The defence argument is based on the pre conceived notion that these reports are unreliable but in

the Bemba case, the reports by Amnesty International was admissible as these reports have enough
probative value to be admissible as evidence. The argument of the Defense counsel that in the case
of the Prosecutor v. Boskoski the Human Rights Watch report was inadmissible is based on the fact
that the particular researcher, Peter Bouckaert, had not taken due care while preparing the report
unlike done in every report by the organisation. The Rome statute is flexible in the different
evidences that are admissible and can be admitted after looking at the probative value of the
evidence. Thus these media and NGO reports are admissible as evidence.

The defence counsel argument that the attacks were not directed against civilians is completely false
and it is mentioned in Para-6 of the moot proposition that civilians were killed and the report by
Amnesty international also mentions the same. The attack was directed against the civilian
population in a systematic and widespread attack as people were kept as free labor in the
concentration camp and the accused had violated the Geneva Convention. People were kept at the
concentration camp and utilized as free labor and extrajudicial murders were committed by Jeremy
Kaloch, Manoch army and guards of Rhina as mentioned in the report by Human Rights watch and
this clearly shows the intention was to kill and the accused had the knowledge of the murder.

The Manoch army launched counter terrorism operation in Kalochistan as mentioned in Para- 6
clearly shows that there was an armed conflict and the defence argument that there was no
existence of armed conflict is completely false and the Treaty of Accession signed between
Manochistan and kalochistan clearly states that Manochistan would be responsible only for trade,
communication and defense of Kalochistan but the deployment of guards of Rhina and the counter -
terrorism operation is a serious violation of this treaty. The reports by various Ngos and media
videos clearly shows that the accused were aware of the factual circumstances.

The facts clearly show that the orders were given from the higher authorities and the army just
acted in the way the higher authorities commanded and can be corroborated from the joint
statement of the two states in which they put the guards of Rhina to protect their establishments.
Jeremy Kaloch was a local leader and thus, has effective control over a group of persons in a chain of
command. Thus the accused had superior responsibility and is guilty under Article 28 of the Rome
statute.