No, that would be incongruous.

It would be incongruous in these cases to deny the victims of such non-State actors the rights and remedies available to other victims.

It would thus be incongruous to propose draft guidelines that made the formal validity of an interpretative declaration condition upon respect for such a procedure.

Moreover, although the rule of parallelism of forms is not an absolute principle in international law, it would be incongruous if a reservation, about which there can surely be no doubt that it should be in writing, could be withdrawn simply through an oral statement.

In the I.G. Farben case of the same year (yet another “Subsequent Proceedings” trial), the Tribunal pronounced that it would be incongruous to charge the entire population with crimes against peace: only those persons in the political, military or industrial spheres who bear responsibility for the formulation and execution of policies can be held liable for crimes against peace.

For example, the Commission was cautioned against stretching the Mavrommatis principle that an injury to a national is an injury to the State itself too far: it would not be incongruous to consider that the “clean hands” of the individual could constitute a precondition for diplomatic protection, exactly as the exhaustion of local remedies was up to the private individual and not the State.

For example, the Commission was cautioned against stretching the Mavrommatis principle (that an injury to a national is an injury to the State itself) too far: it would not be incongruous to consider that the “clean hands” of the individual could constitute a precondition for diplomatic protection, exactly as the exhaustion of local remedies was up to the private individual and not the State.

It would thus be incongruous to suppose that the obligation to extradite or prosecute an individual accused of committing that crime was limited by a treaty binding upon the custodial State when the nature of the norm violated did not allow for impunity.

In response, it was stated that it would be incongruous for a State to use the rules of the draft convention to interpret existing law only when a given transaction met the requirements of the draft paragraph, while using other rules in connection with transactions that did not meet those requirements.

Russia has made no pledges neither commitments when it became member of Human Rights Council, therefore Georgia's recommendations shall not be considered incongruous with paragraph (d) of the review stipulated in HRC resolution 5/1.