The Commentary of the Rome Statute defines integrity of the proceedings as “balancing a

number of corners and values found in the Statute, including respect for the sovereignty of
states, respect for the rights of the persons, the protection of the victims and witnesses and
the effective punishment of those guilty of grave crimes

REBUTTAL
ISSUE 1:
1. Even though the Rome Statute does not prescribe an absolute exclusionary rule, it
provides two reasons for the exclusion of evidence, needed alternatively.

Inded, the Rome Statute does not prescribe an absolute exclusionary rule, but there are two
requirements for the exclusion of evidence in the RS, either one of which is sufficent to
exclude the illegally obtained evidence. In this case both of them are fulfilled.

2. It is not the breach of national law that makes the evidence inadmissible, but the
manifest violation of multiple internationally recognized human rights

It is correct that the RS prescribes that national law is not bindning on the ICC, but it is the
constitutionally AND internationally recognized human rights that were violated by the
breach of national law, and the violations in question were of the character and gravity to
fulfill the 69(7) requirements.

3. The violation of right to privacy and of the right to liberty and security in this case do
meet the requirements from art. 69 (7)
3.1. The violation does cast substantialdoubt on the reliability and the claims that
the contents would be the same if the evidence was obtained legally have no
grounds since there is no chain of custody and the evidence was received in hard
copies
3.2. The evidence admission would damage the proceedings since admission of the
only possibly incriminaing evidence that was obtained by means of harsh
violations of human rights of the accused would offend the Court's impartiality and
sense of justice

ISSUE 2:

The airstrikes are not of the character, gravity and scale to constitute the act of aggression
under the Article 8bis of the Rome Statute
If we take obligations erga omnes in consideration, the Prosecution cannot claim that the
airstrikes were „unprovoked“. First of all, Bravos breached international obligations by not
eliminating the chemical weapons. Secondly, Bravos committed crimes against humanity on
its own citizens, thus violating the sacred human right – the right to life, along with multiple
other constitutionally and internationally recognized human rights. And the protection of
these human rights represents an obligation erga omnes, thus every state may feel provoked
when one state violates them,

In addition, the situation in Bravos was a threat to international peace and security, in
accordance with the practice of the UN Security Council.

The character of the airstrikes was rather that of a humanitarian intervention, not aggression,
all including the purpose of saving the human lives, the low loss of life as collateral damage,
and the narrowly tailored way the airstrikes were performed, in order to not exceed the
minimum needed for the purpose of saving people.

The humanitarian intervention is a part of customary international law. It was an unknown

concept at the time the UN Charter originated from, but even the simple analysis of the
Charter allows for humanitarian intervention. Adding the years and years of state practice in
this field, along with opinio iuris expressed through the many unanimous UNSC resolutions
as well as UNGA resolutions, humanitarian intervenion shall be considered a part of
customary international law.

ISSUE 3:

In the applicable law, art. 21. of the RS, the Rome Statute is the first in the hierarchy of law
sources before this Court. Continuing the prosecution of the Defendant based on the grounds
that the Prosecution presented would be a manifest violation of multiple provisions in the
Statute which prescribe criminal liability only for high state and military officials, even if all
the claims from the Prosecution were correct. Those are art. 8bis and art. 25 (3)bis of the RS,
and the Elements of Crimes.