Entry of Appearance

Mr. President, your excellencies, Good afternoon. May it please the court. My

name is ___________ appearing as counsel for the defense, with me is my co

counsel ________________. We will be presenting the war crimes charged

against Admiral Tony Gusman and I will be presenting the first count of the

war crime charged while my co-counsel will be presenting counts 2 and 3. My

submission will require 13 minutes while my co-counsel will require 14 mins.

We reserve 3 mins for the rebuttal. Thank you and may it please the court.

SPEECH FOR COUNT ONE

Mr. President, your excellencies, good afternoon. May it please the court. I am

_________ and I will present count one of the war crimes charged against

Admiral Tony Gusman. If you do not have any preliminary questions, may I

proceed with my submission. Thank you your excellencies.

We came before you today to seek for true justice, convict those who are truly

and rightfully liable and free the ones who are innocent. The events which

took place in the island of Yukule is unfortunate and we are one with the

prosecution that the people liable to the crime must be convicted and suffer

the punishment. However, we strongly believe that the person being charged
here, Admiral Tony Gusman, is not criminally liable for the war crime charged

against him.

As to the first count of the war crimes charged against Admiral Tony Gusman,

we submit that Admiral Tony Gusman shoukd not be held criminally

responsible for violation of Article 8(2)(b)(25) and Article 25(3)(a) of the Rome

Statute for committing as an individual or jointly with another or through

another person, the war crime of Intentionally Using Starvation of Civilians as

a method of Warfare by Depriving them of Objects Indispensable to their

Survival, including willfully Impeding relief Supplies as provided for under the

geneva convention. Our submission is based on three points:

1. Absence of the elements of the war crime

2. Even if the elements are present, the same are justified

3. Absence of willfulness in impeding relief supplies.

As to the first point. It is our submission that the elements of the war crime of

Intentionally Using Starvation of Civilians as a method of Warfare is not present

in this case. Article 8(2)(b)(25) of the Rome Statute provides for the elements of

the crime which are:

1. The perpetrator deprived civilians of objects indispensable to their

survival
 2. The perpetrator intended to starve civilians as a method of warfare

3. The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an

International Armed Conflict.

4. The perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established

the existence of an armed conflict.

It is our submission that the first 2 elements are lacking in this case. As to the

first element, it was provided under paragraph 11 of the facts, there was only

control over the importation of goods and the same was tightened. This said

control is not tantamount to deprivation. It was also provided in the same

paragraph that Admiral Gusman announced that goods exclusively used for

civilian purpose would be allowed in Yukule. It is clear from the facts that

there was no deprivation, contrary to claims of the prosecution. Although

there was control, such is not deprivation. Further there was evidence that the

need of the civilians with respect to food has been guaranteed. There was a

report gathered containing data presenting the minimum calorie intake

necessary to keep Yukule population alive. As provided under par 14 of the

facts, the military administration used the data to estimate the quantity of

food products allowed and distributed to the different areas of Yukule.

As to the 2nd element of the crime, it is our submission that it is also not

present in this case. As provided under Art. 30 (1) of the Rome Statute that a
crime has only been committed if the material elements are committed with

intent and knowledge. Therefore, an act does not render the perpetrator

culpable unless there is criminal intention. There is intent, in the context

defined under Art 30(2)(b) of the Rome Statutes, when a person means to

cause the specific consequence that would occur in the ordinary course of

events. Further stated in the facts that a certain Captain Ardent, a local

commander in Yukule, claimed that “we monitor supplies closely to prevent

them from being diverted to terrorists, who must be pressed to surrender”.

Therefore the primary reason of the control is to press the terrorist to

surrender. It is evident, that there was no intention on the part of Admiral

Gusman to starve civilians as method of warfare.

As to our second point, it is our submission that assuming arguendo that the

elements of the war crime are present, the acts performed by Admiral Gusman

are justified.

As provided under Art. 31(1)(c) of the Rome Statute, the perpetrator can be
excluded from criminal liability if he “acts reasonably to defend himself or
herself or another person or, in the case of war crimes, property which is
essential for the survival of the person or another person or property which is
essential for accomplishing a military mission, against an imminent and
unlawful use of force in a manner proportionate to the degree of danger to the
person or the other person or property protected. The circumstance
surrounding the conflict between Astro and Bereto is a reasonable ground to
inflict the control on the objects indispensable to the survival of the civilians.
Astro was struck by a political crisis in January 2008 which the Bereton army
took advantage of. As provided under par 7 of the facts, inhabitants and the
remaining members of the Bereton armed and police forces on the island
formed a “resistance militia”, led by Colonel Spartan from the Bereton army.
The control measures forced by Admiral Gusman and the military government
are critical to defray the emerging resistance against the government with the
support from Bereton army. Therefore, it is clear that Admiral Gusman should
not be held criminally liable for the war crime of intentionally using starvation
of civilians as a method of warfare for the same is a necessary means of
accomplishing their mission of pressing the terrorist to surrender.

As to our 3rd and final point, it is our submission that there was absence of
the element of willfulness in impeding relief supplies as provided under the
Geneva Conventions. The suspension of all imports, including humanitarian
aid, was not done intentionally or willfully. Absence of intent to impede the
relief supplies is not a ground to convict the perpetrator of the crime charged
against him. The suspension of all imports was for “security reasons,”
including import of humanitarian aids. The primary reason of the suspension
was not to deprive the civilians of the humanitarian assistance but rather to
protect the lives of those people giving aid which could be prejudiced by the
conflict. The period was only reasonable to address the security concerns of
the people who will deliver the humanitarian aid to the civilians. The
suspension therefore, to impede the relief supplies, was reasonable and
justified given the circumstances in the island of Yukule. This further proves
that Admiral Tony Gusman should not be held criminally liable for the said
war crime because of the absence of willfulness.
You excellencies, given all the material points in our submissions, it is clear
that Admiral Gusman should not be held criminally liable to the war crime of
Intentionally Using Starvation of Civilians as a method of Warfare by Depriving
them of Objects Indispensable to their Survival, including willfully Impeding
relief Supplies as provided for under the geneva convention for the
prosecution’s failure to show that all elements are present, and even if present
the acts were justified and there was absence of the element of willfulness in
impeding relief supplies as provided under the Geneva Conventions.

If you have no more questions I now cede the podium to my co-counsel.

Thank you and may it please the court.