In the
Sovereign Court of International Justice

Before the
Human Rights Court Division

Registry of Remedial Judgments

Under Conventional International Law at Common Law



In the Case of:

Workers Rights International v. State of Kuwait

Case No: HRC-RMD-2017-001

Between (Plaintiff): Workers Rights International

And (Defendant(s)): The State of Kuwait

In the matter of a Class Action by an international trade union representing foreign
workers employed by the Ministry of Education of the State of Kuwait, seeking to
recover unpaid contractual and statutory equal payments for equal work, to enforce
binding precedents of landmark Judgments by the Constitutional Court and also Court
of Appeal of Kuwait, and other legal remedies for violations of human rights to living
wages and protection from discrimination by national origins.

Ruling Ordered & Issued on 05 August 2017


Legal Research & Content 2017 Sovereign Court of International Justice.
All International Rights Reserved.
2


Legal Notice to Any Adverse Parties

Any form of apparent retaliation for this Order, targeting the Court or participants
in the case, even indirectly, including by threats or defamation, is a criminal
violation against the Court, regardless of its "recognition", generally punishable by
15-30 years imprisonment. (UN Independence of Judiciary, Articles 2, 4; UN
Remedy for Violations of International Law, Preamble: 8; UN Responsibility to
Protect Human Rights, Articles 10, 11, 12.2; UN Law of Treaties, Article 38; 18 USC
1116(b)(2); 18 USC 112(b)(2); 18 USC 878(a)-(b); 18 USC 1513(e).)

All Judiciary or inter-governmental officials related to the Court are strictly
protected from any interference as "internationally protected persons" regardless
of "recognition", enforceable by extradition and imprisonment by any cooperating
country even without an extradition treaty. (UN Crimes Against Internationally
Protected Persons, Articles 1(b), 8.2; 18 USC 1116(b); 18 USC 112(c).)

The only lawful challenge to a Court Order is by Appeal, Petition for an Amended
Order based on new evidence, or by Complaint to the Court for disciplinary
review of the Presiding Judges, which must demonstrate bias by proving a defect
of fact or law in the Order. (UN Independence of Judiciary, Articles 16-17.)

(See Details of Judiciary Security & Enforcement at this Link)


Universal Jurisdiction by Subject Matter

The Sovereign Court of International Justice (SCIJ) is an inter-governmental
organization (IGO) established as an official Court of Law, possessing Universal
Jurisdiction over all matters involving international law (UN Declaration of Human
Rights, Articles 10, 28; UN Remedy for Human Rights, Articles 3(c), 4, 5, 12, 14; UN
Right to Protect Human Rights, Articles 1, 3, 5, 9.1-9.2, 9.3(c), 9.4; UN Justice for
Abuse of Power, Articles 5, 7; UN Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Articles 17.1, 37, 40).
As a result, its official Judiciary powers and authorities are supra-governmental, fully
binding upon all countries (UN Independence of Judiciary, Preamble: 1, 10, Articles
3, 4), regardless of recognition (UN Law of Treaties, Article 38).

Specifically, the independent Judiciary of an international Court has "exclusive
authority to decide whether" any legal matter is within its established Universal
Jurisdiction "as defined by law" (UN Independence of Judiciary, Article 3).

The present case falls within the Universal Jurisdiction of the Court, on the basis that its
subject matter and operative facts involve rights and liabilities under customary and
conventional international law at Common Law, or implicate parties from diverse
national jurisdictions, such that only an international Court of Justice of the independent
Judiciary can effectively resolve the case or controversy.
3



Preliminary Issues of Personal Jurisdiction

For the purposes of Remedial Judgment, personal jurisdiction has been established by
means of Plaintiff having filed a complaint asserting legal rights and requesting legal
remedies from the Court (UN Responsibility to Protect Human Rights, Article 9.3(a)),
where Plaintiff has suffered harm by any infringement or impairment of rights under
international law (UN Justice for Victims of Abuse of Power, Article 18).

The related adverse personal jurisdiction, over individuals and any legal entities as
counter-parties, has been established by means of Defendant(s) having committed any
actions or omissions alleged to constitute apparent participation in violating rights
under international law (UN Responsibility to Protect Human Rights, Articles 10-11),
thus incurring potential personal or corporate liability for individual offenses against
rights (UN Justice for Victims of Abuse of Power, Article 8; UN Remedy for Violations
of Human Rights, Articles 3(b), 17).


Summary of Complaint by Plaintiff Class

The Court takes judicial notice of the legal fact that all facts and evidence in the present
case at Bar consist of official laws, regulations and national Court Judgments, as well as
official governmental contracts and informational records of government employees,
under the exclusive control of the State of Kuwait.

Therefore, Defendant is in a position of primary access, direct and full possession of all
evidence supporting the Complaint, more than any of the individual members of the
Plaintiff Class bringing this legal action to the Court.

Accordingly, no special disclosure or delivery of copies of evidence against Defendant
is necessary nor warranted in this case. The Court deems it sufficient to provide a
summary of accurate descriptions of the verifiable facts and evidence supporting the
Complaint, with reference to citations reasonably identifying relevant official
documents, to give effective legal notice of the substance of the case to Defendant.



Basic Factual Claims of the Complaint

Plaintiff generally claims the following factual bases supporting its Complaint in the
present case at Bar, briefly summarized and described as follows:

4

The leading member of the Plaintiff Class, Ashraf Ali Abouelella, was employed by the
Ministry of Education of Kuwait during a period of 20 years and 7 months from 1992
until 2013. All 104 Plaintiff members were so employed as foreign educational
workers during various periods of time, the earliest from 1992, many continuing to the
present day. Judgments regarding these members of the Plaintiff Class also affect the
rights of an estimated 20,000 foreign educational workers in Kuwait.

Plaintiff claims that all the foreign workers were deprived of statutory and contractual
rights mandated by the framework of Kuwaiti employment law, throughout their
respective periods of service, accumulating substantial amounts of unpaid salaries and
benefits. Plaintiff claims they have been systemically denied equal pay for equal work
compared to their Kuwaiti counterparts, as a result of discrimination based on national
origins, and asserts that this constitutes a violation of constitutional rights (Kuwait
Constitution, Article 29), also violating human rights under international law.

Plaintiff claims that foreign workers, all employed by the standard "Second Contract",
were assigned the lower "Fifth Rank" of civil service, instead of the higher "Fourth
Rank" required for their level of university qualifications, to artificially lower their base
salaries (violating Civil Service Decree No.9 of 1979 amended by Decree No.2 of
1981), thereby also lowering their resulting level of monthly bonuses (violating Civil
Service Decree No.14 of 1979 amended by Decree No.1 of 1988).

Plaintiff claims they were deprived of statutory and regulatory monthly benefits:
denied the "periodic allowance"; paid less than half of the "housing allowance";
married workers were denied the "social allowance", and all foreign teachers were
denied the "Cadre" remuneration based on years of experience, which is the most
substantial part of teachers income far exceeding the base salary.

Plaintiff claims they were deprived of the statutory annual "airline tickets allowance"
for each worker and one's family, which in combination with denial of the "housing
allowance", has been forcing many workers to live without their families and
preventing them from visiting family, depriving them of basic human rights to
protection of family relations (UN Declaration of Human Rights, Articles 12, 16.1,
16.3, 23.3, 25; UN Economic Social and Cultural Rights, Articles 10.1, 11.1).

Plaintiff claims they were deprived of other one-time compensation rights, denied the
"furniture allowance" (violating Civil Service Decree No.15 of 1991), "end of service
housing allowance" (violating Second Contract, Article 7), and "end of service casual
leave compensation".

Finally, Plaintiff relies on two landmark precedent Judgments by the High Courts of the
State of Kuwait, which already upheld and ordered enforcement of the rights of foreign
workers claimed in this Complaint:

5

The Kuwait Court of Appeal Judgment "Madkour v. Ministry of Education" of 22 April
2013, ruling that contractual and statutory payments must be equally applied to foreign
workers generally; The Kuwait Constitutional Court Judgment on "Female Educational
Workers" in October 2016, ruling that discrimination denying a class equal pay for
equal work is unconstitutional, and that unpaid statutory benefits to foreign workers
must be paid retroactively.

Therefore, Plaintiff petitions this Court to enforce the binding precedents established by
the Constitutional Court and also Court of Appeals of Kuwait, to apply them to all
members of the Plaintiff Class, and to provide other legal remedies for violations of
human rights to living wages and protection from discrimination by national origins.


Summary of Preliminary Court Order

This Court ruling is a Preliminary Court Order, based upon a preliminary Complaint.
Accordingly, it is not a Judgment, and does not yet adjudicate the merits of the case.
The conclusions in this Preliminary Court Order accomplish and establish several
results, essentially opening the legal case and beginning the international Judiciary
process. Its practical effects are briefly summarized as follows:

To establish the case, this ruling (1) certifies international jurisdiction over the subject
matter, (2) certifies Plaintiff as an international trade union, (3) certifies Plaintiff as
representatives of a Class for group legal action, and (4) certifies the case for fast-track
"Summary Judgment" on the merits only as a matter of law, based on verified facts
which cannot reasonably be in dispute, and thus not requiring any trial process.

To prepare the case, this ruling (5) orders the case to be referred to the United Nations
International Labour Organization in Geneva for its statutory "Representation
Procedure" and a "Special Tribunal", and (6) orders an Amended Complaint to be
adapted to the UN process, also to be used in further process by this Court for a
Remedial Judgment.

To open the case, this ruling (7) opens the international civil law case by Plaintiff
against Defendant in the Human Rights Court Division, and (8) opens an international
criminal investigation of Defendant by the independent Judiciary.

To protect the case, this ruling (9) orders a prohibition of any and all victim
intimidation by Defendant against the Plaintiff Class, requiring Defendant to publish a
statement assuring Plaintiff members of access to international Justice, under penalty of
Contempt of Court orders, and (10) orders confidentiality of individual identities of
Plaintiff members under "Judiciary secrecy" for protection of human rights to privacy
and security against victim intimidation or retaliation.



6


Court Certifications Opening the Case

1. Certification of International Jurisdiction

The Court hereby certifies that the present case at Bar brought by Plaintiff is governed
by specific provisions and mandates of applicable international law, as codified in
several United Nations (UN) conventions directly related to the subject matter:

The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, the UN International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966, and the UN International Covenant on
Economic Social and Cultural Rights of 1966. Such conventions are binding upon all
States as evidence of established "customary rules of international law", which are
binding upon even non-signatory countries, regardless of ratification or recognition, as
declared by the UN Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969 (Article 38). The
relevant provisions in these conventions are also expressed and implemented in the UN
International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention on Discrimination in Employment
and Occupation of 1958.

The ILO Discrimination in Employment was ratified by Kuwait on 01 December 1966.
The UN Law of Treaties was ratified by Kuwait on 11 November 1975, thereby directly
invoking obligations of customary international law under the UN Declaration of
Human Rights. The UN Civil Rights was ratified by Kuwait on 21 May 1996, and the
UN Economic Rights was ratified by Kuwait on 21 May 1996.


2. Certification of International Trade Union

The Court hereby legally recognizes and certifies Plaintiff as a non-profit de facto civil
society organization (CSO) under customary international law, identified by the
common law trade name "Workers Rights International", consisting of a collective
professional network and international trade union of workers, specializing in
representing the rights of workers in regions of the Middle East.

The Plaintiff entity is further identified as the CSO managed by Ashraf Ali Abouelella
as Chief Administrator for its members, and represented by its Chief Legal Counsel,
Doctor Galal Wadnan Elaboudy, LL.B., LL.M., LL.D., as Senior Partner of its
managing law firm, and Prince Judge Matthew of Thebes, Ph.D., J.S.D., P.C., as its
international Barrister (Of Counsel), both through the law firm International Center
for Law and Advocacy (ICLA), based in Cairo Egypt.

The Court further certifies that Plaintiff "Workers Rights International" is effectively
formed as a legal entity under conventional international law, in the form of a collective
association and international trade union of workers as a civil society organization
(CSO), established by the effective exercise of their established legal rights.

7

In particular, those legal rights are freedom of association including the right to form
and join trade unions for protection of their interests (UN Declaration of Human Rights,
Articles 20, 23.4; UN Covenant on Civil Rights, Article 22.1; UN Covenant on
Economic Rights, Article 8(a)), and the right to participate in public affairs through
their chosen representatives (UN Civil Rights, Article 25(a)). Such rights also include
the obligation of States to engage in "consultation with representative workers
organizations" and "other appropriate bodies" (ILO Discrimination in Employment,
Articles 1.1(b), 3(a)).


3. Certification of Class for Legal Action

In Common Law as customary international law, a "Class Action" lawsuit is a "legal
action involving a large group or class of people. Without having every member of the
Class join the action, a few individuals initiate a Court case becoming representatives of
the group." (Black's Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1910, "Class Action".)
Traditionally, this is also called a "Representative Action" or "Group Litigation", in
cases where the legal rights of any generally identifiable group, whose members share
common operative facts relating to the same legal case, are collectively represented by
only a few named members of that group.

The essential connection unifying a Class is that the rights of its members both named
and unnamed, known and unknown have been infringed by the same Defendants in
the same way. (Wex Legal Dictionary, Legal Information Institute (LII), Cornell Law
School, 2017, "Class Action".)

The international legal process of Class Action is represented as codified by the United
States Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule 23), and the England and Wales Civil
Procedure Rules (Part 19.6).

The Court finds and hereby certifies that the Class in the present case is defined as all
educational workers of foreign nationalities employed by the Ministry of
Education of the State of Kuwait. The Court may expand this case to include foreign
workers of other professions employed by other Ministries of Kuwait, subject to related
additional evidence when such may be submitted to the Court.

The Complaint by Plaintiff in this case is joined by 104 named workers of the education
profession who were employed as foreign workers by the Ministry of Education of the
State of Kuwait, including 101 Egyptian, two Jordanian and one Syrian.

All current participants signed official instruments giving power of attorney of legal
representation to the managing law firm of Plaintiff's civil society organization as an
international trade union. All powers of attorney were signed and notarized, some by
Notary Public in Egypt and others in the Egyptian Embassy in Kuwait, during the
month of March 2017.

8

Plaintiff possesses substantial experience with and mastery of the body of knowledge
and body of evidence for representing the legal rights of the Class, and has served as the
original and primary promoter of their cause since the beginning of the events
constituting their case.

Therefore, the Court hereby certifies Plaintiff as the legal representative for the
certified Class in the present case as a Class Action lawsuit, and for all related legal
purposes.


4. Certification of Case for Summary Judgment

In Common Law as customary international law, a "Summary Judgment" is a fast-track
"accelerated Judgment" by a Court of Law, without a full trial process, based upon the
documents in evidence, in civil cases "where material facts are not disputed or where
[a] Court's opinion is used for Judgment." (Black's Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1910,
"Summary Judgment".) Traditionally, this is also called "Judgment on the Merits" or
"Judgment as a Matter of Law", in cases where the operative facts are already well
established and cannot reasonably be disputed.

This international legal doctrine of Summary Judgment is represented as codified by the
United States Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule 56), and the England and Wales
Civil Procedure Rules (Part 24).

The Court hereby certifies the present case as qualified for Summary Judgment on the
merits as a matter of law, on the basis of the verified operative facts established by
documentary evidence submitted by Plaintiff.

This evidence, establishing that the facts of the case cannot reasonably be disputed,
includes binding legal precedents of Judgments by the Constitutional Court and also
Court of Appeal of Kuwait upholding the rights claimed in this Complaint, in the
following landmark cases:

1. The Kuwait Court of Appeal Judgment "Madkour v. Ministry of Education" of 22
April 2013 (Appellate Judgment Order No.417/2012, 2nd Administrative Circuit), ruling
that: (A) foreign workers as contracting government employees should receive the
same net salaries as Kuwaiti workers, (B) statutory benefits are also enforceable as
binding contractual rights, (C) contractual and statutory payments must be equally
applied to foreign workers, (D) workers cannot be arbitrarily assigned a service rank
lower than their qualifications to artificially lower their salary and benefits, and (E)
such equal pay and benefits must be applied to all contracting workers generally as
"consequent effects" of this Judgment;

9

2. The Kuwait Constitutional Court Judgment on "Female Educational Workers"
reported by news media and workers rights advocacy groups in October 2016, ruling
that: (A) discrimination denying a Class of people equal pay for equal work is
unconstitutional, and (B) compensation for unpaid statutory benefits to foreign workers
must be paid retroactively for the relevant period of service.


Court Orders Opening the Case

5. Order for Referral to United Nations

Ordered The Court hereby orders the case to be referred by the Chamber of
Instruction Judges to the United Nations (UN) International Labour Organization (ILO)
in Geneva, Switzerland, as an additional and parallel process supplementing the present
case. The case shall be submitted for dual or alternate processes, petitioned jointly and
severally in a unified Complaint, to both:

(1) the ILO International Labour Office for its Representation Procedure, (ILO
Constitution, Articles 24-25), requesting: (A) an official Recommendation from the
ILO Governing Body on non-observance of conventions on workers rights, and (B) for
a Special Tribunal (ILO Constitution, Article 37.2) to be appointed by the Governing
Body to issue an Administrative Judgment upholding such rights for enforcement; and

(2) the ILO Administrative Tribunal (ILO Rules, Articles 5.1, 16; ILO Statute, Articles
2.5, 7.2-7.3), requesting: (A) to ensure that measures are taken by the ILO International
Labour Office by its Representation Procedure, and (B) to issue an Administrative
Judgment, on the basis of public reliance upon the ILO's published official translations
in Arabic interpreting the English term "officials" to mean all "workers" generally
employed by any government agency.

Ordered The Court orders that any resulting Recommendation or Administrative
Judgment from ILO shall be included by the Chamber of Instruction Judges in
processing the case, and shall be considered by the Chamber of Presiding Judges in
adjudicating the case.

If for any reason the referred Complaint is not accepted or not processed by ILO for
either process, this shall be deemed only a concession of its limited authorities or
limited capabilities, thus constituting an official referral back to this Court, and shall not
in any way prejudice the full processing of the case by this Court of international
Justice of the independent Judiciary profession.



10


6. Order for Amended Complaint

Ordered The Court hereby orders that Plaintiff's original preliminary Complaint of
26 July 2017, supporting the present Court Order, be amended to reflect the
certifications established herein, and to include elements suitable for use in the referred
parallel processes of the UN International Labour Organization (ILO) in Geneva.

The resulting formal Complaint as amended for referral to the ILO shall be accepted by
this Court as an Amended Complaint and petition for Summary Judgment at Law.

The monetary amounts of remedial relief and compensatory damages requested by the
current 104 members of the Plaintiff Class shall be explained and described in the
Amended Complaint. Such requests shall be considered by the Chamber of Presiding
Judges based upon and in the context of accepted practices and legal precedents for the
amounts of such monetary awards by the independent Judiciary profession.

A courtesy copy of the final amended Complaint will be delivered to Defendant as and
when such is filed with the ILO and submitted to this Court.


7. Order for Opening Civil Law Adjudication

Ordered The Court hereby orders the official opening of the civil law case by
Plaintiff against Defendant. For this purpose, the Court instructs its Registrar to issue a
case docket number under the Human Rights Court Division for subsequent Remedial
Judgment adjudicating the present case at Bar.


8. Order for Opening Criminal Investigation

Ordered The Court hereby orders the official opening of an international criminal
investigation of Defendant and all its officials or staff involved in the facts and events
of the present case. For this purpose, the Court instructs its Chamber of Instruction
Judges to investigate whether any person or legal entity has committed any actions or
omissions participating in violation of rights under international law, and whether such
actions incur personal or institutional criminal liability for offenses against rights.

In connection with this criminal investigation, the Court takes judicial notice of the
following legal facts:

Personal criminal liability for actions violating human rights applies despite the acting
person holding official capacity (UN Civil and Political Rights, Article 2.3(a)), and
despite the actions not being prohibited by national criminal laws (UN Justice for
Victims of Abuse of Power, Article 18);

11

International law mandates direct personal liability for violations (UN Responsibility to
Protect Human Rights, Articles 10-11; UN Remedy for Violations of Human Rights,
Article 3(b)), which is subject to direct personal sanctions and penalties (UN Abuse of
Power, Article 8). State officials incur even greater criminal liability for the additional
offense of "abuse of power" violating human rights (UN Guidelines on the Role of
Prosecutors, Article 15);

All States are obligated to enforce "foreign" Judgments of an international Court of
Law imposing direct personal liabilities against violating individuals or entities (UN
Remedy for Violations of Human Rights, Article 17).


Court Orders of Protections under Judiciary Security

9. Order Against Criminal Victim Intimidation

In direct and immediate response to members of Plaintiff class on social media
discussing planning and preparation of an international Judiciary process to enforce
their legal rights, officials of the Ministry of Education of Kuwait caused a statement of
its position to be published in Kuwaiti newspapers with international online
distribution, one in Arabic and one in English, thereby publicly announcing its official
position for all foreign workers to see:

The same article appeared in the Arab Times of 31 July 2017, headlined "Some
Teachers Threaten to Take Kuwait to International Courts: MOE Warns of Actions
Against Complaints", and also in "El Shahid", No.3094 of 01 August 2017, headlined
"Migrant Teachers Go to International Court Against Ministry of Education";

The article reports a national "crisis" which "escalated" to educational workers "hiring
lawyers" and pursuing "lawsuits" with "international courts" against the State of
Kuwait for violations by its Ministry of Education. The article declared the position of
the Ministry of Education in direct response to the planned Judiciary process:

"Ministry of Education will not stand idle in the face of these measures, which affect
the country's reputation in international forums. Firm actions will be taken against any
teacher who harms Kuwait's reputation. If any teacher is proven to have done so,
his/her service will be terminated. They insisted that Kuwait's reputation is the 'Red
Line' and no one will be allowed to tarnish the image of the 'State of Humanity'."
(Arab Times, Some Teachers Threaten to Take Kuwait to International Courts: MOE
Warns of Actions Against Complaints, 31 July 2017.)

In international law, a State has limited rights to protect its reputation only against a
"campaign" of "propaganda" by another State which undermines its "sovereignty and
political independence" (UN Declaration on Interference in the Internal Affairs of
States, Preamble, Article 2: Section 2(j)). A State most certainly has no reputational
rights whatsoever against private persons seeking to assert their lawful rights.
12


The Court notes the common sense practical reality that a State is solely responsible for
the consequences to its reputation from its own policies and its own official actions
towards the people living and working on its own territory:

If a State is so concerned about its "reputation", then it would be well advised to avoid
publicly and flagrantly making highly illegal threats to intimidate victims of rights
violations who are only seeking to assert their basic human rights by appeal to the
international Judiciary. By aggressively making such public threats against victims, the
State can only cause far greater damage to its own reputation than allegations of its
years of violations of workers rights could do.

The Court hereby takes judicial notice of the legal fact that such threats, for
intimidation against lawful claims of legal rights, may be considered as evidence of
consciousness of guilt for violations against rights.

The declared policy of censorship by threats of victim retaliation against legal
complaints is strictly prohibited by international law, which mandates absolute
protection of Freedom of Speech. Such censorship constitutes a major violation of
fundamental human rights:

"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression and to impart
information and ideas regardless of frontiers." (UN Declaration of Human Rights,
Article 19; UN Civil & Political Rights, Article 19.2.)

The declared policy of retaliatory action against lawful complaints to the international
Judiciary is also strictly prohibited by international law, which mandates absolute
protection of Access to Justice. Such intimidation constitutes a major violation of
fundamental human rights:

All people have the right of Access to Justice through an "independent" Court as an
"international" institution (UN Declaration of Human Rights, Articles 10, 28),
providing alternative mechanisms of "customary Justice" (UN Basic Principles of
Justice, Article 7), as "international judicial organs" of "universal jurisdiction"
providing "judicial remedy" as "other bodies" by independent "international processes"
without government influence nor interference (UN Remedy for Human Rights,
Articles 4, 5, 12, 14).

In Common Law as customary international law, it is a universal criminal offense to
intimidate a victim of rights violations by threatening "retaliation", specifically
including threats against their "lawful employment or livelihood", to prevent their
asserting lawful rights in a Court of Law of the independent Judiciary. This major
violation constitutes the international crime of "Victim Intimidation" (UN Right to
Protect Human Rights, Article 12.2).

13

This international legal doctrine of Victim Intimidation is represented as codified by the
United States Federal Criminal Code as "victim tampering" punishable by 20 years
imprisonment (18 USC 1512(b)), and by the United Kingdom Criminal Justice and
Public Order Act as "victim intimidation" (Section 51).

Specifically, such threats are internationally recognized as a punishable criminal
offense even when the official proceeding is not yet opened nor pending, but is merely
rumored or being planned or prepared (18 USC 1512(f)).

In Common Law as customary international law, this same offence of Victim
Intimidation by threats is also an additional compound criminal offense of "Extortion",
generally defined as threatening any unlawful action as the means to enforce any
unlawful demand.

This international legal doctrine of Extortion is represented as codified by the United
States Federal Criminal Code as "Extortion" (18 USC 875), with greater punishment
when committed by government officials (18 USC 872), and codified by the United
Kingdom Theft Act (Section 21) and Serious Crime Act (Schedule 1, Part 11.1) as
"Blackmail", punishable by an additional 14 years imprisonment.

Ordered Therefore, the Court hereby orders the State of Kuwait to immediately cease
and refrain from any and all criminal acts of Victim Intimidation and threats of Victim
Retaliation, and any actions towards implementing such threats, which hereafter shall
be subject to additional penalties for Contempt of Court.

Ordered Furthermore, the Court hereby orders the State of Kuwait to publicly issue
and cause to be published an official denunciation of the statements threatening workers
which its Ministry of Education caused to be published in English on 31 July 2017 and
in Arabic on 01 August 2017, containing a clear official statement of assurance to all
workers that their protected basic human rights of access to Justice to seek legal process
from the international Judiciary shall be respected by the State of Kuwait without any
form of retaliation neither directly nor indirectly. Such statements must be published,
with copies of those publications delivered to the Court, within 14 calendar days from
the date of issuance of this Court Order, under penalty of Contempt of Court Orders.

10. Order Protecting Privacy of Plaintiff Names

All Plaintiffs before the Court who are not public figures, or whose public professional
identities do not make their private legal identities public figures in their private lives,
have a legal right to confidentiality of their private personal identities, to the extent
reasonably necessary to protect against any unlawful retaliation for asserting their rights
in a Court of Law (UN Responsibility to Protect Human Rights, Article 12.2). In such
circumstances, the Court is bound to maintain and protect the "Judiciary secrecy" of
that "confidential information" (UN Independence of Judiciary, Article 15).

14

Private Plaintiffs seeking Justice have the basic human right to protection against being
"subjected to interference with one's privacy", including privacy against "attacks upon
one's honour and reputation" by unlawful defamation (UN Declaration of Human
Rights, Article 12; UN Civil & Political Rights, Article 17), and privacy protecting the
right to personal security (UN Declaration of Human Rights, Article 3; UN Civil &
Political Rights, Article 9).

The Court notes that such privacy protections do not apply to any Defendants, who are
either vindicated by the Court, or otherwise must be publicly identified to protect
"rights and freedoms of others" for the purposes of "public order" and Justice (UN
Declaration of Human Rights, Article 29.2; UN Responsibility to Protect Human
Rights, Article 17).

In the present case at Bar, Defendant's relevant Ministry has already caused its public
threats of retaliation against legal complaints to the Judiciary to be published in Kuwaiti
newspapers with online distribution, both in Arabic and English.

Ordered Therefore, the Court hereby orders that the private identity (i.e. legal names)
of all members of the Plaintiff Class who have directly joined the present legal action
shall be protected and kept strictly confidential under Judiciary secrecy.

Ordered The Court orders that Plaintiff's original preliminary Complaint of 26 July
2017 submitted to this Court, which features a list of the private legal identities of all
104 members of the Plaintiff Class, shall be classified as confidential.

Ordered The Court orders that the only publicly named individual worker in the
Plaintiff Class shall be Ashraf Ali Abouelella, Chief Administrator of the CSO trade
union Workers Rights International, who was employed by the Ministry of Education of
Kuwait during a period of 20 years and 7 months from 21 September 1992 until 22
April 2013.

Ordered The Court orders that the Amended Complaint and all resulting
Administrative Judgments and Remedial Judgments issued in the present matter
brought by Ashraf Ali Abouelella, as the public legal representative of the certified
Class, shall fully apply to and be deemed to legally include all other members of the
Plaintiff Class who may be identified as necessary at a later time.

The verified identities of the other 103 members of the Plaintiff Class are known by the
Court, which shall keep that confidential list, and shall internally administer any
authorized use of that private information in the interests of Justice.

The legal names of individual Plaintiff parties shall only be disclosed to Defendant in
the event that the Court may issue Judgment in favor of Plaintiff, on the precondition of
prior payment of awarded damages to the managing law firm of Plaintiff as a trade
union. Such disclosure shall be made only to the extent necessary to notify Defendant
which individuals have had their legal claims fulfilled and thereby extinguished.
15


Ordered The Court hereby orders all interested parties and any associated or other
third-parties, who may directly or indirectly have knowledge of the private legal
identity of protected Plaintiff parties, whether such knowledge is from prior relations or
from any confidential disclosure to other official institutions, not to publicly disclose
that confidential information.

Any unauthorized disclosures shall be subject to Contempt of Court Orders, civil and
criminal liabilities for the international offenses of victim retaliation (UN Responsibility
to Protect Human Rights, Article 12.2), violation of privacy rights inciting or causing
unlawful defamation or threats to personal security (UN Declaration of Human Rights,
Articles 12, 3; UN Civil & Political Rights, Articles 17, 9), and violation against the
authority of the Court to enforce Judiciary secrecy of confidential information in the
public domain (UN Independence of the Judiciary, Articles 4, 15).


Official Entry of Preliminary Court Order

Wherefore, the present judicial disposition is officially approved, certified and issued
by the Chamber of Presiding Judges, and the Sovereign Court of International Justice
(SCIJ) hereby orders and declares this ruling to be its official Preliminary Court Order
in the case, and formally enters this Order into the registry of the Court.

For further clarifications, orders and directions on the present disposition of this case,
parties may apply and petition to this Court. The Court hereby reserves its authority to
issue an Amended Order incorporating any resulting clarifications in the interests of
public Justice.

This Order is hereby authenticated by its duly appointed Registrar, on behalf of the
Court as a Judiciary institution, by authorized placement of its official Seal, and all
electronic digital originals or color scanned copies shall have the full force and effect
of an original Certified Order issued by the Court, for all legal purposes:

In Re: Workers Rights International v. State of Kuwait
Issued, Entered and Ordered by Court: 05 August 2017





Chancellor, Chamber of Presiding Judges
Sovereign Court of International Justice (SCIJ)
www.iv-university.org/sovereign-court