The Respondent submits that David Babar is NOT guilty of the war crime charged.

THE ACTS OF DAVID DABAR DO NOT ESTABLISH CRIMES UNDER ARTICLE 8 (2) (A) (I) OF THE STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT. I. II. III. IV. David Dabar’s actions do not amount to the war crime of willful killing. David Dabr’s victims does not fall within the definition of protected persons under the Geneva Conventions. The killings were not associated with an International Armed Conflict (IAC) It was not established that it was Nomag Democratic Resistance Alliance’s (NDRA) acts that caused the deaths which is the subject of the war crime charged against David Dabar.

I. DAVID DABAR’S ACTIONS DO NOT AMOUNT TO THE WAR CRIME OF WILLFUL KILLING. To kill is to cause death. Killing comes with the mental aspect of “intent” in order to amount to a war crime. It requires that the perpetrator have the knowledge that the victim is actually a fellow or one who is a part of the opposing party. THE FOLLOWING BEHAVIORS HAVE BEEN HELD TO CONSTITUTE WAR CRIME: A1. Killing a captured member of the opposing armed forces or a civilian inhabitant of occupied territory suspected of espionage or war treason, unless his or her guilt has been established by a court of law; A2. Reductio of rations for prisoners of war resulting in their starvation; A3. Ill-treatment of prisoners of war in in violation of the laws and usages of war, causing their death; A4. Killing in the absence of a (fair) trial. Among the abovementioned behaviors that constitute war crime, none of which was proven to have been committed by David Dabar. Furthermore, the mental element whether intent or recklessness amounting to willful neglect in relation to the deaths was established. It is imperative to establish the existence of willful killing in order that such act may qualify as a war crime. II. DAVID DABR’S VICTIMS DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF PROTECTED PERSONS UNDER THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS. The victims of the killing do not fall within the umbrella term of protected persons. Victims were no longer under the custody of the NDRA when they met death and there is no such direct evidence linking NDRA with the said killings.

RIOTS. AND CIVILIANS WHO HAD SUFFERED DURING THE LAST WORLD WAR. Such protection to civilians especially against the effects of hostilities advanced through the adoption of the Additional Protocols in 1977. the . This body of law aims to limit the methos and means of warfare with the objective of protecting the people who are not. the type of government forces involved.B. The duration and gravity of the armed clashes. the number of fighters and troops involved. C. The two requirements needed to met in order that a non-international armed conflict exist is to be determined on a case to case basis and by weighing a number of factual indicators. As a result of the two World Wars. the coverage of protected persons included prisoners of war as a safeguard against inhumane or undignified treatment. A NON-INTERNATIONAL ARMED CONFLICT IS TO BE DISTINGUISHED FROM LESSER FORMS OF COLLECTIVE VIOLENCE SUCH AS CIVIL UNREST. ISOLATED ACTS OF TERRORISM OR OTHER SPORADIC ACTS OF VIOLENCE. the type of weapons used. III. THE KILLINGS WERE NOT ASSOCIATED WITH AN INTERNATIONAL ARMED CONFLICT (IAC) The International Humanitarian Law (IHL) requires that the armed groups involved must show a minimum degree of organization and that the armed confrontations must reach a minimum level of intensity in order that a noninternational armed conflict exist. The international humanitarian law applied whether a non-international armed conflict or internal conflict exist. or no longer taking part in hostilities. The care of the sick and wounded on the battlefield was the primary concern of the First Geneva Convention. Individuals aiding these people are to be protected from any attack and be regarded as neutral personnel without any unjust or prejudicial treatment or discernment. PROTECTED PERSONS ARE THOSE SICK AND WOUNDED ON THE BATTLEFIELD. PRISONERS OF WAR. Specific protection to civilians who suffered significantly during the World War II were then included as a result of the Geneva Conventions of 1949.

. it was not absolutely clear who inflicted the fatal injuries. IV. HOWEVER. Direct connection must be established as what was declared in the Prosecutor v. Zdravko MUCIC. Hazim DELIC and E sad LANDŽO. Zejnil DELALIC.. IN ORDER TO PROVE THE WAR CRIME OF “WILFUL KILLING”. at the very least.806 In reaching that finding the Trial Chamber referred to the evidence of four witnesses who had witnessed Delic personally beating Šušic. ability to plan and launch coordinated military operations are among such indicators.that despite there being a “strong suspicion” that Šušic died as a result of the severe beating and mistreatment inflicted upon him by Delic and Landžo. D. THERE MUST BE A DIRECT CASUAL CONNECTION BETWEEN THE ACTS OF THE ACCUSED AND THE RESULTANT DEATHS. THIS LINKAGE CONTINUES TO BE IN A BLUR.number of command. the pe rpetrators of heinous acts which caused great physical suffering to the victim”.” . “. As a result the Trial Chamber found Delic and Landžo not guilty of wilful killing and murder but did convict them both of wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to and cruel treatment on the basis that it was “clear that Delic and Landžo were. IT WAS NOT ESTABLISHED THAT IT WAS NOMAG DEMOCRATIC RESISTANCE ALLIANCE’S (NDRA) ACTS THAT CAUSED THE DEATHS WHICH IS THE SUBJECT OF THE WAR CRIME CHARGED AGAINST DAVID DABAR.