[DRAFT] International Appellate Court Act - Updated May 2016

[Dragonyza]

First Draft Completed on 16 December 2013
Last Edit on 6 May 2016

World Assembly International Appellate Court
a.k.a. International Appellate Court Act
CATEGORY Human Rights | STRENGTH Significant

Description of the Act: The intent of this act is to ensure that each citizen of a WA member state may appeal a conviction to a newly created court of WA Magistrates, on the basis of corruption, presumption of guilt, state conducted tampering of judge or jury, or suspension of legal rights. An individual who is convicted of a crime may present evidence to bring forward an appeal, but is not entitled to a hearing unless the appeal is certified by the Court.

PREAMBLE
The General Assembly,

RECOGNIZES the lawful right of the World Assembly to create an international court;
FURTHER recognizes the lawful right of each Nation to administer justice in differing ways;
SEEKS to ensure that no citizen of any WA member nation have their legal rights removed; therefore

The WA, by and with the advice of the General Assembly, shall enact as follows:

DECLARATION
D1. CREATE the World Assembly Appellate Court.
D1.a STRIKE a Judiciary Board comprised of Justices or Magistrates versed in international law to hear accepted cases.
D2. RE-AFFIRM the importance of due process in legal proceedings.
D3. REQUIRE all Member-states allow legal petitioners to appeal their convictions to the World Assembly Appellate Court.

PROCESS
P1. HEAR individual claims to appeal their convictions.
P2. ACCEPT appeals in order of severity where admissible evidence of wrongdoing exists, AND there is sufficient evidence of blatant state criminality in contravention of current WA legislation.
P2(a) RESTRICT appeals to those who have exhausted every option of appeal in their home state.
P2(b) FURTHER RESTRICT action to appeals of conviction only, and bar all tort suits against Nations.
P2(c) SERVE a summons to appear to the Attorney General or equivalent of the Nation.
P2(d) RENDER judgements in absentia when a respondent does not appear.
P3. OVERTURN convictions for successful appellants.
P3(a) GRANT protections to appellants who face a credible threat of violence upon return to their home state.
P4. RETURN unsuccessful appellants to their home nation for sentencing.

STATE REQUIREMENTS
SR1. INFORM a criminal of their right to appeal.
SR2. RESPOND to a summons to appear within 14 days
SR3. RELEASE the appellant to the custody of the WA for the duration of the trial.

STATE PROHIBITIONS
SP1. PLACE undue strain or pressure on an appellant or their legal counsel.
SP2. HINDER access to the appeal process.
SP3. SENTENCE before the Court has reviewed the appeal.

If a nation is found to have violated the above, they are liable for trial of an indictable offence in contravention of international law

DEFINITIONS
1. DEFINES due process as:

The right to a fair trial, except when suspended under valid legislation.
The right to legal representation.
The right to appeal a decision to a higher court.

2. DEFINES suspension of legal rights as:
The process by which a national government unlawfully disallows the right to: a fair trial, due process, or right to representation.
3. DEFINE admissible evidence as:

Evidence that incriminates a government by showing a breach of due process.
Evidence that is either first-hand or testimonial.
Evidence that identifies the government of the nation, in part or in whole.

ARTICLE IV - ENACTMENT

The World Assembly hereby creates the World Assembly Appellate Court, which shall use judicial review and testimony to determine if an individual has been wrongfully or illegally convicted, based on International law, so long as it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that a breach has or is likely to have occurred.

[Lykens]

Edit: I was wrong, full support from me.

[Dragonyza]

Isn't it against the rules to change the WA in any way?

I may be mistaken, let me go look at the rules again..

I believe that the creation of the International Criminal Court was a change to the WA, so this should be fine, if it stands as just an extension to the ICC.

[New Molsona]

You have the full support of the Federation of Molsonian Republics.

[Alqania]

"Welcome to the World Assembly!" Lord Raekevik started enthusiastically. "It is always nice to see another competent delegation joining our little fun house and this is not at all a badly written proposal."

"I am afraid I should point out rather clearly however that the Queendom is categorically opposed to extending the judiciary powers of the assembly and so this proposal is very unlikely to garner our support."

"More specifically related to what this proposal sets out to do, I fear the premise may be fundamentally flawed. As Your Excellency is probably aware, General Assembly Resolutions are binding on all member states and compliance is assured by the Compliance Commission. Insofar as the WA has taken upon itself to safeguard a legal right, we can for all intents and purposes reasonably assume that said right is indeed protected in all member states. This assumption would seem to obviate the need for an international court to determine whether such a legal right has been suspended, meaning that this court would have no cases to hear and thus no raison d'être."

"If Your Excellency should be inclined to pursue this matter in spite of the Alqanian disbelief in its necessity or desirability, then I would strongly suggest special consideration be made of whether the UPHOLDING clause is legal in relation to the so-called 'House of Cards' proposal rule."

[Point Breeze]

It's my understanding that resolutions can't directly reference other resolutions. That's a house of cards violation.

Secondly, I'm unclear of the nature of this court of appeals. Is it a court of appeals for the ICC, or for the courts of member nations? if it's the former, then I support, but I'm still unsure of the legality of the act. If the latter, then I think this is a dangerous overreach of WA authority into member states' sovereignty.

However, I'll try to help you turn this into a winning proposal because its what I do.

Will the WAAC (what an unfortunate acronym) hear only cases involving criminal convictions, or can citizens appeal any court-ordered action?
Appellate courts hear many, many cases other than criminal appeals. Further, appellate courts generally don't allow the admission of "evidence," as they're only there to review the actions of lower courts. This is true at least in my fantasy world of a place called the US. If you're trying to create a place where citizens can bring suit against the government, I suggest you reference the Ombudsman Act, which was defeated a while ago.

Finally, I want to make a general note to consider the types of courts present in the various nations. Some may already have extensive appellate court systems, and some may have no adversarial courts at all. Keep this in mind at all times when talking about courts and legal systems in general.

[Dragonyza]

1. New evidence to be accepted only.
2. Only intervenes in NatSov for egregious rights violations in contravention of current WA resolutions.
3. Only criminal cases only where a suspension of legal rights occurred.
4. Both court of appeals for ICC and national courts.

[Point Breeze]

1. New evidence to be accepted only.
2. Only intervenes in NatSov for egregious rights violations in contravention of current WA resolutions.
3. Only criminal cases only where a suspension of legal rights occurred.
4. Both court of appeals for ICC and national courts.

1. Only new evidence? I don't think you'll have a very effective appellate court if they can't use judicial review.
2. & 3. I would state these in the resolution. Not word for word, of course, as 3 especially needs revision. "legal rights" is about the broadest term ever.
4. If you wanna go down that road, I'm going to tell you right now you're going to get a lot of NatSov opposition.

You also didn't address how this act effects nations without adversarial systems.

[Dragonyza]

Thank you! I will add these edits. I appreciate all your help!

[Ainocra]

This assembly has absolutely no business interfering in the judicial systems of member nations.
The ICC is already an over reach, this is an abomination.

Granting this body the ability to overturn perfectly lawful convictions of criminals!?!?!

Even assuming for a moment it were to pass, what would the criteria be?
There are so many different legal systems in place throughout the multiverse that no one court could possibly be conversant in all of them, much less competent! the paperwork alone would be a disaster.

This is a poorly thought out idea and has no place at all in international law.


OOC:
welcome to the snakepit

[Dragonyza]

Most Gracious Ambassador of Aincora,

Your comments have been noted.

The aim of this appellate court is to ensure that underhanded movements by the governments of the day for each nation cannot withhold due process from their citizens, whether it be by a writ of attainder, tainting of the jury, or any other illegal methods to secure a conviction.

The appellate court will not examine the actions of the court, per se, but the actions of the government.

Should a nation's government be found guilty of withholding due process, the matter will be turned to the International Criminal Court, and the sentence overturned.

Please, if you have any more questions, let me know.

This bill is not meant to interfere with NatSov, unless absolutely necessary.

JL/ts

[Alqania]

Most Gracious Ambassador of Aincora,

Your comments have been noted.

The aim of this appellate court is to ensure that underhanded movements by the governments of the day for each nation cannot withhold due process from their citizens, whether it be by a writ of attainder, tainting of the jury, or any other illegal methods to secure a conviction.

The appellate court will not examine the actions of the court, per se, but the actions of the government.

Should a nation's government be found guilty of withholding due process, the matter will be turned to the International Criminal Court, and the sentence overturned.

Please, if you have any more questions, let me know.

This bill is not meant to interfere with NatSov, unless absolutely necessary.

JL/ts

"An international court that will put governments on trial to settle people's grievances with their governments is not an appellate court", Lord Raekevik objected. "Perhaps the intention here is something similar to the RealLife^TM European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, in which case I note that that court is not an appellate court and that people need not be convicted of a crime before they can lodge a complaint there. Perhaps there is a bit of confusion here on what exactly an appeal is."

[Ainocra]

Most Gracious Ambassador of Aincora,

Your comments have been noted.

The aim of this appellate court is to ensure that underhanded movements by the governments of the day for each nation cannot withhold due process from their citizens, whether it be by a writ of attainder, tainting of the jury, or any other illegal methods to secure a conviction.

The appellate court will not examine the actions of the court, per se, but the actions of the government.

Should a nation's government be found guilty of withholding due process, the matter will be turned to the International Criminal Court, and the sentence overturned.

Please, if you have any more questions, let me know.

This bill is not meant to interfere with NatSov, unless absolutely necessary.

JL/ts

So you are proposing a court to try the legitimate government of a nation for engaging in the exercise of its powers?
Even more preposterous!

I would then refer the ambassador to GA#2

"Article 1 § Every WA Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government."

[Dragonyza]

Most Gracious Ambassador of Aincora,

Your comments have been noted.

The aim of this appellate court is to ensure that underhanded movements by the governments of the day for each nation cannot withhold due process from their citizens, whether it be by a writ of attainder, tainting of the jury, or any other illegal methods to secure a conviction.

The appellate court will not examine the actions of the court, per se, but the actions of the government.

Should a nation's government be found guilty of withholding due process, the matter will be turned to the International Criminal Court, and the sentence overturned.

Please, if you have any more questions, let me know.

This bill is not meant to interfere with NatSov, unless absolutely necessary.

JL/ts

"An international court that will put governments on trial to settle people's grievances with their governments is not an appellate court", Lord Raekevik objected. "Perhaps the intention here is something similar to the RealLife^TM European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, in which case I note that that court is not an appellate court and that people need not be convicted of a crime before they can lodge a complaint there. Perhaps there is a bit of confusion here on what exactly an appeal is."

Yes, I believe there is confusion. But not on the part of Dragonyza.

However, this is an appellate court. It is meant to challenge a government only when said government has breached the rights of due process (either by writ of attainder or othrewise), and not to just complain about the government.

This is simply a court where individuals have been charged with a crime. Nothing more, nothing less.

Thank you.

---

OOC: I have made edits to the draft, feel free to look it over.

[Dragonyza]

Most Gracious Ambassador of Aincora,

Your comments have been noted.

The aim of this appellate court is to ensure that underhanded movements by the governments of the day for each nation cannot withhold due process from their citizens, whether it be by a writ of attainder, tainting of the jury, or any other illegal methods to secure a conviction.

The appellate court will not examine the actions of the court, per se, but the actions of the government.

Should a nation's government be found guilty of withholding due process, the matter will be turned to the International Criminal Court, and the sentence overturned.

Please, if you have any more questions, let me know.

This bill is not meant to interfere with NatSov, unless absolutely necessary.

JL/ts

So you are proposing a court to try the legitimate government of a nation for engaging in the exercise of its powers?
Even more preposterous!

I would then refer the ambassador to GA#2

"Article 1 § Every WA Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government."

I would refer the Ambassador to the wording, which does not stop the World Assembly from intervening.

I would also note that the most Gracious Ambassador seems to have a great concern for oversight into the judicial practices. Perhaps the Ambassador feels that their Nation has something to hide.

Pleasantries aside, this court is only interested in breaches of due process or intentional miscarriages of justice.

[Point Breeze]

First Draft Completed on 16 December 2013
Last Edit on 17 December - 0810h GMT-7

International Appellate Court Act
CATEGORY: Human Rights :: STRENGTH: Strong

The intent of this act is to ensure that each citizen of a WA member state may appeal a conviction to a newly created court of WA Magistrates, on the basis of corruption, presumption of guilt, or suspension of legal rights. This Court will only intervene if there is egregious wrongdoing by a Nation.

RECOGNIZING the lawful right of the World Assembly to create an international criminal appellate court;

FURTHER recognizing the lawful right of each Nation to administer justice in their own way;

SEEKING to ensure that no citizen of any WA member nation have their legal rights removed;

ARTICLE I - ADMINISTRATIVE POWERS
the General Assembly shall:

1. CREATE the World Assembly Appellate Court.
2. RE-AFFIRM the importance of due process in legal proceedings, notwithstanding differing court systems.
3. REQUIRE all Member-states allow legal petitioners to appeal their convictions to the World Assembly Appellate Court.

ARTICLE II - LEGAL PROCESS
1. ALLOW individuals to appeal their convictions.
2. ACCEPT appeals in order of severity.
2.a RESTRICT appeals to those who have exhausted every option of appeal in their home state.
3. OVERTURN convictions for successful appellants.
4. RETURN unsuccessful appellants to their home nation for sentencing.
5. INVESTIGATE any wrongdoing on behalf of the state through the International Criminal Court.

ARTICLE III - DEFINITIONS
1. DEFINES due process as:

* The right to a fair trial, except when suspended for relevant anti-terrorism, treason, or conspiracy laws.
* The right to legal representation.
* The right to appeal

2. DEFINES admissible evidence as:

* Evidence that incriminates a government by showing a breach of due process.

I would love to hear any suggestions/comments. After combing through the listing of GA resolutions, I could not find any relating to this topic. Thank you.

I would check relevant legislation to see if the suspension of due process in times of strife is indeed legal. Further, I'm a little surprised that a resolution that seeks to advance due profess would grant such an exception in the first place.
Also, why is tbere a definition of admissible evidence if the term isn't used in the act?

[Dragonyza]

It must have gotten lost in the edit. I was rearranging things and must have deleted the admissible evidence clause.

I am in the middle of researching the laws and interpreting them.

---

I am so glad for all the help! First GA draft is going pretty well

[Point Breeze]

It must have gotten lost in the edit. I was rearranging things and must have deleted the admissible evidence clause.

I am in the middle of researching the laws and interpreting them.

---

I am so glad for all the help! First GA draft is going pretty well

We're just getting started.

[Ainocra]

So you are proposing a court to try the legitimate government of a nation for engaging in the exercise of its powers?
Even more preposterous!

I would then refer the ambassador to GA#2

"Article 1 § Every WA Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government."

I would refer the Ambassador to the wording, which does not stop the World Assembly from intervening.

I would also note that the most Gracious Ambassador seems to have a great concern for oversight into the judicial practices. Perhaps the Ambassador feels that their Nation has something to hide.

Pleasantries aside, this court is only interested in breaches of due process or intentional miscarriages of justice.

Fleet Marshal Enta can't resist the urge to burst out laughing. "Of course we have something to hide, quite a few things in fact. However this would do nothing to bring them to light." Wiping a tear from his one good eye he continues. "As for breaches of due process what exactly are you defining as due process? The Star Empire of Ainocra uses a military tribunal system to dispense justice, whereas other nations might use civilian courts, and some nations are simply dictatorships with no court system at all, then there are the monarchies with courts ran by the nobility, then there is of course the theocracies and their inquisitions."

Leaning back in his seat he chuckles a little more. "Justice and the miscarriage thereof is quite a broad and eminently mutable term ambassador."

[Alqania]

"An international court that will put governments on trial to settle people's grievances with their governments is not an appellate court", Lord Raekevik objected. "Perhaps the intention here is something similar to the RealLife^TM European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, in which case I note that that court is not an appellate court and that people need not be convicted of a crime before they can lodge a complaint there. Perhaps there is a bit of confusion here on what exactly an appeal is."

Yes, I believe there is confusion. But not on the part of Dragonyza.

However, this is an appellate court. It is meant to challenge a government only when said government has breached the rights of due process (either by writ of attainder or othrewise), and not to just complain about the government.

This is simply a court where individuals have been charged with a crime. Nothing more, nothing less.

Thank you.

---

OOC: I have made edits to the draft, feel free to look it over.

"In member states with a separation of powers, it may seem absurd that the executive government be held liable for the actions of the judiciary. And on a related note, exactly whom would the ICC put on trial? Would the individual prosecutor who failed to properly observe due process be summoned to the ICC? The judge? The head of government or head of state?"

[Ainocra]

Yes, I believe there is confusion. But not on the part of Dragonyza.

However, this is an appellate court. It is meant to challenge a government only when said government has breached the rights of due process (either by writ of attainder or othrewise), and not to just complain about the government.

This is simply a court where individuals have been charged with a crime. Nothing more, nothing less.

Thank you.

---

OOC: I have made edits to the draft, feel free to look it over.

"In member states with a separation of powers, it may seem absurd that the executive government be held liable for the actions of the judiciary. And on a related note, exactly whom would the ICC put on trial? Would the individual prosecutor who failed to properly observe due process be summoned to the ICC? The judge? The head of government or head of state?"

"I say the entire government, from top to bottom!"

[Dragonyza]

"In member states with a separation of powers, it may seem absurd that the executive government be held liable for the actions of the judiciary. And on a related note, exactly whom would the ICC put on trial? Would the individual prosecutor who failed to properly observe due process be summoned to the ICC? The judge? The head of government or head of state?"

"I say the entire government, from top to bottom!"

Yes,

The entire government would be held accountable.

To answer your other question, should the judiciary be found accountable, the executive branch will still be charged. It would then fall on the shoulders of the government to dismiss or admonish those justices. As in most systems, the judiciary is appointed by the executive.

The type of judicial system is irrelevant, because every judicial system has a government attached (even with separation of powers).

The main respondent will always be the Attorney General.

[Alqania]

"I say the entire government, from top to bottom!"

Yes,

The entire government would be held accountable.

To answer your other question, should the judiciary be found accountable, the executive branch will still be charged. It would then fall on the shoulders of the government to dismiss or admonish those justices. As in most systems, the judiciary is appointed by the executive.

The type of judicial system is irrelevant, because every judicial system has a government attached (even with separation of powers).

The main respondent will always be the Attorney General.

"I see..." Lord Raekevik contemplated. "In that case, I have no option but to declare the Queendom's vehement opposition and decry the Dragonyzan delegation as conspiring to overthrow Her Majesty's Government through judicial activism."

[Dragonyza]

Yes,

The entire government would be held accountable.

To answer your other question, should the judiciary be found accountable, the executive branch will still be charged. It would then fall on the shoulders of the government to dismiss or admonish those justices. As in most systems, the judiciary is appointed by the executive.

The type of judicial system is irrelevant, because every judicial system has a government attached (even with separation of powers).

The main respondent will always be the Attorney General.

"I see..." Lord Raekevik contemplated. "In that case, I have no option but to declare the Queendom's vehement opposition and decry the Dragonyzan delegation as conspiring to overthrow Her Majesty's Government through judicial activism."

Ministry of External Affairs and Adherence
The Rt. Hon. Carolyn Flayk
Secretary-of-State

Dear Lord Raekevik,

Your vehement opposition, pinking of the cheeks, and general alarum has been noted.

The United Kingdom of Dragonyza wishes it be known that the Queendom of Alqania is a great Nation that demands respect, and thanks them for their views.

Should Alqania wish to propose an amendment to this Act, they may do so in writing.

Yours,

Carolyn Flayk, Member of the King's Assembly (MKA), Member of the King's Cabinet (MKC)

CF/jl

[Erefen]

The Erefen Council votes to support this legislation.
You've got us on board.