Третий вопрос Эпроф 2.

1. Realization of jurisdiction by courts of Eprofe is infringement of a principle of immunity of the state from foreign jurisdiction of Rantanen.

The principle of immunity of the state from foreign jurisdiction, is the conventional principle of international law, and first of all is usual-rule of law, admits all states, is observed in practice of their mutual relations¹, and affirms as the international legal doctrine².

The UN being engaged in the codification of this principle, stressing the importance of uniformity and clarity in the law of jurisdictional immunities³ has opened for ratification of the UN Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and their property⁴, which can be regarded as a document reflecting the current state of international customary rules on state immunity. Nowadays the principle of state immunity from foreign jurisdiction is  at the heart of some of the codification of the universal conventions, including ratified by Rantanen.⁵

1. The principle is carried out in accordance with the theory of absolute immunity of the state. The concept of absolute immunity, whereby the sovereign was completely immune from foreign jurisdiction in all cases regardless of circumstances⁶. The subsequent spread of functional immunity was based on a voluntary restriction of the immunity provisions of national law or international, Eprof hasn't limited itself, including didn't ratify, also not entered into force the Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities. The absolute immunity rule is still followed by some countries, especially in South America⁷.

2. Infringement of a principle of immunity of the state from foreign jurisdiction attracts infringement of main principle of international law and a general principle of the right recognized as the civilized nations.

This principle logically and legally is to derivatives of one of main principles of international law — the sovereign equality of the states.⁸

State immunity is that, in view of the equality of all States, one State may not exercise authority over other state par in parem nonhabet imperium seu juridictionem, this principle is a principlerecognized by civilized nations, respectively, shall be applied by the court.⁹

3. The legal investigation by courts of Rantanen was wrongful from the point of view of the international individual right. The case was considered by the courts of Eprofe under the laws of the State.¹⁰ Revision of the decision at the international level is not provided by existing international law. Trying to review this decision in all the circumstances of the case (including the fact that the complaint filed on behalf of the ILSA¹¹, rather than the victims themselves, who actually removed from the protection of their rights) can be regarded as an unfriendly act by Rantanen, as well as interference in the internal Eprofe affairs.¹²

Besides, by the nature dispute concerned private-law relations. Thus, even by a legal investigation in court Rantanen the right of Eprofe, as the right of the state of a place of realization of labor activity, as the most widespread binding for the given kind of legal relationship¹³ and Proper law would be the right subject to application. Accordingly, a decision on a dispute relating to the IPL field, with Rantanen law would violate the law generally on this matter, since it is this right will have the closest connection with the legal relationship.¹⁴

4.In addition, the court of Rantanen had to apply Eprofe’s rights in this case because the immunity from the application of foreign law is one of element of immunity from foreign jurisdiction.¹⁵ In this case  the need to apply  the right of Eprofe, including rules relating to the statute of limitations is confirmed by jurisprudence¹⁶.

5. The parties haven't settled all protection frames. Similar requirements have initially been fixed in Art. 22 of the Project of Articles about bases of the international responsibility of the states, accepted by International Law Commission¹⁷. It is confirmed in a number of the universal international conventions, concerning is international recognized rights of the person.¹⁸

Exhaustion of corresponding possibilities by foreign persons is a preliminary necessary condition of that the state of their national identity could establish the infringement fact the subject state of the international obligation. Failure to follow this may be a precondition for illegal interference with the cause of his obligation to the state of internal law and order¹⁹, that is make itself internationally wrongful act of the entitled state.

2. There is no reason to limit the immunity of Eprofe.

1. There was no Waiver of immunity.

Immunity is the possibility of rejection of it by the state to which it belongs.²⁰ Eprofe has repeatedly stated a violation of sovereign immunity by Rantanen (the first and second consideration in Court of Rantaten of First Instance, in addition, was sent a formal letter to the Foreign Ministry of Rantanen²¹), and on this basis declined to participate in trials.

2. Eprofe hasn't limited the immunity by a capture on itself of the corresponding international obligation.

Position of the Convention providing for the possibility of limiting the immunity can’t be construed as a crafted legal practice, since this approach is based on the convention, providing dispositive grounds of limited immunity, assuming that the State may exclude the application of the agreement in its restriction of immunity.²² Similar disposition allows to assert that isn't generated the imperative common law rule.

3. Actions of Eprofe have character of sovereign actions of the state.

Besides, it is necessary to notice that on 1962-1965 in a confrontation Eprofe acted as the sovereign state (acts iure imperii)²³, instead of as the private person. Actions of which Eprofe on case of Turbando, etc. against Republic Eprofe is charged, were made for the purpose of safety and the law and order around a temple of Mai-Tokao, and weren't a business activity. Besides, they proceeded from Eprofe’s army which acts as the representative of the sovereign government and the spokesman of its will.²⁴ There are a number of state cases also holding that employment functions forming part of the core sphere of sovereign activity of the foreign states would attract immunity ²⁵.