Q: Thank you honourable defendants of the United States of America Mrs. Kakharova and Marialena for being available for this interview. We are sure that our readership is interested in what you will tell us today after the first whole day of court hearing. The process is quite comprehensive. Could you please tell us what this case is about?
A: The court hearing is actually about two cases: Case one is the alleged violation of the treaty of amity and economic relations. The U. S. has frozen assets at the Iranian central bank Markazi, which is based in the U. S., because Iran may be involved in the terrorist action in Bayreuth bombings in 1983. The United States claims 56 billion USD for the remedy of the victims as the bombings were the biggest and bloodiest events after the World War II.
Case two is about John Bryant (US Secretary of Commerce) who was head of a diplomacy mission and is accused of killing Abbas Varzi (a Popstar). Indeed, there is no evidence of the killing. Whether or not Bryant was responsible for the death, he enjoys special immunity and is not to be punished.
Q: On what is the claim based? A: The remedy was ruled already by the U. S. supreme court. However, three out of four judges agreed that the case should not be discussed further but sent to the U.S.-Iran international tribunal.
Q: What would be the best outcome you can wish for? A: Regarding the first case the court should declare that Iran has breached the treaty and was involved in the Bayreuth bombing, as well as the 56 billion USD which may be paid in two parts. For the second case the court should declare that John Bryant enjoys immunity.
Q: How was todays performance? Were you pleased with your contribution? A: The debate could have been more detailed. At the beginning the judges were not asking enough questions. That changed after they were working on the working paper. The judges may be more collaborate, speak less for themselves as single judges but as a whole body. That changed later today as well.
Q: What do you think about the defendants of Iran? A: They are actually a good counterpart.
Q: Any expectations for the rest of the week: A: We think it will be really interesting. The debate will hopefully remain on that high level which has been reached at the end of the day. The working paper should get completed and more detailed. And we expect some fun as well. The Judges appreciate that the court hearing is going on and that the Defendants are eager to contribute in the discussion. But the interim judgement is that more structure is needed otherwise the outcome might not be fruitful after all. Much time has been spent on proofs that are not available. It is important that the General law and the principles get more attention.
by Katharina K.