Final answer:
Case (A) may break May's majority rule axiom with its unanimity rule for criminal convictions, serving as a safeguard against wrongful convictions. Case (B) could breach the axiom of equal vote value as IMF votes are weighted based on contributions.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question is referring to the voting systems in different contexts and their alignment with May's axioms of voting which are intended to ensure a fair and democratic process. In case (A) involving unanimity for a guilty verdict in a criminal case, the axiom potentially broken could be the majority rule, because a unanimity rule is required instead of a simple majority.
In the context of jury deliberation, the requirement for unanimity is a protective measure to prevent wrongful convictions, given the severe consequences of convicting an innocent person. Meanwhile in case (B), where IMF voting is weighted, the axiom of equal vote value might be breached, as the votes are weighted, meaning not all votes are equal, but are influenced by member contributions.