I'm just working on question 4.
I was thinking of using the Tehran Hostages Case (United States of America v. Iran 1980 I.C.J. 3) to support the case that State A did not attempt fulfill its obligations under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1963) as stated under Art. 22 (2).
As well, I figured that in regards to the idea of paying an indemnity, the British gov't had to pay a reparation to the South African gov't for not maintaining adequate protection for the embassy located in Rhodesia House in 1969 during a riot in London.
Guarantees for safety are a given I figured as it is already outlined in the Vienna Convention 1963.
My problem is that I can't find the relevant judgements pertaining to the Rhodesia House incident of 1969...
I was also caught looking for specific conventions on the nature of extra-territoriality (or lack thereof) of Diplomatic Premises. The Vienna Convention outlines the limitations of the receiving state's ability to enter an embassy's premises, but I know (from lectures which are functionally useless) that a state still have jurisdiction rights over embassy territory within its borders. I had in my notes a reference to Fatemi v. United States (1963) in regards to the issue but can't find the case online...any leads would help.
I was also wondering if there was anything else I should mention in regards to the judgements being made in regards to State A.
Q's 1-3 I've handled pretty easily...I just want to make sure in my assessment of the responsibility of State A that I'm not totally off.
Well, I should get back to the books.