A very good morning to your excellencies, colleagues and members of the court, My co-counsel and I shall be representing

the defendant, Mr. Karmonic in the case at hand. I shall be addressing this chamber on the charge of genocide as well the
issue of attribution of responsibility, My co-counsel shall be dealing with the second and third charge.

Your Excellencies, we submit to this court that the elements under article 6 of the Rome Statute have not
been established by the Prosecutor. The argument herein has three limbs, first the absence of a causal link,
followed by the lack of special intention as required by the Rome Statute, lastly that the threshold of direct
and public incitement is not met.
“caused the killing” first elemental requirement- direct causal link needs to exist between conduct and
consequence. (Prosecutor v Mitar Vasiljević1). The factual matrix establishes that there has been an
independent series of attacks even when Mr. Karmonic was under arrest and there is no instigation. (Page 9).
Further, any connection between the rioters and Mr. Karmonic has not even been shown so as to effectively
address whether they were indeed swayed by him or other factors.
Special intent: The gravest crime or high crime of genocide requires that there be a special intention over and
above the mere intention of killing.
Fact- (Page 9, MP)- Help Sarozula previously demanded, as factually established, that Rokumba shall return
to the path of mutual co-existence and development.
[it is not necessary whether specific intent existed prior to the occurrence of the crime, but that specific
intent must exist when the act was actually committed. (Prosecutor v Kayishema and Ruzindana)]
(difference in the series of events than what the prosecution is pleading on page 13 of their written
submission)
Herein the prosecution has not showed any manifest pattern of similar conduct which means that "similar"
would refer to any of the five types of genocidal act listed in article 6. No such evidence has been
presented on this.
(Not having authored the original post, he did not know that the news was falsified.)
Direct and public incitement- Vague and indirect allegations cannot establish the genocidal intent which is
not understood as intent related to general crimes but ‘the intent to accomplish certain specific types of
destruction’ against a targeted group. (Prosecutor v. Rutaganda, ICTR). There has been a failure to adhere
to the concept of incitement under the Rome Statute (Unlike ICTR & ICTY) whereby this is not a standalone
crime but requires the same special intention.
Alternatively, Knowledge- The ILC expressed a similar view when it found that 'a general awareness of
the probable consequences' of a genocidal act was not sufficient. such knowledge must refer to actual (as
opposed to probable) destruction (Prosecutor v Jelisić)2 furthered by Article 30 (provides that the
perpetrator must have meant to cause the consequence). The case law of the ad hoc tribunals confirms
that the harm must have been inflicted intentionally (Prosecutor v Popović)3

1
ICTY T. Ch., Judgment, 29 November 2002, para 205)
2
ICTY A. Ch., 5 July 2001, para 42
3
ICTY T. Ch., Judgment, 10 June 2010, para 811