1. APPLICANT REQUEST FOR INFORMATION IS IN BREACH OF THE 1985 TREATY.
In 1985, the parties to the current dispute have concluded a treaty on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (hereinafter 1985 Treaty). According to the treaty, were certain condition at Art. V respected the Respondent shall transmit to the counterpart only the information that the Respondent deems relevant to the alleged criminal offences. Additionally, Art. VI provides that:
“[a]assistance may be refused when the execution of the request would seriously impair sovereignty, national security, or other essential public interests or for any reason provided by [the Respondent] domestic law.”
Furthermore, jurisdiction has to be considered as a prerequisite in order for the Applicant to require information.
In fact, according to the 1985 Treaty, the Respondent would be required to provide information only whether the jurisdiction of the Applicant was found over the present dispute. Accordingly, the Respondent has submitted that the Applicant has no jurisdiction over the present dispute. Hence, the Respondent is not required by the 1985 Treaty to provide the requested information.
Art. V of the 1985 Treaty requires Applicant to provide at least certain information considered essential in order for the Respondent to execute the request. Among the others Applicant is required to acknowledge the Respondent of:
“the purpose for which the request for information is made and the nature of the assistance sought.”
The information required by Art. V shall be considered indispensable in order for the Applicant to determine the relevant information to transmit to the counterpart. The Respondent maintains that the Applicant has failed to render all the essential information provided by Art. V of the 1985 Treaty. Hence, the Respondent is under no legal obligation to provide the requested information.
2. RESPONDENT CONDUCT IS IN COMPLIANCE OF ART. VI OF THE 1985 TREATY.
Respondent is not in breach of the 1985 Treaty since the refusal is justified by Art. VI of the 1985 Treaty. In fact, according to the ordinary meaning of the terms , the provision should be read in a way that were just one of the conditions met, the Respondent would no longer be required to provide the requested information.
Moreover, based on the definition and the purpose of the self-judging clause expressed in Art. VI, the Respondent puts forth that only the...