2017-08-05 Kuwait Teachers 'Workers Rights v. State of Kuwait' (Court Order)

Sovereign Court of International Justice (SCIJ) Human Rights Court Division, "Workers Rights International v. State of Kuwait", Preliminary Court Order of 05 August 2017, regarding the rights of foreign migrant educational workers of Kuwait employed as teachers by the Ministry of Education of Kuwait.
About Ignita Veritas United

Ignita Veritas United (IVU) is an inter-governmental organization (IGO) advancing human rights. It features Ignita Veritas University (IV University) - among only 5 universities in the world with diplomatic status, Magna Carta Bar Chambers (MCBC) - an international law firm of Barristers as the university law center, and Sovereign Court of International Justice (SCIJ) - operated by the independent Judiciary profession.
Court Internal Law Order Article legal
About Ignita Veritas United

Court Internal Law Order Article legal
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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