The Conclave has reached a verdict regarding this appeal.
It is the opinion of this Conclave to again find the defendant, @Kingdom_of_Napels (Soramra/JoWhatup) NOT GUILTY.
The court has taken time to once more retrace these trial proceedings, and have discussed the merits and basis of the prosecutions case. We have emerged from these discussions unconvinced of the prosecutions claims, and unable to find guilt in the actions of the defence.
As previously established, the court retains it’s ruling that the bar for high treason was not met by the defendant. The treason act reads:
Every one commits high treason who overthrows or attempts to overthrow the legitimate Delegate or the legitimate government of the East Pacific; within the East Pacific, levies war against the East Pacific or does any act preparatory thereto; or assists an enemy at war with the East Pacific or any forces against whom the East Pacific is engaged in hostilities, whether or not a state of war exists between the East Pacific and the entity to which the forces belong to.
The court does not find there to be sufficient evidence that the defendant partook in any attempts to overthrow the legitimate delegate or government, nor is there sufficient evidence to demonstrate participation in preparatory actions to serve the same purpose. While the defendant may at first seemingly have participated in preparatory actions, aiding and abetting an individual attempting to overthrow the legitimate delegate and/or government of The East Pacific, evidence presented by the defence demonstrates this was not the case, and the public comments regarding infiltration in The East Pacific were, as far as the court can determine, intended to be falsifications with the intention of straying a suspected intelligence operative off-course. Therefore, with the evidence available to the Conclave, we cannot find the defendant failed to inform the government of The East Pacific regarding an imminent threat to its security, as no such threat did exist.
To clarify, the court did not imply nor come to the conclusion of guilt upon the defendant in the original trial verdict, the Presiding Arbiter merely centred the verdict around the absence of citizenship as opposed to the absence of evidence to determine the charges laid by the prosecution.
The Conclave would, however, like to establish its view on the matter of absent citizenship, and the apparent loophole the original verdict left without clarification. It is the opinion of the majority of arbiters that the laws of The East Pacific can be applied to those not currently holding residency and/or citizenship within the region, at the determination of the Conclave. The Conclave feels it appropriate that this precedent applies to this case, however as previously clarified, the court nonetheless does not find the defendant committed high treason or omission to prevent treason.
I would like to thank both parties for their patience, these trials can be long and arduous, especially when it requires the attention of the Conclave at large. If either party requires anything further, please get in touch with me privately.