#Once again I'm only using words recreatively don't mind me

[kyouka-supremacy]

Me studying for the upcoming international laws exam like:

Okay, let's say a Japanese citizen and a person of Russian nationality were committing crimes in a prison in France. Which country has jurisdiction, and which country has the right to process them? Sure, you could argue that the Japanese citizen works for a government approved and affiliate agency, and thus can benefit of immunity; however, the citizen was sent to prison by will of his nation herself, thus repudiating his publicistic role and consequent immunity benefits. The jurisdiction conflict right makes an hard dilemma to settle, since there's little to no preceding practice of a case involving two different nationality individuals committing crimes in a third nationality country. Counterpoint: there's no record of the two individuals ever undergoing what the International Court of Justice considers legal trial, thus going against the fundamental human right to a fair trial as stated by article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; then the two individuals can't be held accountable, since there's fault at the source for them being restrained illegally. That would make Japan guilty of violations of human rights. However, that might be given by a suspension of the ordinary regimen consequent to the vampiristic outbreak that has been plaguing the entire globe and hardly testing the United Nations's capabilities to maintain international order. But objection! The two individuals were denied their rights of a fair trial before the vampire outbreak; that means the Japanese government must be held accountable for its violations, since the extenuating circumstances don't count now. However,