PRICE MEDIA LAW MOOT COURT

COMPETITION CASE
2024/2025 COMPETITION YEAR

Official case of the 2025 International Rounds and the

2024/2025 Regional Rounds in South Asia, Asia Pacific,
Europe, the Americas, the Middle East, and Africa
Republic of Boto

1. The Republic of Boto is a developing country with a GDP of USD 2 trillion and a
population of 100 million inhabitants. It is home to one of the largest rainforests of the world.

2. Until the mid-seventeenth century, Boto was a region inhabited by several indigenous
communities, each governed by traditional leaders in accordance with their longstanding
customs. The Panaã people were the largest of these communities. In the seventeenth
century, the Panaã occupied approximately 90% of the territory of Boto and comprised
approximately 80% of its inhabitants.

3. However, in the mid-1700s, Boto was colonised by Matintaland, a neighbouring state,

inhabited in the main by the Matinta people. Matintaland encouraged its citizens to settle in
Boto. The Matintas settled widely throughout Boto and in doing so displaced the indigenous
peoples of Boto from their land, including the Panaã. Over the course of the next century, as
a result of the loss of their ancestral lands and the destruction of their way of life, the Panaã
people (as well as the other indigenous peoples of Boto) became impoverished and
marginalised. By the time the Republic of Boto gained independence from Matintaland in the
mid-1800s, the Panaã people represented only 15% of the population and occupied 5% of
the territory. The Matintas constituted 80% of the population, with the remaining population
divided between the other indigenous communities of Boto.

4. Since independence, the Republic of Boto's economy has been primarily based on
agriculture, including both the cultivation of crops and the raising of livestock. Since the late
1990s, the government of the Republic of Boto has actively sought to promote foreign
investment in its agricultural industry. For instance, the government granted tax exemptions
to foreign companies in relation to the building of new agricultural facilities, facilitated foreign
companies’ access to credit from the Boto National Land Bank, a publicly owned bank,
enacted environmental laws that favour the agricultural industry, as well as enacted laws
permitting deforestation for agricultural purposes and the government also repeatedly refused
to inhibit the use of pesticides and herbicides. The government’s policies led to the substantial
expansion of the agricultural and livestock industries in Boto with the consequence that
between 2000 and 2010 agricultural exports in the Republic of Boto accounted for
approximately 30% of the country’s GDP.

5. In the 2010s, politicians of the Verde Party, an opposition party in Boto, started
spreading awareness about the harmful environmental policies adopted by the government.
They launched campaigns advocating for more sustainable environmental policies as Boto
faced historically high levels of deforestation. Some regions in the country also faced
unprecedented floods and desertification, which the Verde party said was due to climate
change caused at least in part by deforestation.

The Great Green Laws

6. The popularity of the Verde Party grew and, in the 2020 national elections in Boto, it
received the most votes of the parties contesting the elections and formed the government
for the first time. In 2022, after a lengthy legislative process, the legislature passed the Great
Green Laws, which provided, amongst other things, that tax exemptions and credit facilitation
for the agricultural sector would be abolished. In addition, the Great Green Laws imposed
strict limits on deforestation, establishing criminal sanctions for lack of compliance. The Great
Green Laws also revised the list of allowed pesticides and herbicides, banning some of the
most widely used of these products.

7. The Great Green Laws also introduced a new land reform policy, providing that the
Panaã would receive 40% of their land back. It was clear that this new land reform policy
would severely limit the expansion endeavours of the agricultural sector.

8. The Great Green Laws had a significant impact within a year. In 2022/2023, the rate
of deforestation declined significantly year on year, and was 50% below what it had been in
2021/2022. The same year saw a marked 15% decrease in the country’s agricultural exports.
In addition, the profitability of the lead agribusiness saw a marked decline which led to several
of the largest of them implementing redundancy programmes, which caused a steep rise in
the unemployment rate in Boto.

FacesMatch & AzulFish

9. The Republic of Boto has historically not had a well-developed technological and
digital sector. However, over the last decade, the Republic of Boto has adopted policies to
incentivise academic research and development and one of the key policies provides for
student exchanges with neighbouring countries, including LongeLand. Unlike the Republic of
Boto, LongeLand was not colonised by Matintaland. It has a vibrant technological industry
and is home to many of the largest social media companies in the world, including AllAzul.
LongeLand has not regulated the use of new technologies extensively, save for providing in
legislation that social media platforms are not to be considered the publishers of the content
that is published on their platforms by their users. There are no rules on data protection or
content moderation and social media platforms enjoy the freedom to operate as they wish.

10. In the last decade, Boto has seen a sharp growth in its digital and technological
industry. These developments have been primarily led by young Botanians who have
returned from student exchanges in LongeLand. They have developed cutting-edge
technologies, such as tools for generative AI, as well as facial recognition programs. In 2019,
a group of researchers at the Central University of Boto developed facial recognition software
called FacesMatch, which is now commercially available, through a university spin-off
company, BDT (Botanian Digital Technologies). FacesMatch is based on a continually
updated database of faces extracted from public CCTV cameras in Boto and in its Terms of
Service (ToS) for FacesMatch, BDT claims that FacesMatch is 99.9% accurate. FacesMatch
has been adopted by police and law enforcement services across Boto. It has also been
acquired by many private companies who use it in the course of their business. BDT lobbied
the government successfully not to introduce legislation to regulate facial recognition
technology.

11. The most popular social media platform in the Republic of Boto is AzulFish. It started
operating in the Republic of Boto in 2009, when it was registered as a subsidiary of AllAzul.
AllAzul is headquartered in LongeLand.

12. Since it began operating in the Republic of Boto, Azulfish has grown rapidly and now
hosts more than 70 million users in Boto, although this number is suspected to be slightly
inflated because of the prevalence of bots and fake accounts on the platform. Most politicians,
government officials and institutions have an official AzulFish account and AzulFish is thus
used as an official medium of communication with citizens. Politicians and government
officials often post issues of public interest on their AzulFish accounts. Even in regions where
there is no television signal, the population has access to internet through satellites provided
by AzulFish. Almost 80% of the population has an imported smartphone.

13. AzulFish allows users to post short 300-character comments, as well as videos, and
photos. Users may also pay to promote their content for a small fee. Whenever a user opens
AzulFish, they see content from the people they follow, as well as content that AzulFish
deems to be of interest to them – which is partly based on the data collected by the platform
on the user’s interests, and partly based on the ‘trending’ content at the moment, or ‘surfing’,
as AzulFish’s interface shows. The surfing content includes any content which is being widely
shared, commented on, as well as posts that have been promoted by the user.

Digital Safety Law (DSL)

14. The Republic of Boto introduced a Digital Safety Law (DSL) in 2014, which has since
been copied by other countries in the region, though not by LongeLand. The 2014 Digital
Safety Law imposes obligations on both social media platforms and their users. Key
provisions of the DSL are as follows:

Section 1. Application
(a) The provisions of this law apply to all Providers who provide their services in the Republic
of Boto.
(b) The obligations provided herein bind Providers even when their headquarters and/or
servers are not located within the Republic of Boto.

Section 2. Definitions
(a) Providers: Any and all social media companies and platforms, online forums, content
providers, and other entities which enable users to create and share content through the
internet.
(b) Users: Any and all users who use the services of the Providers.

Section 3: Illegal Content

(a) Providers and Users shall neither post nor promote Illegal Content.
(b) Illegal content is defined as any content generated, edited, or modified by Providers, Users
or any form of generative algorithm which contains:
a. A call for violence which could be reasonably perceived as a call to disturb the peace,
national and social order.
b. Speech that, although not directly calling for violence, can lead to physical or psychological
harm.
c. Speech or videos that misrepresent the truth about the perpetrators of violence, or the
conduct of violence, or are posted with reckless disregard for the truth.

(…)

Section 11. Providers’ liability – Providers will not be liable for any Illegal Content
published, produced or posted by third parties, except:
(a) in the case of omission after being provided with adequate notice about the existence of
content which can be reasonably interpreted as constituting an Illegal Content, and/or
(b) when they actively promote Illegal Content.

Section 12. Sanctions on Providers - Should any Provider be in breach of article 11(a)
and/or (b), it shall be guilty of a criminal offence and if convicted, subject to the following
sanctions:
(a) A fine of US 50 million dollars, or 3% of the Providers’ previous annual global turnover,
whichever greater; and/or
(b.1) The suspension of its operations within the Republic of Boto for up to 30 days; and/or
(b.2) A permanent prohibition on operating in the national territory of the Republic of Boto.
Section 21. Users’ liability – Users who create, generate, post, or promote Illegal Content
shall be guilty of a criminal offence and if convicted, subject to the following sanctions:
(a) A fine not exceeding US 1million dollars; and/or
(b) A sentence of up to 12 months’ imprisonment.

15. The Republic of Boto has signed and ratified the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights (the ICCPR) without reservation. The fundamental rights of Botanians are
established by the Constitution, mirroring the rights safeguarded by the ICCPR and the
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). Particularly,
Article 10 of its Constitution entrenches freedom of expression in similar language to Article
19 of the ICCPR and notes that freedom of expression is a core pillar of the Republic of Boto’s
democratic Constitution. The Supreme Court of Boto is the highest court in the Republic,
vested with exclusive jurisdiction to hear constitutional matters. According to Constitutional
Amendment 1, the Supreme Court shall interpret all fundamental rights according to Boto’s
obligations under international law.

16. In 2014, shortly after the DSL was enacted, civil society groups immediately launched
challenges against its key provisions, notably sections 3, 11, 12 and 21. They argued that the
provisions were in breach of Article 10 of the Constitution, as well as in conflict with Article 19
of the ICCPR. Their claim failed before the Supreme Court of Boto, who held that the
provisions were not in breach of Article 10.

The Greenies and the protests

17. Following the enactment of the Great Green Laws in 2022, although some sectors of
the population strongly supported them, others did not and protests against the laws began.
Once it became clear that the laws would lead to redundancies, the protests became more
frequent and intense.

18. It was thus within the context of high political contestation around the Great Green
Laws that the national election campaign took place in 2023. The two main parties contesting
the election were the Verde Party and the National Union Party. The National Union Party
(NUP) advocated the repeal of the Great Green Laws. The NUP contends that the Great
Green Laws have led to economic decline which has impaired the socio-economic rights of
citizens. The NUP denies that there is any causal relationship between deforestation and the
floods and desertification that have affected regions of Boto. They also dispute the extent of
deforestation. They claim the Verde Party fabricated the data on deforestation, alleging that
the levels of deforestation were stable prior to the enactment of the Great Green Laws. The
NUP also oppose the land reform project provided in the Great Green Laws. In their view,
returning land to the Panaã people will unfairly deprive existing owners of their rights, and
also lead to land become economically wasted.

19. The NUP enjoys widespread support from in rural areas and towns, as well as the
support of the large agricultural enterprises, agricultural trade unions and workers. On the
other hand, the Verde party is widely supported in towns, and by university graduates,
and Panaã people.

20. The NUP won the highly contested elections by a narrow margin. In November 2023,
Pateng Caju, the new president, announced that the process of revoking the Great Green
Laws would commence. Thus, in January 2024, a bill to repeal the Great Green laws was
introduced in Parliament.

21. The introduction of the Bill led to widespread social protests. Members and supporters
of the Verde Party, university students, as well as the traditional leaders of the Panaã
community launched sustained protests against the repeal Bill. The protestors, called
‘Greenies’ by the media, initially organised very peaceful demonstrations. Every Friday, from
the day that President Caju announced his intention to repeal the Great Green Laws,
Greenies gathered on the lawn in front of Parliament with banners and signs.

22. One of the leading activists in the protests was Songa Yara. She is a former student
at the National University, and a self-proclaimed journalist, who regularly posts on her
AzulFish account her opinions on matters related to politics in the Republic of Boto. She has
more than 20 million followers on her AzulFish account, where she constantly criticises
President Caju. Being a Panaã descendant, she fears the impact the repeal of the Great
Green Laws on the Panaã people. Some of her posts have been flagged as factually
inaccurate by social media fact-checkers.

23. Parliament scheduled its vote to repeal the bill for 1 April 2024. As the date
approached, the Greenies intensified their protests. Crowds grew bigger, and resulted in the
closure of streets in the capital city and traffic was interrupted at times. In the last week of
March, the Greenies established an encampment on the lawn outside Parliament which as
the crowds grew, spilled over into the streets. At times, it caused severe traffic disruption and
affected the major City hospital, which is close to Parliament, and caused, on several days
for short periods of time, the closure of the main bus station in the city which is the hub for
both local and regional bus services. Although there were no reported instances of violence,
President Caju ordered the deployment of a large number of police to monitor and seek to
contain the protests. Around 1500 armed police officers were deployed, creating an
atmosphere of fear among the 3000 Greenies who were camping outside Parliament.
24. On 1 April, the crowd in front of the Parliament grew to approximately 10 000 Greenies.
The Greenies chanted songs and displayed signs with sayings advocating for more
environmental rights. Others displayed banners attacking President Caju, calling him a
criminal and calling for his arrest for crimes against the environment.

25. Just before lunchtime, a small group of protestors entered Parliament through a side
gate and moved through the building. The Police demanded that they leave, and after a tense
stand-off the group of protestors agreed to do so, and they left the building at around 1:30.
Meanwhile, outside there were reported clashes between some of the Greenies and the
police. It is unclear how the clashes started, but the television news at 3pm reported that ten
protestors had been badly hurt and taken to hospital and that one police officer had suffered
life threatening injuries following a blow to the head and subsequent fall. The police authorities
claimed that the police officer had been assaulted by a Greenie protestor, while the Greenies
denied this. There were also reports that police used batons and tear gas to try to disperse
the voters. Due to the tense situation outside of the Parliament, the voting on the repeal of
the Great Green Laws was suspended.

The posts

26. Later, on 1 April, Songa Yara made a series of posts on her AzulFish account. At
15:30, she posted and promoted the following post: (POST A)

“Today’s protest shows the police in Boto are biased. They were beating the Greenies and
protecting the criminals who are members of NUP. We did not attack anyone; it was a
peaceful protest. If any violence occurred, it was in self-defence. They cannot silence us. Our
voice needs to be heard!”

27. Because the post was promoted, it was viewed by many users. In 1 hour, it had more
than 1,000,000 views and 200,0000 shares. Soon after, some AzulFish users replied to her
post saying they saw members of the NUP calmly chatting with the police officer who claimed
he had been attacked by the Greenies inside the parliamentary chamber at 1.15pm (the
protestors had not entered the parliamentary chamber).

28. At 16:30, Yara released a new post: (POST B)

“URGENT NEWS! Exclusive footage from inside the Parliament! Help me identify this
individual!”

29. The post contained a link to several short videos with a date stamp of 1 April. In the
first video, time stamped 1.15pm, a police officer was seen calmly chatting with members of
NUP in the parliamentary chamber, apparently while the parliamentarians were waiting for
the Greenie protesters to leave the building. A second video time stamped 1.30pm, shows
an unknown individual leaving the parliamentary building with the same police officer shown
in the first video. A third video time stamped 1.32pm shows the footage from another
camera, positioned just outside the Parliament building and close to the protest. In the video,
the unknown individual is seen arguing vehemently with the police officer and then he strikes
the police officer on the head with a rolled umbrella. The police officer falls over a parapet,
down approximately two metres, onto a stone terrace where the protestors are standing. The
protestors can be seen in the background growing agitated, especially when the police officer
was struck and fell over the parapet.

30. Once again, Yara’s post attracted great attention. This time, there were approximately
2M shares in just about 2 hours. Some of the users commented that Yara could use the
FacesMatch app, developed by the National University of Boto to identify the unknown
individual who struck the police officer and caused him to fall over the parapet.

31. At 18:30, Yara issued a new post: (POST C)

“URGENT NEWS! Members of the NUP infiltrated our protest! Are we going to accept this or
are we going to act?! OUR RIGHTS ARE IN OUR HANDS!”

32. This post contained a screenshot of the FacesMatch app, which indicated a 99.9%
probability of the face of the unknown individual in the earlier videos being Jabuti, one of
President Caju’s sons. Jabuti does not hold any office and does not have a high public profile.
The reaction to this post was even more massive. By 20:00, it had been shared more than
three million times and been liked ten million times. One of the reasons for this was that
AzulFish’s algorithm considered the post to be surfing and started showing it to more users.

33. Jabuti replied to the post, approximately at 21:00.

“Unlike some claimed, I did not take part in today’s protest, and I did not attack a police officer.
The Greenies promoted the violence. They have no shame in attacking the police force or
your rights. They try to forcefully impose their views, as they forcefully will take your land and
your jobs.”

34. One user replied to the post, copying FacesMatch, and saying: “What is false about
the video? Is @FacesMatch unreliable?”
35. FacesMatch replied using their official AzulFish account: “As per our terms of service,
the accuracy of our technology of facial recognition is 99,9%. Our software is as reliable as
possible”.

Jabuti, on the other hand, replied: “You spread lies. If you continue defending the Panaã,
they’ll soon appropriate your technology, as they have been trying to appropriate our lands”.

36. Later that night, a group of around 100 people gathered in front of the presidential
palace and waited for Jabuti to leave the premises. They were chanting against NUP’s
measures and Jabuti's alleged attack on the police officer. Jabuti left the building through a
backdoor, but a group of around ten to twenty Greenies spotted him. They followed his car,
but Jabuti’s driver managed to dodge the protesters who were crowded around the car.

37. Over the following days, Jabuti continued to be threatened online and physically
stalked by Greenies whenever he left the presidential palace. He continued to deny that he
had assaulted the police officer. The Boto public prosecutors did not open any criminal case
against Jabuti, despite the fact that the police officer who had been injured remaining in a life-
threatening situation in hospital. On 5 April, Jabuti deleted his AzulFish account and refused
to speak to the media. Two months later, he moved to LongeLand and reopened his account.
He updated his followers on the move, claiming the threats had gone too far and he had
decided to flee his country.

Legal proceedings

38. Yara did not delete any of her posts of 1 April. On 6 April, FacesMatch officially
requested AzulFish to delete Post C, claiming it was spreading fake news, as it appeared to
have been generated by AI, and its ongoing publication was causing damage to the reputation
of the software. AzulFish refused to comply with the request.

39. FacesMatch launched a petition in Boto’s courts and a judge of first instance granted
an interim measure demanding the suspension of the post, on the basis that it was digitally
fabricated and constituted disinformation. AzulFish refused to comply with the order. A
newspaper from LongeLand reported some of the founders of AzulFish allegedly commented
on the court order by saying they would never comply with orders that violate the company’s
values, including ample and unrestricted exercise of freedom of expression.

40. Given the public attention to the use of FacesMatch to identify Jabuti in Yara’s post,
FacesMatch initiated an internal investigation to understand whether the software had
malfunctioned. The engineers uncovered that the software’s match was accurate, but they
also discovered that the three videos posted by Yara had been digitally altered in ways that
they could not specify. They stated publicly that in their view the videos could not be relied
upon as accurate accounts of factual events. Following the publication of this statement, the
Greenies lost considerable support from the population, who believed they had initiated a
violent attack against the police. Despite that, Yara neither deleted the posts nor made any
public comments on the truthfulness of the videos.

41. In light of the FacesMatch public statement, the public prosecutors started
proceedings against both AzulFish and Yara for violations of the Digital Safety Law. They
also launched an official investigation into whether the videos had been altered, and if so,
how, but expert opinion was divided and unclear.

42. In August 2024, the Boto Central Criminal Court found Yara’s posts on 1 April,
particularly Post C, to be in violation of Article 3 of the DSL. She was fined US 50.000 dollars
and given a suspended prison sentence of three months. AzulFish was also found guilty of
violating Article 3 of the DSL and sanctioned to pay US 25 million dollars. The judge also
ordered AzulFish to remove all posts by Yara concerning the protests on 1 December. Failure
to do so would result in a sanction of additional US 25 million dollars.

43. AzulFish, on its official account, criticised the decision in a post dated 1 September
saying: “AzulFish makes USD 25M in less than 5 minutes. The Republic of Boto thinks they
can use us a tool to silence opponents? We fight, defend, and promote freedom of
expression. We will appeal this rotten decision”. The social media platform kept the posts
online.

44. Both Yara and AzulFish appealed the Central Criminal Court decision to the Supreme
Court of the Republic of Boto. In November 2024, the Supreme Court unanimously dismissed
the appeal, thus confirming the decision of the Central Criminal Court, both as to conviction
and sanction, as it related to Yara. On the conviction and sanction relating to AzulFish, the
Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal against the conviction and fines imposed
by the Central Criminal Court. However, in addition, it noted Azulfish's post of 1 September
and concluded that the social media platform was displaying an unrepentant attitude. It
accordingly ordered that in addition to the sanctions imposed by the Central Criminal Court
that the company be permanently prohibited from operating in the national territory of the
Republic of Boto, unless it, within six months from the Supreme Court decision, became
independent of its parent company in LongeLand and complied with the order made by the
Central Criminal Court.

Universal Court of Human Rights

45. Following the Supreme Court ruling, AzulFish and Yara approached the Universal
Court of Human Rights, which exercises exclusive jurisdiction to receive and consider
applications from persons alleging violations of rights recognised in the ICCPR.

46. AzulFish and Yara have exhausted all domestic remedies, and in a preliminary
hearing, the Court found both their applications to be admissible. The Court decided to hear
the applications together and certified the applications on two issues:

ISSUE A: Whether the fines and suspended prison sentence imposed on Yara by the Central
Criminal Court of the Republic of Boto and confirmed by the Supreme Court, arising from her
posts on Azulfish on 1 April 2024, violate her freedom of expression as protected by article
19 of the ICCPR.

ISSUE B: Whether the fines and sanctions imposed on AzulFish, by the Central Criminal
Court of the Republic of Both and the Supreme Court of the Republic of Boto violate its
freedom of expression.

AzulFish and Yara seek from the Universal Court of Human Rights (1) declarations that their
rights under the ICCPR have been violated; and (2) directions to the Republic of Boto to take
immediate actions to fulfil its obligations under the ICCPR.