesses and the jury or its equivalent were open. We adjusted our proposal accordingly, both being more explicit about what must be open and noting that other matters did not require openness, some considerable time in advance of submission; we presume in the rush that the Lord Chancellor did not notice this.

The important point that we hope our example illuminates is that while a proposal on Fair Trials must, in our opinion, be inflexible in its insistence on providing Fair Trials, it must be flexible enough to encompass any reasonable definition of such.

Here are the primary differences between my Fair Criminal Trial proposal, and that of Gobbannium's representative:

1) This proposal protects the wellbeing of those awaiting trial. It mandates that the arrested are not to be abused or treated unfairly - before the trial has even started. Our competitor fails to accommodate for this.

2) This proposal expands upon the idea of 'undue delay', by establishing a stronger ground to prevent negligence brought about by both the prosecutors and defense council. Our competitor merely uses the vague words 'reasonable speed' and 'properly assembling'.

3) We have been very careful not to include the "all trials are open to the public except when dangerous" instruction. This leaves all trials very vulnerable to oppressive dictators, but the Gobbannium representative has included it nonetheless.

4) We give the witnesses the right to refuse being examined by the accused. The Gobbannium representative provides no such right for the witness.

5) We mandate that "no one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed." Our competitor enforces no such mandate!

6) We provide and expand upon the idea of "adequate time", to allow the defence enough time to gather evidence. In our competitor's proposal, it would be acceptable for the defence counsel to be given 2 minutes warning before the trial commences.

7) This proposal requires that everyone must have equal access to the courts, preventing discrimination. If our competitor's proposal was voted through, unfair discrimination would be perfect acceptable.

These are only a handful of our differences. It seems that Prince Rhodri of Gobbannium leaves far more room in his proposal for totalitarian control than mine does...and really doesn't do alot for 'the furtherment of democracy' - as his category states.
__________________
CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia
On this note, I say that my nation would vote for the proposal. Lessari welcomes it.

We think it far more appropriate that the honoured ambassador assess the proposal on its merits, not on the opinions of its author as to how it compares with a proposal not at vote. Which opinions, for the record, we disagree with, but that too is irrelevant.

The General Secretary of the KSPP would like to say how thankful he is that a new "fair trial" resolution has been worked so quickly. Our initial fears are now put to rest.

We will continue to monitor the situation closely but after an initial reading of the proposal, the General Secretary has said in private that he will likely push for the support of this proposal.

Upon consultation with the Commonwealth Parliament, The Toreynan Ambassador to the World Assembly has this statement.

'This resolution with some reservations expressed by Parliament shall recieve the support of the Toreynan Government. We reserve the right to if possible table amendments depending on the successfulness of the resolution and its impact on our justice system. We applaud the Chancellor for the spirit of the resolution and as can be currently seen it has so far gained substantial support within the Assembly.

We have concerns on the vagueness of certain aspects of the resolution but shall not press for them to be changed at all/any further then has already been discussed. As they allow us flexiblity in terms of interpretation & special circumstances.'

Aleyna Lucas
Ambassador to the World Assembly
Office of International & Corporate Affairs.

the government of the emperor of urgench will abstain from voting on this resolution. we must do this because we cannot vote for it for reasons which we hope are clear to the esteemed delegate for the Narnian Council, and because in good concience we cannot vote against a resolution of this kind.
we will be urging the other nations of our region and it's delegate to abstain also.

yours e.t.c. Mongkha, khan of kashgar, ambassador to the world assembly for urgench.

Well, Fair Criminal Trial is certainly on its way - its now time for the entire WA to voice their opinion on, what I hope you will find, a suitable replacement for the recently repealed Fair Trial resolution.

My sincere thanks to those who have expressed their support, and to those who will. Looking forward to the upcoming discussion.

_________________
CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

Given the serious implications of article 8, we feel that we have no choice but to vote against this proposal. The right to cross-examine a witness is fundamental to the fairness of the trial process. If a witness is unwilling to be cross-examined by defence counsel he or she should not be called by the prosecution.

Signed

Markus Berens,
Foreign Minister

Given the serious implications of article 8, we feel that we have no choice but to vote against this proposal. The right to cross-examine a witness is fundamental to the fairness of the trial process. If a witness is unwilling to be cross-examined by defence counsel he or she should not be called by the prosecution.

Signed

Markus Berens,
Foreign Minister


the government of the emperor of urgench wishes to associate itself with the comments of the honoured ambassador for Bakamyht, we have expressed our concern over clause 8 before.

yours e.t.c. Mongkha, khan of kashgar, ambassador to the world assembly for Urgench

I rise today to express my nations support for this resolution and to cast my vote for it.

This resolution closely mirrors and complements our own right to fair hearing and trial that we feel is a perfect fit for our nation.

We commend it's authors and contributors.

Ambassador Nigel S Youlkin
The United States of Philimbesi

'This resolution with some reservations expressed by Parliament shall recieve the support of the Toreynan Government. We reserve the right to if possible table amendments depending on the successfulness of the resolution and its impact on our justice system.
We regret to inform the honoured ambassador that this is not a right she may reserve. Resolutions cannot be amended. The only recourse if you determine that some provision is unacceptable is to repeal the entire resolution and submit a replacement.

The dominion of Wurmald would like to congratulate The Narnian Council on such a good proposal, and agrees with the KSPP, our fears have now been dispelled. Thank you narnian council:D

Undue delay may occur? Twenty four hours without knowing reasons for arrest?

Don't think so.

I'd suggest immediate reasons for arrest and changing undue delay for a given ammount of time for each type of accusation.

Iberian Free States P.M.

We accept your congratulations with much appreciation, both of you. Whereabouts would you like to see further clarification, good representative for Tatec, and/or what suggestions might you have?
________________
CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

The prisoners in flagrant should be immediately executed after his arrest, the villain is right to go against society and the social good, the Holy Empire of Brazil Northern NOT MADE TO MEASURE adopt to benefit criminals
It bandit GOOD is bandit DEAD

Gabriel Bertochi dos Santos
Emperor of Brasil do Norte

It is my Government's dearly-held position that, while the W.A. is a powerful tool for good in the world, because of its extreme power, it ought to exercise similarly extreme restraint. Those things which are always evil ought to be prohibited, and those rights which can only be considered fundamental--that is, inseparable from the very concept of human liberty--ought to be enforced on all member nations. However, if one single nation has its alternative but entirely just and legitimate system overturned by the W.A.'s imposition of its own standards upon the world, then the W.A. has overstepped its boundaries.

The people of Lost Cove are well-familiar with the system of "quriltai" employed by the nation of Urgench--it has formed the basis of many a classroom discussion in civics concerning the fundamental requirements of a functional and impartial justice system. We think it would be not merely an unfair imposition on the Emperor's government to eliminate the quirltai, but also a significant blow to global diversity.

The people of Lost Cove commend the Council of Narnia and its delegate for composing this resolution. We note that, should the resolution be passed, it would have no direct effect on our justice system. However, in solidarity with the people of Urgench, this delegation feels it must abstain from voting in its favor. We respect all parties in this matter, and hope that an injustice may still be eveitable, even at this late date.

Ambassador Doraan T. Dhakaar
Senior Voting Delegate to the W.A.
Grand Duchy of Lost Cove

It is my Government's dearly-held position that, while the W.A. is a powerful tool for good in the world, because of its extreme power, it ought to exercise similarly extreme restraint. Those things which are always evil ought to be prohibited, and those rights which can only be considered fundamental--that is, inseparable from the very concept of human liberty--ought to be enforced on all member nations. However, if one single nation has its alternative but entirely just and legitimate system overturned by the W.A.'s imposition of its own standards upon the world, then the W.A. has overstepped its boundaries.

The people of Lost Cove are well-familiar with the system of "quriltai" employed by the nation of Urgench--it has formed the basis of many a classroom discussion in civics concerning the fundamental requirements of a functional and impartial justice system. We think it would be not merely an unfair imposition on the Emperor's government to eliminate the quirltai, but also a significant blow to global diversity.

The people of Lost Cove commend the Council of Narnia and its delegate for composing this resolution. We note that, should the resolution be passed, it would have no direct effect on our justice system. However, in solidarity with the people of Urgench, this delegation feels it must abstain from voting in its favor. We respect all parties in this matter, and hope that an injustice may still be eveitable, even at this late date.

Ambassador Doraan T. Dhakaar
Senior Voting Delegate to the W.A.
Grand Duchy of Lost Cove


the government of the emperor of urgench cannot thank the highly honoured and respected ambassador for the Grand Duchy of Lost Cove enough for their noble defence of our nations traditional institutions. your good sense and innate morality shine out in your words. if this organisation can encourage such eminent wisdom and farsightedness as you have shown then it's work will swiftly be at an end.

his divine majesty the emperor wishes us to extend to the esteemed ambassador Dhakaar our nations greatest honour, the order of the Golden Arrow, along with his personal felicitations to your people and government.
his august mother, the dowager empress Sorghakhtani, wishes us to make it plane that the citizens of your great nation are as brothers and sisters to us and may always recieve welcome and assistance among us.
we are currently very concerned that an era of inter-tribal strife and national upheaval are at hand due to the provisions of this resolution, the greater part of which is already compatible with our ancient and we believe highly fair system of justice.
we mourn the passing of our nations traditions and it's peace.


may the horde of the Grand Duchy of Lost Cove ride swift across the plain for all time,

yours in filial goodwill, Mongkha, khan of kashgar, ambassador to the world assembly for urgench

I wish to thank the representative of Gobbannium for providing us with this information, which has been passed onto The Commonwealth Parliament.

The Office of International & Corporate Affairs beleives that this issue of non amendment will not affect The Commonwealths support of the planned proposal but we are urging that our support for the World Assembly be lessened.

Though we would also like to point out to our esteemed Colleague that there is another option that effectively makes all World Assembly proposals null and void to the Commonwealth of Toreyna.

Undue delay may occur?
While we dislike many elements of this proposal, we must in all fairness point out that it is quite explicit that undue delay may not occur. The words that the honoured ambassador has noted are part of the definition of "undue delay", specifically the period of time during which nations must be vigilant to prevent delay. The wording was our suggestion, and in retrospect may not have been the most felicitous.

I'd suggest immediate reasons for arrest
We would be inclined to agree with this viewpoint, but without any provision preventing people being held without charge for more than a short period of time the matter is minor.

As I said earlier, this resolution is ridiculous Human Rights for people decent villain is good bandit killed

Our great nation has very strict standards of guilt and community policing we all try to get along and encourage reform rather then detention. This resolution neglects this entire style of governance. If someone goes around robbing people other citizens will stop them restore the stolen property and explain that behavior isn't welcome in the community encouraging people to ask for help if they need it. If that doesn't work the community will exile the individual refusing good and services and if they continue to remain toss them out of town. These individuals have formed their own communities in our great where they steal from each other and the community does not object.
While our nation is eager to get a long with the world community we do not believe that our citizens should be forced to live under one national law and court system. Given that this resolution is assuming a government structure that is more centralized then some of its member nations we are urging more time for discussion on the topic. There is no reason to rush a resolution to the floor that will uproot many smaller nations entire system of law and justice, there is more then one way to provide a fair trial.
The specific provisions we think should be reconsidered are:

4. All persons are entitled to call upon the assistance of a lawyer, not already involved in the current trial proceedings, of their choice to protect and establish their rights and to defend them in all stages of criminal proceedings. ) If the arrested lacks readily available finances/assets to afford legal assistance, it becomes the government’s liability to ensure that the arrested acquires a reasonably adequate defense counsel, before the trial commences - as provided by, but not limited to, government funding or a charitable organization.

Why does the law need to be so complicated it requires a trained specialist could not a pamphlet with individuals rights and options available in any languages that are spoken within the region be an acceptable alternative.

4. The accused has the right to a public hearing.

In order not to shame individuals (which admittedly the resolution covers in their right to waive this) and sometimes for the privacy of the victim (specifically in rape trials) that a private hearing is beneficial.

9. The accused has the right to understand the proceedings and to be understood through means of an interpreter translating in their native form of communication.

We have had situations where individuals spoke a foreign tongue not known to any in the area, they may know our language and be able to understand things fine however the additional requirement to provide interpreter in their native form of communication may be unworkable and provide a loop-hole that can be exploited by individuals who do not value getting along as much as we do.

I hope that other nations will consider this resolution and not ask is a fair trial a good thing, but rather is this resolution the most effective international law to ensure a fair trial in all member states without disrupting other fair judicial systems in existence.

I'd like to thank Gobbannium for their explanation on article 2. I had interpreted (i) as cases where undue delay were permitted, and not as a further explanation of what undue delay is.

I still don't think I'd personally like to be arrested for a whole day without anyone telling me why I am being held captive... the First Ladie's psycho ex-boyfriend who is a cop could arrest me for a whole day ever time he felt like harassing her without even having to explain why he does so. (and don't tell me he'd get in trouble for doing so, remember hes a psycho, he wouldn't care...)

This resolution, nevertheless, will have my countrie's approval.

IFS P.M

Any accused should have the right to confront his accusers, and to cross-examine them, regardless of whether the accuser consents to such cross examination. I propose the following amendment:

"The defendant shall have the right to cross-examine any witness who offers testimony against him."

Also, I do not believe that the defendant's ability to call witnesses who possess exculpatory information should be subject to the witness' consent. Instead, the defendant should have compulsory process (or subpoena power) for obtaining witnesses in his favor. This is because the government's interest in avoiding the conviction of an innocent outweighs an individual's interest in avoiding the inconvenience of making an appearance at a trial. Proposed amendment:

"The defendant shall have the right to subpoena favorable witnesses."

Thankyou for considering my proposed amendments.

I suggest that this resolution is not approved, which allow each country considers its criminals to their form, I who have conscience and reprovem this measure, I support the immediate punishment of criminals with death at the site of the crime. Then let my country continue, or it left me no choice than to leave WA because I will not tolerate anything that will bring benefits to criminals.

Gabriel Bertochi
Emperor of Brasil do Norte

Narnian Council,

We at the People's Republic of Socialist New America are glad to know you are committed to improving our justice system. We have voted for and will support your resolution.

The People's Republic of SNA

A fair trial that does not incorporate the right to cross-examine witnesses and denies recognition of appeals is no fair trial. Also, there exists an enormous problem with regards to those deemed mentally incompetent as they will retain the right to understand their trial procedures but not the ability, and they will retain the right to waive this right but not the competence. Finally, when did a tribunal provide a more fair trial than that of a jury of one's peers? This law, while laudable for its intentions, nevertheless falls far short of establishing a fair trial in actuality. I am afraid, given these grave reservations, I must vote against such legislation. It is far better to vote down such legislation than allow a charade of justice to gain legitimacy through the World Assembly.

Salzland is utterly tickled pink to offer its support to this resolution, in the hopes of securing the right to a fair trial.

thank the most honourable Narnian Council, and, the Dourian embassy for their efforts to construct such broad legislation to protect the innocent.

However, The Most Serene Republic of Coffeeholics can not in good faith endorse such a micro-managing solution that clearly intrudes on the custom and legal systems of locales. For example, the trickle down effect on our own republic, whereby the federal gov't is sharply curtailed and states are not, nor counties, parishes, etc down to small towns, is simply too extreme.

There is simply no possible way for two members of an international body to properly assess the norms and values of cultures without introducing their own biases. Biases, that, will ultimately conflict, and, even contradict the way normative government functions via the will of the people.

We of The Most Serene Republic of Coffeeholics encourage all WA members, regardless of altruistic bent, to vote against such a micro-managed solution that does not take in consideration the established rights, or, lack thereof in all Nation States.

Sei-I Taishōgun Caf Feine

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii, may the Cute One be praised

We rise in support of this fine proposal. Noting the esteemed representitive of Coffeeholics' concerns, we wish to state that our Prophet has found no contradictions between this proposal and the Law and customs of our people.

it is the right of all nations, not to have civil rights forced on their people. Just as you may not want your people forced into labor camps mining gold to build elaborate and completely unnecessary palaces, many of us don't want our people forced into becoming weak and lazy through civil rights. This resolution must be stopped.

Criminals should be tortured and put to death, and criminals should be whoever a nation's leaders decide they are. Trials are expensive, and time consuming, especially when the accused must be proven guilty and afforded legal councel. Plus, if criminals think they have a chance of getting off with a lighter punishment, or no punishment at all, crime rates will skyrocket. In my nation crime is virtually unknown, and this is a much greater benefit to my people that a few silly civil rights.

If you give people civil rights they'll start to believe they matter in this world and dictators such as myself will begin to lose the grip we have on them through fear and suffering. Please, we have rights too, like the right to have whatever I want, when I want, how I want, and to decide what is right and wrong, on a whim if need be.

Please, think about the dictators!!!:D

Undue delay may occur? Twenty four hours without knowing reasons for arrest?This is not as uncommon as you might think. The proverbial "drunk tank" takes advantage of just such allowances. Such a delay allows the police to hold someone long enough for them to calm down (or sober up) without charging them with a crime. The relatively short period of time prevents abuse. Eliminating this discretion would force police to charge such people.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/Verm.jpg
Vermithrax Pejorative
WA Observer
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

We of The Most Serene Republic of Coffeeholics encourage all WA members, regardless of altruistic bent, to vote against such a micro-managed solution that does not take in consideration the established rights, or, lack thereof in all Nation States.

We appreciate your commendation, but I'd like to respectfully point out one major problem with this stance. The World Assembly is an international organization that seeks to lay down the rules for all its members. Unity. Peace. (Well, we try).

For those nations that are worried about the incompatibility of their justice systems with the concept of Fair Criminal Trial, or in fact their incompatibility with any other standard set, your worries can vanish with just one click of a button. "Resign from WA".

Unreasonably flexible excuses for legislation, like the last one that just passed, defeats the purpose of The World Assembly's existence.

Criminals should be tortured and put to death, and criminals should be whoever a nation's leaders decide they are...dictators such as myself will begin to lose the grip we have on them through fear and suffering.

My point exactly. This is Gu Jian Shan's 'customs and accepted practice'. And this is why Fair Criminal Trial has been submitted - because it should not (and hopefully 'will not') be in the WA's interest to allow their members to continue such traditions.

Your nation is certainly entitled to that opinion, just not while you're wearing the green badge and flying the WA banner.
________________
CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

I can't support a purported human rights legislation which provides for the nullification of all rights set out in it.

In specific, 10. The accused may waive any of the above rights.renders the entire document useless.

We appreciate your commendation, but I'd like to respectfully point out one major problem with this stance. The World Assembly is an international organization that seeks to lay down the rules for all its members. Unity. Peace. (Well, we try).

For those nations that are worried about the incompatibility of their justice systems with the concept of Fair Criminal Trial, or in fact their incompatibility with any other standard set, your worries can vanish with just one click of a button. "Resign from WA".

Unreasonably flexible excuses for legislation, like the last one that just passed, defeats the purpose of The World Assembly's existence.



My point exactly. This is Gu Jian Shan's 'customs and accepted practice'. And this is why Fair Criminal Trial has been submitted - because it should not (and hopefully 'will not') be in the WA's interest to allow their members to continue such traditions.

Your nation is certainly entitled to that opinion, just not while you're wearing the green badge and flying the WA banner.
________________
CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia



the government of the emperor of urgench is concerned at the tone the most highly respected delegate for the Narnian council is taking in this debate. it seems that the honoured Lord Chancellor thinks the w.a. is saying
" impliment Narnian modes of justice or leave the w.a." , the lack of concern for differing points of view or cultural heterogeneity diplayed in the debates that led this resolution to quorum are once again to the fore. the honoured delegate seems intent on a mission of cultural "ethnic cleansing" wiping out systems of justice that do not conform to his regions norms, regardless of their merits. to imply that to dissagree with this resolution is to disagree with the concept of fair trial is falacious indeed and to trample on cultural and social diversity with so much arrogance is folly!
the streets of urgench are currently ringing to the sound of riots, as our nations ancient traditions and rights face prorogation. will the Narnian council assist us in preventing an inter-ethnic war that will likely ensue when their poorly negotiated resolution finally destroys our nations judicial integrity? we fear not.

UNITY DOES NOT COME FROM CONFORMITY TO DICTATE

yours e.t.c. Mongkha, khan of kashgar, ambassador to the world assembly for urgench

Though Salzland supports this resolution as an effective replacement to the previous Fair Trial protections, we also agree that the vigorous calls and pressure to "Vote for or Leave the WA" that have been present in other resolutions at the very least, certainly violate the spirit of the World Assembly, if not the letter of its governing regulations.

This body should be working to persuade nations to better themselves, not seek to act as a rubber stamping organization where opponents to any resolution are pressured to resign their seats. The World Assembly stands as a way for all nations to have their voices heard, even if they are far in the minority, and all nations have the opportunity to (at least) attempt to effect WA policy in what manner they can.

We must not forget the rights of today's minorities, lest they become tomorrow's majorities (as is entirely possible in any republican form of government, such as the World Assembly) and equally oppress us.

Thank you for your time.

This is not as uncommon as you might think. The proverbial "drunk tank" takes advantage of just such allowances. Such a delay allows the police to hold someone long enough for them to calm down (or sober up) without charging them with a crime. The relatively short period of time prevents abuse. Eliminating this discretion would force police to charge such people.

That rather depends on your definitions. In many places, we believe the honoured observer will find that the occupants of the drunk tank have not in fact been arrested, and are instead being held without trial. This resolution affects that state of affairs not at all.

Personally we are rather more worried about the complete openness required by this resolution. We are not entirely frivolously considering training a cadre of inept spies whose job is to be caught, tried, and subpoena the confidential documents they were attempting to steal.

1. The accused must be granted, without discrimination, the right of equal access to a court.Depends on what is meant by discrimination as certain crimes are not tried in an open court for more see later comments on specific areas.
2. The accused has the right to a trial without undue delay.
i) ‘Undue delay’ may occur between the time the accused is arrested, and the time when the judgment is passed – and may be caused by any negligence on the part of the prosecutor(s)/defendant(s) in the gathering of evidence, on the part of the government and/or on the part of the court in administering the case. The assessment of which will depend upon the circumstances of the case, which includes, but is not limited to, the case’s complexity, and the conduct of the accused and/or the authorities.Here they are tried and convicted in 72 hours from the time they are charged with a crime; and both sides has equal time to prepare for the trial..
3. The accused has the right to a fair and impartial hearingThe only persons allowed it the trail or the Judges, accused, accusor, witnesses, lawyers (one per side). All maters around the trail are closed until a convection and if the person is found not guilty then all materials regarding the trail are closed and only subject to be opened again if said person is accused of similuar crimes relating to the charged crime.
4. The accused has the right to a public hearing.We close trials to protect all involved as well as protect national security in matters where it may be effected.
5. The accused has the right to a competent and impartial tribunal that exercises both procedural and adjudicatorial fairness.Out Judges are thus so we see no problems here.
6. The accused has the right to adequate time, that is, enough time to have access to evidence according to the complexity of the case, and adequate facilities, that is, the accused and defense counsel must be granted appropriate information, files and documents necessary for the preparation of a defense and that the defendant must be provided with facilities enabling communication, in confidentiality, with the defense counsel.[QUOTE]Trial starts 72 hours after charges brought. Both sides have to present evidence and have the same time to collect it. Evidence marked Top Secret or other for national serurity may be held from the trial or only those portions of it that pertain to trail shall be used. Neither side will have free access to secure documents or materials that could result in disclosure of material related to national security.
[QUOTE]7. The accused has the right to defend oneself in person or through legal counsel.If they can pay for consel then they can use one lawyer as counsel in the trial how many they have supporting that one outside the trial is dependent on how much they can pay.
8. The accused has the right to have a witness examined by legal counsel on their behalf, if the witness consents.Again one counsel each side and tree judges is all that are involved and all must under our laws be present during any questioning of witnesses.
9. The accused has the right to understand the proceedings and to be understood through means of an interpreter translating in their native form of communication.That is the only additional person allowed in a trail is an interpreter when needed.
10. The accused may waive any of the above rights.This we like as many here hope to get lesser sentences by talking and not going to trail but if they do the crime and are found guilty or admit guilt the sentences are the same.

This to us has to many ways a terrorist can get accused of a crime and breach national security by claiming they need certain materials or names of persons as witnesses and thus expose these persons and gain access to documents that contain sensitive materials to national security.

Example: You find explosives in my home and believe that I'm a terrorist:
I under this can request and from what see you must provide me with the methods in which you came to find I had explosives in my home. Thus I may do time in prison and my fellow terrorist who follow the open trail get names and procedures used to catch me. So people who would strap bombs on them to kill would not be below doing something to expose procedures for tracking and catching them. As also under this I and my lawyers-counsel can drag this out for years demanding documents and names...

4. The accused has the right to a public hearing.
I agree with the honerable Civerra on this issue;

Allthough this is not a large problem, as many criminals should be publicly embarassed.
What of the innocent? Regaurdless of the outcome of the trial, innocent or otherwise, the accused shall be harassed as being the person for being "tried for murder" as an example.
Such has been the case over and over again in numerous trials within our glorious Covenant Empire.
Thus, it is in the counsel's opinion, that the accused have the right to a confidential trial unless officially proven guilty of said crimes, to avoid potentially damaging an innocent individual's reputation.
Of course, the accused's and the victim's family will be permitted entrance to view the outcome, however, other individuals of lesser importance should not be allowed to enter.

I would like to remind the honerable delegates in the WA, that we live in a social enviroment where, mass public opinion defines whom we are rather than what we as an individual believe. If the public believe an innocent man a killer, then a killer he shall be wherever he goes, regaurdless of his innocence.
Thus, the High Counsel within the Covenant Empire remains divided on the official government stance of this particular issue.
Representative of the High Counsel of the Covenant Empire, and Foreign Relations Minister;
Prophet of Intellect

Intangelon and Cascadia hereby WITHDRAW their support for this resolution and vote AGAINST it.

We were...uh...aw screw it. We were drunk and confused the title of this Narnian elitism with the far superior Gobbanium resolution, "Fair Trial Proceedings". THAT's the one we'd rather see enacted.







No more of that filthy elderflower stuff EVER again.

Intangelon and Cascadia hereby WITHDRAW their support for this resolution and vote AGAINST it.

We were...uh...aw screw it. We were drunk and confused the title of this Narnian elitism with the far superior Gobbanium resolution, "Fair Trial Proceedings". THAT's the one we'd rather see enacted.

we congratulate the eminent ambassador for Intangelon for their excellent good sense and there perfect description of this utterly despotic resolution.


yours e.t.c. Mongkha, khan of kashgar, anbassador to the world assembly for urgench

The Commonwealth of Wollensky cannot vote for this resolution. We will either vote against or abstain.

The accused should have the right to have a witness cross-examined, NOT only if the witness approves. (Section 8 of "The Hearing")

Dear Narnian Council,

What is your position on the importance of a defendant's right to confront his/her accuser?

The Holy Empire of The Even Newer Rome has two principal objections to the language in "Fair Trial".

Firstly, and most significantly, a witness should not have the opportunity to evade cross-examination.

Secondly, there are instances in which all of part of a hearing may not be entirely appropriately disclosed to the public. Two examples come to mind immediately: (a) accusations of sexual abuse of children, in which the interests of the child would better be served by reduced publicity as well as the interests of any innocent accused of such a heinous crime; and (b) incidents in which information that would be secret but for the events at issue in the hearing are relevant to the outcome of the hearing.

The WA should do better than the language proposed.

impliment Narnian modes of justice or leave the w.a.

Khan Mongkha, thats not the case at all. It seems you jump to the conclusion that the justice system laid out in Fair Criminal Trial, is identical to that of The Narnian Council. My word is law in The Narnian Council, and I personally judge the accused, and the arrested practically has no rights - but relies upon me to administer justice in a wise and fair manner. Those that I cannot judge because of availability issues, I hand over to judges that have been under training for 10 years and proven their wisdom and impartiality in such matters. Quite different, isn't it?

But we are willing to lay aside our nation's traditions for the betterment of The World Assembly, because we wisely realize that such a justice system certainly won't work correctly in other nations where ordinary human beings with their prejudices, bias and corruption can too easily exploit this system.

So, Khan, please. Before you go accusing us of apparently imposing 'our own' system upon the WA, take a look at our justice system beforehand.

And this is my point. In the WA, we have nations practicing one extreme to the other in all situations. Thus, it is a necessity that some nations, like myself, give up their 'customs' so that the body in its entirety can improve by eliminating truly unacceptable practices. That is the nature of the WA, and that is why I state - the 'resign' button is always available for those who don't like this alternative.

4. The accused has the right to a public hearing.

To accommodate for genuine embarrassment or other such issues, I've included clause 10, which allows the accused to close the trial off from the public.

As for national security, this is an issue I truly worked hard upon finding a middle ground for. Consider this statement:

"The accused has the right to a public hearing, except where the public nature of the given trial poses significant threat to national security."

Unfortunately, if I included this, it would be a gaping loophole for all dictators across the world to exploit. [OOC: Stalin, Hitler, Castro come to mind]. It would give them the right to close trials down to the public because "national security" might supposedly be at risk.

In regards to the representative of Cavirra's concerns about terrorists - here's a possible solution... The recently passed anti-terrorism act might be repealed, and a far more competent one be submitted that can address this issue. We'll certainly make it our priority to be in touch with whoever will be drafting the replacement.

__________________
CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

We of The Most Serene Republic of Coffeeholics find the Narnian Council's recommendation to "Love it or Leave" confirmation of the biases so causing us concern--indeed, The Narnian Council even sees fit to tell a member nation what opinion it can and cannot hold is enough for any reasonable member state to withdraw their endorsement of such a controlling state.

Unless this embassy is mistaken, the point of the WA is not to rubberstamp resolutions and laws with no dissent, nor "lay down the laws and rules", nor not micromanage internal customs and thus intrude on the due rights of the citizens of the member states,
but seek greater cooperation on international issues.

That said, we must consider The Narnian Council's invitation to leave as reason to stay and continue to strive toward change. We can promise The Narnian Council that should this resolution pass, we will seek to influence delegates and campaign for repeal.

Unless we are greiviously misguided, this is fully within the right of any member country.

We again, voice our opposition to this bill, again, voice our position that other member nations vote against it, and, serve notice we will seek to repeal it should it pass.


Sei-I Taishogun Caf Feine

We appreciate your commendation, but I'd like to respectfully point out one major problem with this stance. The World Assembly is an international organization that seeks to lay down the rules for all its members. Unity. Peace. (Well, we try).

For those nations that are worried about the incompatibility of their justice systems with the concept of Fair Criminal Trial, or in fact their incompatibility with any other standard set, your worries can vanish with just one click of a button. "Resign from WA". "

Unreasonably flexible excuses for legislation, like the last one that just passed, defeats the purpose of The World Assembly's existence.



My point exactly. This is Gu Jian Shan's 'customs and accepted practice'. And this is why Fair Criminal Trial has been submitted - because it should not (and hopefully 'will not') be in the WA's interest to allow their members to continue such traditions.

Your nation is certainly entitled to that opinion, just not while you're wearing the green badge and flying the WA banner.
________________
CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

/applause from the embassy of Coffeeholics

Though Salzland supports this resolution as an effective replacement to the previous Fair Trial protections, we also agree that the vigorous calls and pressure to "Vote for or Leave the WA" that have been present in other resolutions at the very least, certainly violate the spirit of the World Assembly, if not the letter of its governing regulations.

This body should be working to persuade nations to better themselves, not seek to act as a rubber stamping organization where opponents to any resolution are pressured to resign their seats. The World Assembly stands as a way for all nations to have their voices heard, even if they are far in the minority, and all nations have the opportunity to (at least) attempt to effect WA policy in what manner they can.

We must not forget the rights of today's minorities, lest they become tomorrow's majorities (as is entirely possible in any republican form of government, such as the World Assembly) and equally oppress us.

Thank you for your time.

After reviewing this debate, and being frankly a touch annoyed by the inflexible and even arrogant attitude of the Narnian representative concerning the traditions and judicial practice of other nations, the Altan Steppes has decided to cast its vote against this resolution, unless requested to do otherwise by our region. We don't see that happening, either.

The WA does, and should, have the right to override national traditions and practices when warranted. However, it should never do so cavalierly, or disrespectfully. Everything the WA does should balance the need for international legislation with the simple respect to honor the traditions, cultures and history of its member states. We see no such respect here.

We would also like to point out that just as flexibility is not always desirable, inflexibility is not either.

Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

It is Kinstantia's formal position to vote against this resolution. The fact of the matter is that we believe it is not in the best interest of the World Assembly to impose anything that a free nation would consider "fair" on a nation that may not be as free that would consider this resolution "unfair."

Rogue nations, Monarchies, Dictatorships, etc... all have their own forms of trails and trial laws. This bill is simply a way for the WA to impose it's own form of freedom on all nations of the world.

Kinstantia is a free and democratic nation. Everyone in Kinstantia is guaranteed the right to a fair, speedy, public trial and to a jury of their peers. All persons in Kinstantia are guaranteed a right to a lawyer, to make phone calls, to communicate with the outside word, etc... and so on.

There is not any doubt in our mind that this resolution should be voted against and a new bill submitted that would allow each nation its own version of a fair trial. To assume that any nation doesn't hold fair trials under their own laws is a violation of their sovereignty.

Sincerely,

William Crystal,
Kinstantian Delegate to the WA

After reviewing this debate, and being frankly a touch annoyed by the inflexible and even arrogant attitude of the Narnian representative concerning the traditions and judicial practice of other nations, the Altan Steppes has decided to cast its vote against this resolution, unless requested to do otherwise by our region. We don't see that happening, either.

The WA does, and should, have the right to override national traditions and practices when warranted. However, it should never do so cavalierly, or disrespectfully. Everything the WA does should balance the need for international legislation with the simple respect to honor the traditions, cultures and history of its member states. We see no such respect here.

We would also like to point out that just as flexibility is not always desirable, inflexibility is not either.

Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador


the government of the emperor of urgench cannot but be struck by the great wisdom and evident goodness exspressed in the words of the most excellent and most highly honoured ambassador for the Altan Steppes.
they represent what is most noble and what is most decent in this organisation, we can only hope that it's future is in such hands as theirs, and not in the hands of those who's policies are tyrany and control.
it may interest this organisation to know that a very great federation of Altaic and Tungusic tribes has arisen in the north of our nation, their aim is to overthrow his divine majesty our emperor, to resign us from the world assembly and reintroduce the forms of justice, so casualy swept aside by the respected delegation for the Narnian council, which they and their ancestors have known for thousands of years.
this system which has defended the rights of our people and protected them from undue or unwarranted persecution and given every urgenchi fair justice
and equality before the law since before the reckoning of time is gone. the ancient tribal competition which for centuries has been kept at bay and driven much of what is good in our culture will now turn to hatred and mistrust once again. we cannot tell to what effect.

yours in sadness

a touch annoyed by the inflexible and even arrogant attitude of the Narnian representative concerning the traditions and judicial practice of other nations,

Please understand, good representative for The Altan Steppes, that we in no way mean disrespect, or attempt display an 'arrogant' mindset towards the cultural traditions of various nations. In fact, we have rather unselfishly laid aside our very own traditions in favor of improving WA standards...we of all nations understand the implications most precisely.

Cultural heritage is a very important factor of every nation. It defines who are, and what we represent. However, what we are saying is, it would be very unwise to allow leaders to administer justice simply according to whatever their 'traditions' are - because that is an incredibly broad statement. Granted, there are many nations who have glorious traditions, and uphold excellent standards. But on the flipside, there are just as many nations in existence that inflict pain and suffering upon their people, and maintain that this is simply their 'tradition'.

So yes, it does strike us odd that some other governments in the WA would prefer to hold to their own local customs in preference over seeing a vast improvement of fairness of justice for other WA nations that truly lack it. But that is as far as our disagreement goes. We don't mean to dismiss any nation's customs as unimportant or irrelevant - as I have stated before, our nation is one of those that has well-and-truly felt its substantial impact. I personally express my apologies for allowing an uncaring implication to be felt from my recent words - this does not accurately reflect our thoughts at all.

So, if its the actual system in question that you object to, lets discuss matters in regards to that, instead.
________________
CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

Please understand, good representative for The Altan Steppes, that we in no way mean disrespect, or attempt display an 'arrogant' mindset towards the cultural traditions of various nations. In fact, we have rather unselfishly laid aside our very own traditions in favor of improving WA standards...we of all nations understand the implications most precisely.

Cultural heritage is a very important factor of every nation. It defines who are, and what we represent. However, what we are saying is, it would be very unwise to allow leaders to administer justice simply according to whatever their 'traditions' are - because that is an incredibly broad statement. Granted, there are many nations who have glorious traditions, and uphold excellent standards. But on the flipside, there are just as many nations in existence that inflict pain and suffering upon their people, and maintain that this is simply their 'tradition'.

So yes, it does strike us odd that some other governments in the WA would prefer to hold to their own local customs in preference over seeing a vast improvement of fairness of justice for other WA nations that truly lack it. But that is as far as our disagreement goes. We don't mean to dismiss any nation's customs as unimportant or irrelevant - as I have stated before, our nation is one of those that has well-and-truly felt its substantial impact. I personally express my apologies for allowing an uncaring implication to be felt from my recent words - this does not accurately reflect our thoughts at all.

So, if its the actual system in question that you object to, lets discuss matters in regards to that, instead.
________________
CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia


the government of the emperor of urgench notices without surprise that the respected Delegate for the Narnian Council ignores those voices of dissent of which it considers beneath it's condescention

obviously the respected delegate feels the Narnians have made sacrifice enough to their ambition, and now it is time for others to pay instead.

our system DID GUARANTEE THE ACCUSEDS RIGHT TO HAVE THEIR ACCUSER BE CROSS EXAMINED BY THEIR LEGAL COUNCIL, SUBJECT TO CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS, THAT MANIFESTLY FAIR RIGHT IS NOW GONE.
there are numerous other decent legal entitlements of our and many many other nations legal systems that have been done away with by the folly of this resolution, but this seems to pale in to insignificance before the crusade of the Narnian council to enforce their vision on a recalcitrant and we suspect imaginary horde of wicked and unjust nations.

the turmoil in our nation caused by this resolution continues, and yet we remain as steadfast in our commitment to this organisation as ever.

yours e.t.c.

I do not agree with this resolution one bit. For one reason their criminals, they are suppose to be repaying a debt to society that they owe. Besides if we give them this, next thing you know were giving them cable television in there cells. Then there cells will have nice furniture and X-Boxes and other such items. I'm just saying if you give them freedoms then their only going to start prison gangs and make $60,000 while their in jail. Incarceration is about punishment not employment. If people aren't treated fairly when being punished then maybe they wont want to commit crimes anymore.

I do not agree with this resolution one bit. For one reason their criminals, they are suppose to be repaying a debt to society that they owe. Besides if we give them this, next thing you know were giving them cable television in there cells. Then there cells will have nice furniture and X-Boxes and other such items. I'm just saying if you give them freedoms then their only going to start prison gangs and make $60,000 while their in jail. Incarceration is about punishment not employment. If people aren't treated fairly when being punished then maybe they wont want to commit crimes anymore.

The General Secretary of the KSPP notes your argument but is curious as to which part of this resolution you feel will allow for "cushy lives" for prisoners. Our nation firmly believes in the importance of a harsh punishment system for criminals, so what is your argument based upon?

Surely you jest with this proposal - all contact with anyone regardless of their relationship to the accused. I think not. Contact should be limited to council and immediate family otherwise we will be trying all of the cases in the news rather than by a jury. To allow news and other non involved parties to interfere with the judicial process would prevent justice, on either side, from being fair and impartial.

Although the Federation of Vilo finds the language to be a bit lacking in respect to the Narnian representative, we feel obligated to vote to affirm this resolution.

Due to the very fact that some Member Nations of this organization choose not to provide equal and fair treatment to their citizens is enough to make this bill a great equalizer. Who is to protect the rights of the oppressed if a government, in question, will not do it for them? We all can agree that if we were in the situation of oppressed persons, would we not care for this humane and just treatment?

I thank you for your time and ask that the representatives of the World Assembly who have chosen to either abstain or reject the measures of this bill rethink their votes for the good of all humanity and indeed, this organization.

Sincerely,

Quentin Carter, Interim Foreign Minister of Vilo

I do not agree with this resolution one bit. For one reason their criminals, they are suppose to be repaying a debt to society that they owe. Besides if we give them this, next thing you know were giving them cable television in there cells. Then there cells will have nice furniture and X-Boxes and other such items. I'm just saying if you give them freedoms then their only going to start prison gangs and make $60,000 while their in jail. Incarceration is about punishment not employment. If people aren't treated fairly when being punished then maybe they wont want to commit crimes anymore.

Good delegate of the Morel Mushrooms: This resolution does not pave the way for those kinds of things at all. This bill covers the pre-trial period and the trial, as is evident by the two headings within the proposal. If the accused is in fact proven to be a criminal, this does not prevent your nation from dealing with their punishment however they see fit. In no way, shape or form does the text and context of this law determine any action to those who have had their trial and are rightfully convicted. The whole point of this is to ensure that they are in fact rightfully convicted.
_________________
Fotar,
~King of the Talking Foxes of Narnia
~Vice-Chancellor of The Council of Narnia (http://www.nationstates.net/77697/page=display_region/region=the_council_of_narnia)

We of The Most Serene Republic of Coffeeholics--hereby and forever referred to as MSRC b/c it's berloody annoying to keep typing that in RP--would ask the honourable Narnian chancellor, what exactly is "rightfully"?



Good delegate of the Morel Mushrooms: This resolution does not pave the way for those kinds of things at all. This bill covers the pre-trial period and the trial, as is evident by the two headings within the proposal. If the accused is in fact proven to be a criminal, this does not prevent your nation from dealing with their punishment however they see fit. In no way, shape or form does the text and context of this law determine any action to those who have had their trial and are rightfully convicted. The whole point of this is to ensure that they are in fact rightfully convicted.
_________________
Fotar,
~King of the Talking Foxes of Narnia
~Vice-Chancellor of The Council of Narnia (http://www.nationstates.net/77697/page=display_region/region=the_council_of_narnia)

After close examination, the General Secretary of the KSPP has decided that the WSK is going to remain firm in its support. Our arguments are thus put forward:

1. The right to see your family etc are defined as "pre-trial rights". We believe that this will entitle us, the State, to treat prisoners however we so please after they are convicted. People should be treated as innocent until proven guilty. Once they are guilty, their standard civilian rights are forfeit by order of the KSPP.

2. The "hearing rights" all pertain to an actual fair trial which we also endorse. We would regret any harsh punishments falling upon the innocent, so the trial must be as water-tight as possible.

In conclusion, we feel that the "right to a fair trial" ensures that citizens are still treated as citizens up until the point that they are proven guilty.

After close examination, the General Secretary of the KSPP has decided that the WSK is going to remain firm in its support. Our arguments are thus put forward:

1. The right to see your family etc are defined as "pre-trial rights". We believe that this will entitle us, the State, to treat prisoners however we so please after they are convicted. People should be treated as innocent until proven guilty. Once they are guilty, their standard civilian rights are forfeit by order of the KSPP.

2. The "hearing rights" all pertain to an actual fair trial which we also endorse. We would regret any harsh punishments falling upon the innocent, so the trial must be as water-tight as possible.

In conclusion, we feel that the "right to a fair trial" ensures that citizens are still treated as citizens up until the point that they are proven guilty.

The King of the Talking Foxes of Narnia applauds the General Secretary of the KSPP for this well written post. You have hit this proposal's purpose right on and you show your understanding of what it does, and does not encompass. My Kingdom fully agrees with this and hopes that those nations who have gotten distracted with post-trial proceedings will be able to achieve a similar understanding.
_________________
Fotar,
~King of the Talking Foxes of Narnia
~Vice-Chancellor of The Council of Narnia (http://www.nationstates.net/77697/page=display_region/region=the_council_of_narnia)

"1. The arrested shall have the right to be visited by and to correspond with persons of their choice, if that person in question consents, and shall be given adequate opportunity to communicate with the outside world - subject to reasonable conditions and restrictions as specified by law or lawful regulations."

Based off of the very first 'Pre-Trial Right' in this article of legislation, The nation of Sleepy Sleepy is freaking appalled at the sensibility of this legislation and the outrageous ratio of pro to con votes for this piece of legislation. The 'Right' clearly contradicts itself. It guarentees absolutely nothing when it states the whole right is subject to "reasonable conditions and restrictions as specified by law". If the right is subject to 'reason', when that is clearly undefined, then this legislation is an absolute useless piece of dookie.


-The outraged Republic of Sleepy Sleepy

from the office of the grand chancellor of the empire of Urgench

the government of the emperor of urgench wishes to infrom the w.a. that the uprisings in the far north of our country caused by the cultural imperialism of the respected delegation for the Narnian councils resolution have been put down, and not without considerable loss of life.
his divine majesty has been forced in to the invidious position of commanding the urgenchi armed forces to take urgenchi lives for the sake of our continued membership of this organisation. his divine majesty has made this terrible choice because he believes in the mission of peace and international prosperity which this organisation is supposed to foster. his divine majesty believes that posterity will judge him wise and that history will say he made the right choice.

our people are being forced to exchanged an ancient and frankly vastly superior system of justice, the fairness and probity of which is rightly famed for a terribly inferior, lowest common denominator, imposture. our standards of fairness will be lowered by this worthless simulacrum!
all this because we are to be over ruled by the Narnians as though we were some tin pot dictatorship, the insult is not lost upon us.

the respected delegation for the Narnian council does not care who's rights it crushes in persuit of it's all consuming ambition, it has studiously avoided answering our pleas. this monstrous slight will not quikly be forgotten.

the rest of the membership of this organisation should learn well the bitter lesson we have endured; the Narnians have no mercy and do not care who's cultures they destroy, their claims on justice are bogus, their intent is cultural expansion followed by expansion of kinds we may only guess at.

yours in sadness,his excellency Tamerlane, khan of samarkand and bhukhara, Grand chancellor of the empire and Chamberlain of the imperial household of Urgench

The 'Right' clearly contradicts itself. It guarentees absolutely nothing when it states the whole right is subject to "reasonable conditions and restrictions as specified by law". If the right is subject to 'reason', when that is clearly undefined, then this legislation is an absolute useless piece of dookie.

Peroslavia concurs with our esteemed neighbours in Sleepy Sleepy on this, and our main reason for voting against is not that we disagree with the principles of the resolution, but that this should not be a matter for the WA - rather it is for national governments to uphold legal standards as an expression of popular sovereignty.

The Peroslavian government wholeheartedly supports the WA, multilateralism, and all that jazz, but to upload judicial affairs to an international organisation is just plain silly. We too are freaking appalled.

Greetings fellow members I speak for the 501st and my own nation of Sabbat78. We must vote NO. We are tried on wasting time and money for criminal. There trial should be quick, and if need be painless.:sniper:

Lord Jack Griffith

Some of my colleagues in Stornaway raise a good point:

"8. The accused has the right to have a witness examined by legal counsel on their behalf, if the witness consents. "

There are concerns that if this resolution is passed, the prosecutor will have to "politely ask" some people to testify they saw the accused commit whatever crime they're on trial for. Those same witnesses can then refuse the cross examination by the defence, which will make it impossible to ascertain the truth of their statements.

As things stand, the region of Stornaway cannot support this resolution, not matter how well intentioned.

from the office of the grand chancellor of the empire of Urgench

the respected delegation for the Narnian council does not care who's rights it crushes in persuit of it's all consuming ambition, it has studiously avoided answering our pleas. this monstrous slight will not quikly be forgotten.

the rest of the membership of this organisation should learn well the bitter lesson we have endured; the Narnians have no mercy and do not care who's cultures they destroy, their claims on justice are bogus, their intent is cultural expansion followed by expansion of kinds we may only guess at.

yours in sadness,his excellency Tamerlane, khan of samarkand and bhukhara, Grand chancellor of the empire and Chamberlain of the imperial household of Urgench

The King of the Talking Foxes of Narnia strongly objects to this blatent attack on the Narnian Council. As Vice-Chancellor of the Council of Narnia, I have been involved behind the scenes with this since the first Fair Trial law was passed. Therefore, this attack is not only on him, but myself as well.

The Delegate of Urgench has tasted defeat and can not get their way, so they resort to this garbage. Considering the delegate's strong distaste for this proposal, I would strongly recommend that they resign from the World Assembly immediatly. It will make everyone happier. And, if the delegate is not hindered by his defeat, they could even come back after the update is run and not suffer any "ill effects" from this resolution.

To be honest, however, after this attack, I would hope they choose not to.
_________________
Fotar
~King of the Talking Foxes of Narnia
~Vice-Chancellor of The Council of Narnia (http://www.nationstates.net/90729/page=display_region/region=the_council_of_narnia)

4. The accused has the right to a public hearing.

To accommodate for genuine embarrassment or other such issues, I've included clause 10, which allows the accused to close the trial off from the public.

As for national security, this is an issue I truly worked hard upon finding a middle ground for. Consider this statement:

"The accused has the right to a public hearing, except where the public nature of the given trial poses significant threat to national security."

Unfortunately, if I included this, it would be a gaping loophole for all dictators across the world to exploit. [OOC: Stalin, Hitler, Castro come to mind]. It would give them the right to close trials down to the public because "national security" might supposedly be at risk.

In regards to the representative of Cavirra's concerns about terrorists - here's a possible solution... The recently passed anti-terrorism act might be repealed, and a far more competent one be submitted that can address this issue. We'll certainly make it our priority to be in touch with whoever will be drafting the replacement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Then find a clause that will close the loophole.
At the moment, the high counsel of the Covenant Empire have voted to abstain, while there are indeed excellent qualities within this legistlation, this issue must be dealt with.
Regaurdless of what kind of legistlation is passed, there will allways be room for some form of interpretation by another nation.
If you include the clause which you pointed out, the High Counsel of the Covenant Empire will vote in favor.

Representative and foreign minister of the Covenant Empire;
High Prophet of Intellect

REMEMBER -- those currently in the majority are voting for a resolution crafted in arrogance by a Delegate who believes THIS:

For those nations that are worried about the incompatibility of their justice systems with the concept of Fair Criminal Trial, or in fact their incompatibility with any other standard set, your worries can vanish with just one click of a button. "Resign from WA".
________________
CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

In essence, "VOTE FOR THIS OR GET THE HELL OUT OF THE W.A." Not even an attempt to civilly explain how incompatible justice systems might be meshed with his onerous legislation.

Is this the kind of "peaceful cooperation" the W.A. wishes to encourage? I pray not.

Should the Narnian Delegation come to its senses and RETRACT that statement and provide this Assembly with an apology, I would consider a veto of the Cascadian Senate's vigorous attempts to A) censure the Lord Chancellor and B) gather support for a boycott and embargo of Narnia.

I will abide by the Assembly's decision, as I always have, but I will NOT stand by and allow such unbridled bullying of this body. Should this resolution pass, a repeal will be drafted in short order.

After close examination, the General Secretary of the KSPP has decided that the WSK is going to remain firm in its support. Our arguments are thus put forward:

1. The right to see your family etc are defined as "pre-trial rights". We believe that this will entitle us, the State, to treat prisoners however we so please after they are convicted. People should be treated as innocent until proven guilty. Once they are guilty, their standard civilian rights are forfeit by order of the KSPP.
It seems a little strange to us to be judging a proposal concerning pre-trial and at trial rights on post-trial rights, something which it explicitly (and correctly) omits. It matters not whether the honoured General Secretary votes for, against or abstains as regards this.

2. The "hearing rights" all pertain to an actual fair trial which we also endorse. We would regret any harsh punishments falling upon the innocent, so the trial must be as water-tight as possible.
It is our repeated contention that the resolution is somewhat water resistent, but hardly water tight. As it is written, for example, the right to cross-examination is lost.

Further, as it is written this resolution is an active danger to national security. The requirement of openness of the trial and the requirement of the defence being supplied with all pertinent documents regardless of any common sense or confidentiality combine to open a completely legal way of rendering any secret documentation you may care to name open into the public domain.

The King of the Talking Foxes of Narnia strongly objects to this blatent attack on the Narnian Council. As Vice-Chancellor of the Council of Narnia, I have been involved behind the scenes with this since the first Fair Trial law was passed. Therefore, this attack is not only on him, but myself as well.

The Delegate of Urgench has tasted defeat and can not get their way, so they resort to this garbage. Considering the delegate's strong distaste for this proposal, I would strongly recommend that they resign from the World Assembly immediatly. It will make everyone happier. And, if the delegate is not hindered by his defeat, they could even come back after the update is run and not suffer any "ill effects" from this resolution.

To be honest, however, after this attack, I would hope they choose not to.
_________________
Fotar
~King of the Talking Foxes of Narnia
~Vice-Chancellor of The Council of Narnia (http://www.nationstates.net/90729/page=display_region/region=the_council_of_narnia)


the government of the emperor of urgench would like to point out to the world assembly how the Narnians treat any oposition to their policy of cultural domination;
we ask his majesty are the lives of urgenchis who have perished to defend the ideals of the world assembly "garbage" as he so eloquently puts it?
does he expect the government of the emperor of urgench to abandon our membership of the world assembly when we have laid down our lives for the sake of our loyalty to it? are we thanked for this sacrifice we have made for his peoples inadequate ideal of a "fair trial", let alone condoled or comforted for the injury to our noble culture?
we abstained in this vote because we felt it would be immoral to vote against measures which might improve the lot of our fellow nations citizens,despite the detriment to our own peoples standard of justice and the injury to our society and we are told that if we are not happy with the will of the Narnians we must resign the w.a. !

who is this "everyone" of whom his majesty speaks, who would be so delighted with our resignation? we are sure he must mean the other nations of the Council of Narnia, who do not like us pointing out their arrogance and prejudice.

the world assembly will note how the members of the Council of Narnia treat those who oppose their policy of agressive aculturation, "do as we desire or leave!" is their response.

the government of the emperor of urgench notes with sad resignation the personal animus and enmity of his majesty Fotar king of the Narnian Foxes toward our humble people.

yours e,t,c,

REMEMBER -- those currently in the majority are voting for a resolution crafted in arrogance by a Delegate who believes THIS:



In essence, "VOTE FOR THIS OR GET THE HELL OUT OF THE W.A." Not even an attempt to civilly explain how incompatible justice systems might be meshed with his onerous legislation.

Is this the kind of "peaceful cooperation" the W.A. wishes to encourage? I pray not.

Should the Narnian Delegation come to its senses and RETRACT that statement and provide this Assembly with an apology, I would consider a veto of the Cascadian Senate's vigorous attempts to A) censure the Lord Chancellor and B) gather support for a boycott and embargo of Narnia.

I will abide by the Assembly's decision, as I always have, but I will NOT stand by and allow such unbridled bullying of this body. Should this resolution pass, a repeal will be drafted in short order.

I believe you are taking the Lord Chancellor's words way out of context, twisting them into an attack. It is rather simple...you resign right before the law goes into effect, then join back up if you wish.

Furthermore, if you are so concerned over this, where were you in the days that this thread was open while this was being drafted? At least Urgench can claim he was here.

Lastly...are you against this proposal, or against The Lord Chancellor?

Urgench: read above on our comments regarding resigning. As for your continued attacks on The Lord Chancellor, myself, and our region: Why is it you can attack us, blast us and do whatever it is you please, but as soon as someone gives it back a little, you can not deal with that?

My people are very disappointed in the hypocracy shown here; we had hoped that the honorable delegates that grace these halls would not stoop to such personal attacks and contraditcions.
_________________
Fotar
~King of the Talking Foxes of Narnia
~Vice-Chancellor of The Council of Narnia (http://www.nationstates.net/90729/page=display_region/region=the_council_of_narnia)

I believe you are taking the Lord Chancellor's words way out of context, twisting them into an attack. It is rather simple...you resign right before the law goes into effect, then join back up if you wish.

Furthermore, if you are so concerned over this, where were you in the days that this thread was open while this was being drafted? At least Urgench can claim he was here.

Lastly...are you against this proposal, or against The Lord Chancellor?

Urgench: read above on our comments regarding resigning. As for your continued attacks on The Lord Chancellor, myself, and our region: Why is it you can attack us, blast us and do whatever it is you please, but as soon as someone gives it back a little, you can not deal with that?

My people are very disappointed in the hypocracy shown here; we had hoped that the honorable delegates that grace these halls would not stoop to such personal attacks and contraditcions.
_________________
Fotar
~King of the Talking Foxes of Narnia
~Vice-Chancellor of The Council of Narnia (http://www.nationstates.net/90729/page=display_region/region=the_council_of_narnia)


the government of the emperor of urgench contends that his majesty is the one countenancing hypocracy, if he thinks that nations should pick and choose which resolutions they wish to abide by. what chaos would unsue if all nations behaved as his majesty suggests? it would make the work of the the world assembly nothing but a charade and pretence.
if indeed such a course of action would be of any utility in any case since surely all the past resolutions of this organisation prior to our joining are in force in our law no? so how would this spurious dodge change anything?
no it is not for our benefit that his majesty prompts this course, rather his majesty hopes as he has said before that if we resign we will not return.
his majesty wishes to silence dissent and to be left to his regions work of cultural vandalism in peace.
his majesty continues to insult our brave and loyal dead, who's lives were laid down in hope that this organisation would work for the peace and prosperity of all it's members with our governments small assistance.
we urge the w.a. to beware the motives of the council of Narnia, and to fear their ruthless ambition.

yours e.t.c.

The resolution is going to pass.

It's my belief that the proposal in its present form is seriously defective, because it does not guarantee the right to confrontation/cross-examination.

We will need to put together a committee to repeal the bill, and replace it with a substitute that unequivocally grants the defendant the right to confront the accuser(s).

A question I'd like to table is this: Should there be any exceptions to the mandatory confrontation right? Should the defendant be permitted to cross-examine an accusing rape victim concerning her prior sexual history with other men? Should the defense attorney in a child molestation case be granted unlimited permission to cross-examine the complaining witness, if that witness is a child?

I am inclined to favor the rights of the defendant over the rights of the complaining witness. How does the rest of the world assembly feel?

The Holy Empire of Bakamyht would like to register its disgust at the open contempt shown by the Narnian delegate for other nations' opinions. This flies in the face of every principle of international law - consensus based decision making, mutual respect for sovereignty, politeness in diplomatic exchange. Furthermore, we will not be party any longer to an institution which allows measures to be passed by bullying and shout-downs. Our membership of this organisation is resigned with immediate effect.

Signed,

Markus Berens,
Foreign Minister,
Holy Empire of Bakamyht

The Holy Empire of Bakamyht would like to register its disgust at the open contempt shown by the Narnian delegate for other nations' opinions. This flies in the face of every principle of international law - consensus based decision making, mutual respect for sovereignty, politeness in diplomatic exchange. Furthermore, we will not be party any longer to an institution which allows measures to be passed by bullying and shout-downs. Our membership of this organisation is resigned with immediate effect.

Signed,

Markus Berens,
Foreign Minister,
Holy Empire of Bakamyht


the government of the emperor of urgench wishes to beg the wise and noble ambassador to reconsider his great nations position, we at the very least would feel the loss of your nations voice here most accutely.

our government is appalled at the terrible consiquences of the tatics of the council of Narnia, is this the w.a. it envisions?

yours e.t.c.

I would also like to encourage the government of Bakamyht to reconsider their decision. The way to change something undesirable is to stick it out, not to walk away. We hope they will continue fighting the good fight.

And in response to the author's offer to debate the substance of this resolution, rather than their inexplicable attitude, we're happy to take you up on it. Here are our objections to the resolution:

4. The accused has the right to a public hearing.

We fail to understand why every hearing has to be public. There are, in our estimation, many circumstances which warrant a non-public tribunal. We're not trying to give dictatorial states a blanket right to keep things out of the public eye, but we feel this clause is entirely too inflexible. We also have an objection on cultural grounds. In the Altan Steppes constituent state of Argalia, it is common for clans to hash out their judicial issues privately within the clan. Forcing them to do so publicly could cause issues between clans, or force them to abandon their judicial system entirely in favor of using the one adopted in the rest of our Federation. We sympathize with the concerns raised by the Urgenchi, because while we're not facing a revolt over it, we've got 70,168,847 pissed-off Argali who are wondering why the WA is about to pass a resolution that entirely guts their way of doing things - and why our Federation isn't protecting them from it.

8. The accused has the right to have a witness examined by legal counsel on their behalf, if the witness consents.

So, if a witness doesn't consent, they have a blanket right not to testify, even if the accused calls them as a witness, and even if that witness has information which may be vital to the case? We find this unacceptable. Again, we don't want to force people to incriminate themselves, but sometimes it is necessary to compel testimony with the power of the judiciary. People who are guilty of something, or who may have information on a crime but are unwilling to provide it, are naturally not going to consent to testify in most cases. What then?

So...two clauses we find utterly objectionable, coupled with a dismissive "take what we're offering or shove off" attitude. Do we really need to explain our opposition any further?

Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

The government of St Edmund has directed me to vote AGAINST this proposal, because of its abolition of the defence's right to cross-examine witnesses, its total disregard for legitimate matters of national security, and its failure to consider that there might be some other circumstances in which keeping trials closed to the public would genuinely be a good idea.


Alfred Devereux Sweynsson MD,
Speaker Afar to the World Assembly
for the government of
The Kingdom of St Edmund.

We're actually one step ahead of you, representative for Intangelon:

We don't mean to dismiss any nation's customs as unimportant or irrelevant - as I have stated before, our nation is one of those that has well-and-truly felt its substantial impact. I personally express my apologies for allowing an uncaring implication to be felt from my recent words - this does not accurately reflect our thoughts at all.

And in response to the author's offer to debate the substance of this resolution, rather than their inexplicable attitude, we're happy to take you up on it. Here are our objections to the resolution:

Excellent! I'm more than happy to discuss this.

We fail to understand why every hearing has to be public.

Good representative, I must explain again. I don't 'fail' to consider that there are some acceptable reasons for private trials. But I'm not sure you grasp that its near-impossible to construct a clause allowing for this, that doesn't give autocrats the ability to shut trials down to the public upon their whim.

If you can come up with such a clause, both I and the representative of Gobbannium would have accepted it with open arms! Believe me, we worked very hard upon trying to find a middle ground during the drafting process here.

Again, we don't want to force people to incriminate themselves, but sometimes it is necessary to compel testimony with the power of the judiciary.

You are quite right, and I will admit that the wording of this particular clause is a casualty of extensive drafting, the last four words of which have been distorted. However, since your objection lies in the context of the witness, and not the accused, this does not prevent your government from passing law that requires the witness's testimony (as opposed to the accused requiring it) through the setup of a special branch of justice that interviews the witness in question.

*Flips a coin to the expensive lawyer at his side*

"Take what we're offering or shove off" attitude.

I must maintain that this is most certainly taken out of context. If it were as you say, I would not have offered an apology to appease the situation, nor would I be standing here genuinely considering alternatives for compatibility. But we do appreciate that you've made the attempt to bring the discussion back on track.

I would very much like to amiably discuss these matters with you, representative for Urgench, but I fear you've nothing left to say but to hurl abuse and derogatory remarks at our delegation. If you do genuinely wish to present anything of substance, we'd be more than willing to conduct this in a congenial manner.

[OOC: Also Urgench, we find it odd that, although you presumably loathe us - you have taken it upon yourself to sign your words with the same look and fashion as us, and you have just begun calling yourself "The Grand Chancellor". I can only guess that you like our sense of creativity - but we're bewildered that you would apparently 'mimic' someone you have spent the entire week, almost, shouting at. But of course, its your choice. Where's the NS Copyright Agency when you need it? ]

_________________
CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

We're actually one step ahead of you, representative for Intangelon:





Excellent! I'm more than happy to discuss this.



Good representative, I must explain again. I don't 'fail' to consider that there are some acceptable reasons for private trials. But I'm not sure you grasp that its near-impossible to construct a clause allowing for this, that doesn't give autocrats the ability to shut trials down to the public upon their whim.

If you can come up with such a clause, both I and the representative of Gobbannium would have accepted it with open arms! Believe me, we worked very hard upon trying to find a middle ground during the drafting process here.



You are quite right, and I will admit that the wording of this particular clause is a casualty of extensive drafting, the last four words of which have been distorted. However, since your objection lies in the context of the witness, and not the accused, this does not prevent your government from passing law that requires the witness's story (as opposed to the accused requiring it) through the setup of a special branch of justice that interviews the witness in question.



I must maintain that this is most certainly taken out of context. If it were as you say, I would not have offered an apology to appease the situation, nor would I be standing here genuinely considering alternatives for compatibility. But we do appreciate that you've made the attempt to bring the discussion back on track.

I would very much like to amiably discuss these matters with you, representative for Urgench, but I fear you've nothing left to say but to hurl abuse and derogatory remarks at our delegation. If you do genuinely wish to present anything of substance, we'd be more than willing to conduct this in a congenial manner.

[OOC: Also Urgench, we find it odd that, although you presumably loathe us - you have taken it upon yourself to sign your words with the same look and fashion as us, and you have just begun calling yourself "The Grand Chancellor". I can only guess that you like our sense of creativity - but we're bewildered that you would apparently 'mimic' someone you have spent the entire week, almost, shouting at. But of course, its your choice.]

_________________
CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

(ooc; as it happens i've been calling my nations prime minister Tamerlane, khan of samarkand and bhukhara, Grand Chancellor of the Empire of Urgench and chamberlain of the imperial household from the moment my nation was created, he is different from my nations ambassador to the w.a. Mongkha and if you can be bothered to find them there are very early posts of mine where tamerlane, using this title made interventions. he only does so when he is personaly moved and on matters of great national importance. if your confused then sorry, initialy my nation hadn't elected a full time ambassador so some of the early posts are from it's minister for foreign affairs Nogai just to confuse things further, but there you go, oops.
the matter of using red for my signature well there aren't many elegant colours and since my nation is a succesor state to the mongol empire in a world where it never fell it just seemed appropriate, it's hardly plagiarism if there is only a handful of colours to choose from. it really is a coincidence.
oh and I don't loathe you in the slightest, maybe the citizens of my nation do right now,how that pans out is very much up to you.
i don't make out of character comments often in this forum and never this long and rarely do i use the words Me or I if i do so....)



the government of the emperor of urgench is pleased that the honoured delegate for the Narnian council has deigned to grace this place with his august presence, we are sure he will be pleased to know that the reconstruction of peace in our nation is under way. the ceremonies for the dead will be held on saturday when we will also have a day of national mourning.
as to his excellencys points, such as they are, we need hardly remind you of exactly how strongly and how frequently we made representations to you in the pre quorum debates on this resolution as to how important the issue of our Quiriltai court was to us, so you can hardly be surprised that we are so distressed now at the apparent passage of the resolution which destroys it , add to that the terrible upheavals we have suffered recently as a consequence of this then you may well understand our clamour.
it has been your regions handling of us that has led us both to this pass, and not some innate disagreement on the essentials of this resolution, which we have been at extremely great pains to see furthered.
it is the level of disrespect you have shown us and for that matter other nations too that has made us your opposition, your casual diregard for our feelings and the feelings of other nations is what has laid you up such store of ill-feeling. we love fairness and justice so much our people have died for it, we are anxious that their sacrifice should not have been in vain but we are also anxious that the insult you have dealt to them be remedied.

you have ignored our attempts to dicuss clause 8 of this resolution which deals with witness testimony, (the sloppy compromise you suggest on this matter is entirely unsatisfactory by the way, and would probably be in contradiction to your own resolution anyway) and our concerns about absolute openess in the court system ( both for reasons of security and reasons peculiar to our own case) and have endeavoured to portray our dispute with you as being of a partial nature, we assure you this is not the case and we still hope that some kind of raprochement can be achieved between us, that is if your region can show a more conciliatory attitude and not the arrogant one which has been it's hallmark thus far. ( we refer you to the excellent model of best practice as displayed by the respected ambassador for Gobbannium as an exemplar)

our national motto is "peace is wealth" and we are sincere in meaning it.

oh and as an aside, Urgenchis never raise there voices, it would be a matter of absolute shame to me personaly if at any point during this admittedly heated debate you were under the impression that i was any where near shouting, i apologise if that is the impression you have formulated.

yours e.t.c.

Dear Assembly,
Jeffyworld recently joined the WA and was excited to be part of a process that would promote peace and harmony. However we have to state we are amazed at the lack of understanding that has been extended for alternative view points. We are shocked just because somthing is up for a vote that there are those who believe it should be a take it or leave it issue. Isn't this body about discourse, given the vast amount of conversation on this topic it would seem re-drafting the resolution should be considered by its supporters, unless their intent is to create a tryany by majority. As a nation we were shocked that when we voiced our deep concerns that they were left ignored. Other nations have brought concern for the open trials for a variety of reasons and the Narnian Council has provided an explination for there reasoning in national security and the acused rights however have failed to address the issue regarding rights of the victim. Rape is a major issue and if the victims are forced not only to face thier attackers but must do this in a public forum it will likely lead to unreported rape due to the shame that is often suffered. How can victims rights be so disregarded in attempts to secure the rights of the accused.

The Nation of Jeffyworld sees the idea of leaving the WA and rejoining later completly contridictory to the purpose of the WA and believes if such behaviors are promoted it will lead to the downfall of the WA, being an assembly that really stands for little if every dissenter leaves so they do not comply and rejoins later, then why even attempt resolutions?

The Nation of Jeffywan wants also to express the idea of lawyers is completly forign to our nation but we would never deny anyone the resouces to defend themselves. Fairness does not require a complex legal system and this resolution fails to promote a legal system simple enough that everyone could understand it without need for a "lawyer".

The very fact that the Narnian Council admits they have been unable to find a good way to address issues (speaking of national security) simply speaks to the need for further discourse on the subject and a sharping of the resolution that will protect the rights of individuals without infringing on the rights of individuals to govern themsleves in a way they see fit (if it is not harming the rights being protected in the first place)

-Jeffyworld

Anyone against this resolution is out of there mind. This resolution does a lot of good for people. This allows them to have a fair trial. What are you thinking?

I think it was said correctly earlier if you don’t want people to have fair trials leave the WA. Don’t fight something that is created to help people.

These attacks made towards The Narnian Council, my Lord Chancellor are outrages. Especially about the people that live in The Council of Narnia. Urgench says that we are such horrible people that we don’t care about other people. That we are not just.

I say to you Urgench prove it. What does he know what Narnians are like. He is never around us. He isn’t even one of us. We are the best people he could ever hope to meet or be. We are the opposite of what he makes us out to be.

Please do not listen to these liars. Vote for this resolution.

Governor Kekova of The Council of Narnia
Knight of Aslan, Participant of Operation Lion's Roar

Anyone against this resolution is out of there mind. This resolution does a lot of good for people. This allows them to have a fair trial. What are you thinking?

I think it was said correctly earlier if you don’t want people to have fair trials leave the WA. Don’t fight something that is created to help people.

These attacks made towards The Narnian Council, my Lord Chancellor are outrages. Especially about the people that live in The Council of Narnia. Urgench says that we are such horrible people that we don’t care about other people. That we are not just.

I say to you Urgench prove it. What does he know what Narnians are like. He is never around us. He isn’t even one of us. We are the best people he could ever hope to meet or be. We are the opposite of what he makes us out to be.

Please do not listen to these liars. Vote for this resolution.

Governor Kekova of The Council of Narnia
Knight of Aslan, Participant of Operation Lion's Roar


the government of the emperor of urgench is at pains to point out to the highly honoured Governor that we have never maid such awfull claims about the peoples of Narnia, only of their governments.
we have also never ureged anyone to vote against this resolution, even though there was a much better alternative which was much fairer and infinitely more just.
we ask you to consider how your chancellor has treated us and point out that the things you have just said are exactly what has appalled so many other nations.

to suggest that those who do not agree with you should leave the w.a. is exactly why people are so distressed with your region.

yours e.t.c.

it is the level of disrespect you have shown us and for that matter other nations too that has made us your opposition, your casual diregard for our feelings and the feelings of other nations is what has laid you up such store of ill-feeling...

As I have repeated again and again, we have meant no disrespect to your nation - we've even made an official apology to quell any misunderstandings, too. To be honest, your delegation is quite demanding - and you seem to take alot of offense when one doesn't get around to addressing every detail you lay before us.

Furthermore - if you do sincerely wish to gain our more interested attention, you will do well do lose the insults (we tend to ignore them) and to converse with us in a far more affable manner.

you have ignored our attempts to dicuss clause 8 of this resolution which deals with witness testimony, (the sloppy compromise you suggest on this matter is entirely unsatisfactory by the way, and would probably be in contrdiction to your own resolution anyway)

We haven't ignored the questions about clause 8. We've answered it. The solution is not a contradiction at all - its also been suggested by members from other forums, as an acceptable and legal way around it.

When *only* the accused requires an examination on "their behalf", the witness must consent.
When the government or national law requires an examination, this proposal obviously doesn't mandate that the witness must consent.

Therefore, problem solved.

oh and as an aside, Urgenchis never raise there voices, it would be a matter of absolute shame to me personaly

We'd like to respectfully point out that you did indeed 'shout' (i.e. use caps) in previous posts (and in other places).


http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13781080&postcount=92

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13779643&postcount=75

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13779997&postcount=112

______________________
CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

at yet another Narnian giving voice to "love it or leave it".

The Most Serene Republic of Coffeeholics has shown restraint, but will call for a censure should these intolerant calls in the name of social justice--an irony not lost to many WA members we are certain--continue.

As I have repeated again and again, we have meant no disrespect to your nation - we've even made an official apology to quell any misunderstandings, too. To be honest, your delegation is quite demanding - and you seem to take alot of offense when one doesn't get around to addressing every detail you lay before us.

Furthermore - if you do sincerely wish to gain our more interested attention, you will do well do lose the insults (we tend to ignore them) and to converse with us in a far more affable manner.



We haven't ignored the questions about clause 8. We've answered it. The solution is not a contradiction at all - its also been suggested by members from other forums, as an acceptable and legal way around it.

When *only* the accused requires an examination on "their behalf", the witness must consent.
When the government or national law requires an examination, this proposal obviously doesn't mandate that the witness must consent.

Therefore, problem solved.



We'd like to respectfully point out that you did indeed 'shout' (i.e. use caps) in previous posts (and in other places).

______________________
CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia






the government of the emperor of urgench and i Mongkha apologise if it appeared that we were shouting, we only used capitolisation to add emphasis in long passages of text, as i say we would never raise our voices.


your solution to clause 8 is still unsatisfactory since it does not recognise the right of the accused to face their accusers, and to have them be cross examined, subject of course to restrictions in certain cases (such as child abuse)
if we were demanding it was because we were very insulted, by your apparent disregard for our nations traditional court system, which we told you would be of great importance to our people. the respected ambassador for Gobbannium had a simple and easily written clause to deal with this, which you refused despite our repeated and polite requests to include anything like this clause. this is the very grave insult you have dealt us, your words on the matter have been too few and too equivical for us to form an opinion on, it is your actions we were initialy and most gravely insulted by, the attitude you and your regional neighbours have desplayed in this subsiquent debate have only added to the picture.

we do however accept your earlier apology, and in the name of international amity we would like to extend our apologies if our hurt feelings have made us intemperate in our assessment of and use of language in regard to your respected regions motives

yours sincerely

When *only* the accused requires an examination on "their behalf", the witness must consent.
When the government or national law requires an examination, this proposal obviously doesn't mandate that the witness must consent.

Therefore, problem solved.
Given that the government is the prosecutor in criminal trials, and the whole purpose of a WA resolution concerning fair trials is to cause those governments who might otherwise be recalcitrant in allowing the accused any rights at all to give them a fair crack of the whip, the Lord Chancellor will understand that we do not forsee such nations falling over themselves to add his offering to their national law.

Problem distinctly not solved, clearly.

As regards the matter of openness, we regret that the Lord Chancellor continues to consider that it is better to create a massive security risk than to allow that an impartial judge might be competant to rule as to whether or not certain evidence pertains to national security.

at yet another Narnian giving voice to "love it or leave it".

Some of the members of our region have been quite offended by the actions of the representative of Urgench during this entire thread, and it really has reached a breaking point for them. You must excuse them if they seem irritable.

I do not support the 'love it or leave it' stance in any way, shape, or form. This was misconstrued, and again, I have already submitted an apology for allowing my words to convey this unintended meaning.

Given that the government is the prosecutor in criminal trials...

Actually, the nations that don't see a problem with witnesses having the right to consent will be happy with this proposal. So too will those, like Ator People, that don't want to give witnesses the right to consent - because this particular clause is flexible enough to allow them to override the issue.

your solution to clause 8 is still unsatisfactory since it does not recognise the right of the accused to face their accusers, and to have them be cross examined, subject of course to restrictions in certain cases

Well, it has solved the problem - because we're shifting onto the 'accused's right to face their accusers' now. The whole 'consent' business is behind us.

The witnesses are already required to be cross-examined, not by the accused themselves (as prudently suggested by Prince Rhodri) - but by legal counsel. We truly think that it should be the witness's choice as to whether they wish to remain anonymous or not.

__________________
CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

Some of the members of our region have been quite offended by the actions of the representative of Urgench during this entire thread, and it really has reached a breaking point for them. You must excuse them if they seem irritable.

I do not support the 'love it or leave it' stance in any way, shape, or form. This was misconstrued, and again (must I remind you) I have already submitted an apology for allowing my words to convey this unintended meaning.



Well, it has solved the problem - because we're shifting onto the 'accused's right to face their accusers' now. The whole 'consent' business is behind us.

The witnesses are already required to be cross-examined, not by the accused themselves (as prudently suggested by Prince Rhodri) - but by legal counsel. We truly think that it should be the witness's choice as to whether they wish to remain anonymous or not.

__________________
CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia



the government of the emperor of urgench, does not accept responsiblity for the actions or words or attitudes of any of the respected ambassadors
from the Council of Narnia and it would be most ungracious indeed to make it seem as though we were, but that is beside the point.


as to clause 8 we must refer the great delegate to the words of the esteemed Gobbannean ambassador who as usual makes the point most excellently. his wisdom is sound and we bow to it.

our humble ambassador is exhausted by the conduct of this debate and since some of his family have been involved in the recent turmoil in our country caused by the passage of this resolution he has been sent back to urgench for a short while.

we feel there is little of substance to be had from continuing to advocate the path of conciliation in this debate and can only hope that the work of the Narnian Council really does increase the actual levels of freedom and justice within the w.a.



yours sincerely her highness Princess Ryabat Goizam, cultural attache to the permanent mission of urgench to the world assembly

Yup, looks good. Voting FOR.

GP

" I speak for the 501st and the nation of Sabbat78. We request that the Narnian Council be countable for the actions or words of their members. We will take any steps needed to maintain peace and security within the 501st. We will not be force to resign from the WA, nor should any other member half to because they do not follow the steps of the Narnian Council.
On the Fair Criminal Trial, we do not favor it. What works for one nations doesn't mean it will work for another. We request you withdraw the Fair Criminal Trial Resolution.

Lord Jack Griffith
Ruler of the Sabbat78
Region Delegate for 501st:sniper:

It appears that the voice of the Covenant Empire is not relevant here, as the counselman from Narnia failed to even acknowlege my concern.
Thus, the High Counsel of the Covenant Empire shall vote down this resolution unless a proper fix is introduced. ,Or, until it's voice is heard. Then it shall go back to the counsel for consideration within a 24 period.
The Counsel of Narnia's honerable should recognise all delegates within the WA, and not just a select few.


Representative of the Covenant Empire, and Foreign Minister:
Prophet of Intellect.

I voted against because if we just throw them in jail for life (or execute them) they will never do the crime again. But, if we give them a fair trial and throw them in jail for a period of time they still might do the crime again. think about it.

Good representative, I must explain again. I don't 'fail' to consider that there are some acceptable reasons for private trials. But I'm not sure you grasp that its near-impossible to construct a clause allowing for this, that doesn't give autocrats the ability to shut trials down to the public upon their whim.

I do acknowledge the difficulty involved in drafting such a clause. However, seeing as your delegation was the one that decided to take a stab at drafting a fair trial law, it was your task to find a suitable way to resolve that dilemma, not ours. Your failure to do so does not resolve our concern that your resolution takes away from us the right to hold non-public trials when warranted. As such, your "explanation" neither answers my concern, nor addresses the issue, sir.

You are quite right, and I will admit that the wording of this particular clause is a casualty of extensive drafting, the last four words of which have been distorted. However, since your objection lies in the context of the witness, and not the accused, this does not prevent your government from passing law that requires the witness's testimony (as opposed to the accused requiring it) through the setup of a special branch of justice that interviews the witness in question.

We have to set up an entire new "branch of justice" just to get testimony now? Wow. That'll thrill people who want to be on our government's payroll. You'll forgive us if we're not quite as enthusiastic about this "solution", or if we consider this another issue not answered satisfactorily.

Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

The proposal for the right to a public trial must be left to the decision of member states before we could support such a law.

While we concede the sentiment is correct, disallowing repressive regimes the opportunity to dispense 'justice' from behind closed doors, it remains that there are situations where even open governments (such as ours) will, in the needs of national security, have to hold certain trials in camera.

Maybe an amendment that puts in some form of oversight to ensure that this power is not misused, but taking a nations sovereign rights to protect it's national secrets from being revealed as part of an open court case means that this proposal should be struck out.

I do acknowledge the difficulty involved in drafting such a clause. However, seeing as your delegation was the one that decided to take a stab at drafting a fair trial law, it was your task to find a suitable way to resolve that dilemma, not ours.

You're correct - and there were two options we could take. 1) Construct a clause that can be easily exploited by dictators...or 2) Construct a clause that keeps all trials public without exception.

We decided the second option was by far the lesser inconvenience (if we dare make such judgments about the intent of the proposal), but we humbly apologize for not finding an appropriate middle ground for this issue - we do assure you that we did not treat the issue lightly.

We have to set up an entire new "branch of justice" just to get testimony now?

Well, it doesn't need to be a 'branch', if funding is of any concern - it could be simply one official that represents the government.

And it does well to keep both sides happy - automating, first, the witness's right to consent - but provides an easy way around this for a government that, quite rightfully, sees this as unnecessary.
_________________
CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

It really doesn't matter anymore. To anyone who opposes this resolution, the voting ends tomorrow. And so far there are far more votes for it than against it.

We would remind the robot in disguise, it is not over, until it is over.

Indeed, the number of votes against have doubled since the morning in our humble country.

We would also remind the delegation of transforming mecha, there are more than one concerned region crafting repeals.

So, it does indeed matter. As the esteemed general Moon-Tsu of a rival country once quipped, "when on intersecting ground, join hands with allies"

Rest assured, hands are being joined.

It really doesn't matter anymore. To anyone who opposes this resolution, the voting ends tomorrow. And so far there are far more votes for it than against it.

Ya whatever the voting ends soon. And even if they do call for a repeal it could take months to gain the necessary support.

Rest assured, hands are being joined.

In the form of Gatesville thugs, we fear. Your home.

May we respectfully point out that you've aligned yourself with an organization that does not want to improve WA standards, but simply wishes to repeal its laws and leave it destitute.
_________________
CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

In the form of Gatesville thugs, we fear. Your home.

May we respectfully point out that you've aligned yourself with an organization that does not want to improve WA standards, but simply wishes to repeal its laws and leave it destitute.
_________________
CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia


the government of the emperor of urgench imagines that destitution, perhaps of morals perhaps of other things is most agreeable to the respected delegate for the Narnian Council, they have proven their tenuous relationship with the ethics of this organisation beyond doubt.


yours e.t.c.

As for the leader of the nation of La Bulk I will be happy to support this so thankyou very and congratulations.

We decided the second option was by far the lesser inconvenience (if we dare make such judgments about the intent of the proposal), but we humbly apologize for not finding an appropriate middle ground for this issue - we do assure you that we did not treat the issue lightly.

We obviously don't consider this an "inconvenience", but it's a moot issue at this point.

Well, it doesn't need to be a 'branch', if funding is of any concern - it could be simply one official that represents the government.

For us, it's not an issue of funding. It's an issue of having to go through frankly ridiculous contrivances to simply gain testimony for a trial. But again, it seems to be a moot point.

It really doesn't matter anymore. To anyone who opposes this resolution, the voting ends tomorrow. And so far there are far more votes for it than against it.

Ya whatever the voting ends soon. And even if they do call for a repeal it could take months to gain the necessary support.

I'd remind the ambassador from RyanBrum that not only is arrogance unbecoming a diplomat, it has a way of coming back and giving you the proverbial kick of fate in the rear when all is said and done. As for a potential repeal, while we will not be authoring one, I think I can safely say that's also a moot point somewhere down the road.

Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

Had you any respect, We would indeed, concur. However, as you've shown nothing but contempt--and your explanation about your words being miscontrued...well, ther eis a saying about careful what you write, it reveals your true leanings more than you may know.

Thugs? Such language makes us think the right "honourable" Narnian Council has some fear of their precious resolution being repealed--name calling being the last resort of the, well, not so swift shall we suggest. More still, we are highly amused the Narnaian Council uses such language when its, and its regional nation states have demonstrated nothing but thuggery in regard to this bill.

We cannot speak to the GV objective as We have no voice on either councils, We can say, We have aligned ourselves with those We best deem capable of meeting the aim of broad international cooperation, rather than micro-managed solutions such as, well, the "honourable" Narnian Coucil.

And, the next you aim for an ad hominem, may we suggest a little more research in the fine art of informal logic.

Until such a time as The Narnian Council and its regional nation states can see fit to keep a civil tongue in their mouth, we see no reason to continue communication.



In the form of Gatesville thugs, we fear. Your home.

May we respectfully point out that you've aligned yourself with an organization that does not want to improve WA standards, but simply wishes to repeal its laws and leave it destitute.
_________________
CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

ah youth..."yeah, whatever".

Wonders never cease.

Ya whatever the voting ends soon. And even if they do call for a repeal it could take months to gain the necessary support.

ah youth..."yeah, whatever".

Wonders never cease.

Thats not the only thing thats going to cease of you people don't stop fighting. Look Im sure you know about Gatesville well one of my rouge nations has obtained their plan and you people are only helping it:

Gatesville:Our basic, very basic plan is this: (1) Grow in size until we are a match for even the largest of regions, (2) gain a 2/3 ratio of our nations within the WA and endorsing their delegate so we have a strong standing in the WA votings, (3) create strong alliances with like-minded regions.

Gatesville:Now, this is not something that will or can happen in a short time. For the first two stages of this plan we must carefully protect ourselves from all possible threats. You may be thinking, "Why can't we just do this as quickly and violently as possible. Then it'll be done and we can bathe in our glory as the rulers of the free world." I'm sure many anti WA forums have felt this way and followed it to their deaths under the heels of the enormous liberal regions. We are going to set this right. We will be patient, we will bide our time, and prepare ourselves until victory is won without a single punch being thrown yet. Politically, emotionally, mentally, and physically. We will win. We just have to be patient and wait for the proper opportunities to reveal themselves. Death to the W.A and the vermin that control it.
If you join the W.A. please endorse our delegate Darkesia.


Now will you people conduct yourselves correctly before an opening is seen by them?

Thats not the only thing thats going to cease of you people don't stop fighting. Look Im sure you know about Gatesville well one of my rouge nations has obtained their plan and you people are only helping it:

the government of the emperor of urgench thinks that the respected ambassador for Ryanbrum is over estimating the possibility of Gatesville plans being successful and allowing themselves to be intimidated by the plottings of eccentrics. we respectfully suggest that this is not the place for this sort of groundless speculation and scaremongering. though we do commend the noble ambassador for their ernest concern for this organisation, we are sure it will weather any storms of the kind they suggest.

yours e.t.c.

the government of the emperor of urgench thinks that the respected ambassador for Ryanbrum is over estimating the possibility of Gateskills plans being successful and allowing themselves to be intimidated by the plottings of eccentrics. we respectfully suggest that this is not the place for this sort of groundless speculation and scaremongering. though we do commend the noble ambassador for their ernest concern for this organisation, we are sure it will weather any storms of the kind they suggest.

yours e.t.c.

I would like to inform you that my spy in gatesville has reported that the uproar Narnia and the rest of you are causing here, is viewed as a weakness in the WA! You guys need to see that this resolution will do alot for the WA including quashing these rebels plans.

Thats not the only thing thats going to cease of you people don't stop fighting.

Is that, dare we suggest, a threat? We are most certain the embassy of Ryanbrum will cogitate carefully before replying.

Look Im sure you know about Gatesville well one of my rouge nations has obtained their plan and you people are only helping it:

rouge nation? GV is not terribly concerned with what particular colour a nationstate chooses to be--but we trust between thee and the narnian council, we shall see that dictated and micro-managed as well.

or, mayhap the good representative meant, "rogue" nation?

I would like to inform you that my spy in gatesville has reported that the uproar Narnia and the rest of you are causing here, is viewed as a weakness in the WA! You guys need to see that this resolution will do alot for the WA including quashing these rebels plans.


the government of the emperor of urgench does not need the honoured representative for Ryanbrum to tell us what we must see as right or wrong for this organisation, we are completely capable of making those kind of discernments for ourselves. and we remind the respected ambassador that the w.a. is not the sort of organisation which can have rebels in any meaningful sense of that word.

yours e.t.c.

We would gently suggest to the honoured representative of RyanBrum that the activities of Gatesville are presently irrelevant; the Narnians seem quite capable of tearing the WA apart without the need for external bogie-men to be invoked.

We regret to inform the assembly that the Senedd has advised, and the throne of Gobbannium has ruled, that the danger to national security posed by this now-passed resolution is unacceptable. The Gobbannaen Principalities are therefore withdrawing from the World Assembly, effective immediate.

OCC: Guys Im not really this big a jerk but I find the supposed great nations amusing to toy with. So sorry if I offended anyone.

OCC: Guys Im not really this big a jerk but I find the supposed great nations amusing to toy with. So sorry if I offended anyone.


the government of the emperor of urgench took no offence at the comments of the respected delegate for RyanBrum, we're sure others did not either, we are sure it was for other reasons that the honoured Gobbannean ambassadors nation has sadly resigned the w.a.

yours e.t.c.

the government of the emperor of urgench took no offence at the comments of the respected delegate for RyanBrum, we're sure others did not either, we are sure it was for other reasons that the honoured Gobbannean ambassadors nation has sadly resigned the w.a.

yours e.t.c.

Why would this resolution cause them resign>

In the form of Gatesville thugs, we
May we respectfully point out that you've aligned yourself with an organization that does not want to improve WA standards, but simply wishes to repeal its laws and leave it destitute.

With similar respect, we would like to point out that politeness and moderation of diplomatic exchange is one of the central principles of this organisation - a principle that your nation has singlehandedly undermined with your demands that nations either agree with you or leave the WA.

Why would this resolution cause them resign>

the government of the emperor of urgench is not really qualified to speak for the illustrious ambassador for Gobbannium, but were we asked to speculate we would suggest that the Gobbanneans had very real security concerns that arose from the clauses of this resolution which they repeatedly expressed throughout the course of the debate.
there were perhaps other periferal concerns too.

yours e.t.c.

With similar respect, we would like to point out that politeness and moderation of diplomatic exchange is one of the central principles of this organisation - a principle that your nation has singlehandedly undermined with your demands that nations either agree with you or leave the WA.


the government of the emperor of urgench is most heartened to see that the wise voice of Bakamyht will be heard once again in the world assembly.

yours sincerely

OCC: Guys Im not really this big a jerk but I find the supposed great nations amusing to toy with. So sorry if I offended anyone.

OOC: you didn't offend me, nor did "you the ambassador" offend any of the GP embassy. Urgench is quite right; the Principalities withdrew for the reasons they said they did.

IC: OK, we're back. Sort of. This is a shell nation with no secrets to steal, theoretically representing Gobbannium's interests. It's lands consist of an application for office space in the new WA building whenever it's finished. ::Cerys looks optimistically at Building Management:: Since it's not actually part of Gobbannium, the politicians managed to argue themselves into a stalemate over who would be in charge. As a result, you've got me, and I'm not constrained to be polite any more.

I take my bribes in beer, by the way. But only good beer.

OOC: you didn't offend me, nor did "you the ambassador" offend any of the GP embassy. Urgench is quite right; the Principalities withdrew for the reasons they said they did.

IC: OK, we're back. Sort of. This is a shell nation with no secrets to steal, theoretically representing Gobbannium's interests. It's lands consist of an application for office space in the new WA building whenever it's finished. ::Cerys looks optimistically at Building Management:: Since it's not actually part of Gobbannium, the politicians managed to argue themselves into a stalemate over who would be in charge. As a result, you've got me, and I'm not constrained to be polite any more.

I take my bribes in beer, by the way. But only good beer.


the government of the empire of urgench wishes to offer the noble Ambassador for the Gobbannean WA mission 10,000 casks of the finest Moscovite beer from our empires European Autonomous Region as a "gift"
naturally we will deliver it to where ever you wish and in what ever quantities are convenient.
we are glad that the interests of Gobbannium will still be represented here.

may the horde of the Gobbannean WA mission ride swift across the plain.


yours e.t.c.

I am happy to see in a new revision of the Fair Criminal Trial, which would fit well with Charlotte Ryberg's serious criminal cases.

the government of the empire of urgench wishes to offer the noble Ambassador for the Gobbannean WA mission 10,000 casks of the finest Moscovite beer from our empires European Autonomous Region as a "gift"

Um. Wow. Ten thousand casks. It'll take me a while to get through that much. Thanks very much, Khan Mongka.

Um. Wow. Ten thousand casks. It'll take me a while to get through that much. Thanks very much, Khan Mongka.

the government of the emperor of urgench could not be happier that our gift is acceptable, Prince Carol of Ryazan our viceroy to hte principalities of MOscovy tells us "a real beer drinking will love this stuff" and we are reliably informed that he would be in a position to know.

yours e.t.c.

The government of St Edmund is also resigning from the World Assembly rather than face the potential security risks that forcing this resolution's terms onto our legal system would involve.
I am informed that whether or not it is replaced here by the Protectorate of the St Edmundan Antarctic currently remains to be determined.
"Oh god! Not that bloody penguin costume again!"


Alfred Devereux Sweynsson,
Chief Observer at the World Assembly
for the government of
The Kingdom of St Edmund.

the government of the emperor of urgench is most heartened to see that the wise voice of Bakamyht will be heard once again in the world assembly.

yours sincerely

We can confirm that, following consultations, we have decided to reapply for membership. Our legal advisors have assured us that, under the principle of consent which underpins the international legal order, we will not be bound by the travesty of a resolution which was forced through by Narnia.

We're pleased that Bakamyht has reapplied for membership. WA member states shouldn't be forced to leave due to bad legislation.

In regards to this resolution, the Federation Court has ruled that as this resolution is labeled "Fair Criminal Trial", it only applies to criminal trials. Thus, the Federation judicial system will be reclassifying its criminal cases as "civil class A" cases, and its civil cases as "civil class B" cases. In our judgment, this resolution does not apply to civil cases, and thus will not be executed within our jurisdiction. We will be more than happy to reclassify our civil class A cases as criminal cases if this resolution is repealed and, ideally, replaced.

Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

the government of the emperor of Urgench with the cooperation of our nations supreme court the Quiriltai, have seen fit to institute a permanent state of emergency in accordance with our laws. this decision arises from the effect of this resolution on our nation, specificaly that it caused a large scale
and popular uprising of our people who's outrage could not be quelled.

the government of the emperor of Urgench has held a plebiscite within it's crown lands and consulted with the various parliaments of our nations Autonomous regions, and the current state of emergency has been resoundingly endorced by our people. on foot of this we have been able to circumvent the impositions of this egregious resolution by refering all criminal cases to our nations millitary tribunals, since the Quiriltai has ruled that this resolution does not apply to millitary courts.

in accordance with this piece of jurisprudence it has been necessary to give full responsability for the Quiriltai itself to the millitary legal authorities.
we need hardly say that our people, our government, and our Divine Emperor are deeply saddened that this solution has been necessitated by our national loyalty to the ideals of the World Assembly, abuse of which organisation by the representatives of the Narnian Council has led us to this terrible pass.

yours in sadness,