5TH SURANA & SURANA AND RGNUL INTERNATIONAL LAW MOOT COURT

COMPETITION, 2022
TC-31

5TH SURANA & SURANA AND RGNUL INTERNATIONAL LAW

MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

IN THE

INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT

THE PROSECUTOR

v.

KARATA

&

COLONEL MASTIFA

&

ARAGONIA

&

MAGNOA

&

CATATONIA

&

TAMPURA

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT

[TABLE OF CONTENTS] PAGE | 1

 5TH SURANA & SURANA AND RGNUL INTERNATIONAL LAW MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2022

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS.........................................................................................................I

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES..................................................................................................II

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION..................................................................................VII

STATEMENT OF FACTS................................................................................................VIII

STATEMENT OF ISSUES...................................................................................................IX

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS............................................................................................X

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED..................................................................................................1

I. KARATA IS LIABLE FOR THE CRIME OF INCITEMENT...............................................1

II. COMMANDER TAMPURA AND MASTIFA BOTH ARE INDIVIDUALLY CRIMINALLY

RESPONSIBLE UNDER ART.25 (3) (C)...................................................................................6

III. LIEUTENANT MAGNOA OF THE ARALANDIC ARMY SHOULD BE CHARGED WITH

THE DESTRUCTION OF AND USING CULTURAL PROPERTY AS A SAFE BASE DURING

THE ARMED CONFLICT.......................................................................................................10

IV. SOLDIERS ARAGONIA AND CATATONIA HAVE PERPETRATED WAR CRIMES ON

THE INNOCENT CIVILIAN POPULATION OF ARALAND.....................................................14

PRAYER.................................................................................................................................18

[TABLE OF CONTENTS] PAGE | I

 5TH SURANA & SURANA AND RGNUL INTERNATIONAL LAW MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2022

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

Bahar, Ch. I, Public Redacted Version, (Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-

02/05-02/09-243-red (8 February 2010), ¶65...........................................................................16

Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 U.S. 250, 251 (1952).....................................................................6

Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447 (1969);......................................................................6

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 572 (1941);.......................................................6

F.C.C. v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726 (1978);................................................................6

Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974);....................................................................6

Halilović Appeal Judgment, supra n 63, ¶ 59(iii);.....................................................................8

ICC, Prosecutor v. Blé Goudé, No. ICC-02/11-02/11-186, ¶. 167 (2014).................................6

ICC, Prosecutor v. Mbarushimana, ICC-01/04-01/10-465 (2011), ¶ 279................................17

ICTR, Prosecutor v. Akayesu, ICTR-96-4-T, (1998), ¶ 484......................................................7

ICTR, Prosecutor v. Ndahimana, No. ICTR-01-68-A, ¶ 147 (2013).........................................6

ICTY Prosecutor v. Krstić, Case No IT-98-33-A (19 Apr 2004);..............................................2

ICTY, Naletilić and Martinović, Appeals Chamber..................................................................8

ICTY, Prosecutor v. Brðjanin, No. IT-99-36-A, ¶ 273 (2007);.................................................7

ICTY, Prosecutor v. Furundžija, No. IT-95-17/1-A, ¶ 117 (2000);...........................................6

ICTY, Prosecutor v. Furundžija, No. IT-95-17/1-T, Judgement, 10 December 1998...............8

ICTY, The Prosecutor v. Blaskic’s, IT-95-14 (2005) ¶180.....................................................17

IMT (Tokyo), Case of the Major War Criminals (Id.., § 693)..................................................8

Judgment, IT-98-34-A, 3 May 2006..........................................................................................8

Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973);...................................................................................6

New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982);................................................................................6

[INDEX OF AUTHORITIES] PAGE | II

 5TH SURANA & SURANA AND RGNUL INTERNATIONAL LAW MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2022
NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575, 618 (1969);..........................................................6

Pavle Strugar v. Duronik, ¶ 374, (2008)....................................................................................9

Posadas de Puerto Rico Assocs. v. Tourism Co., 478 U.S. 328 (1986);....................................6

Prakash v. State, (1991)1 SCR, 2012.........................................................................................2

Prosecutor v Katanga, (Pre-Trial Chamber I) ICC-01/04-01/07-55 (6 July 2007), (“Katanga’s

Case I”), ¶37.............................................................................................................................16

Prosecutor v Katanga, (Trial Chamber II) ICC-01/04-01/07-3436 (7 March 2014),

(“Katanga’s Case II”) ¶ 798.....................................................................................................16

Prosecutor v Katanga, ICC-01/04-01/07-3436 (2014), ¶ 798..................................................16

Prosecutor v Ntaganda, (Pre-Trial Chamber II) ICC-01/04-02/06-309 (9 June 2014),

(“Ntaganda’s Case”), ¶45.........................................................................................................16

Prosecutor v Ntaganda, ICC-01/04-02/06-309 (2014), ¶45.....................................................16

Prosecutor v Radovan Karadzic, ICTY, IT-95-05/18-PT (2009), ¶4.......................................17

Prosecutor v. Aleksovski, IT-95-14/1-T, ¶ 87 (1999);...............................................................7

Prosecutor v. Furundžija, IT-95-17/1- T, ¶ 207 and 232 (1998);...............................................7

Prosecutor v. Jokic’, Judgement, IT-01-42/1, ¶. 51.665 (2004)...............................................11

Prosecutor v. Kayishema and Ruzindana ICTR-95-I-T (1 Jun 2001)........................................3

Prosecutor v. Milan Matric, IT-95-11-T, (2007)........................................................................7

Prosecutor v. Pavle Strugar, IT-01-42-T, ¶310 (2005)............................................................12

Prosecutor v. Tihomir Blaskic IT-95-14-A 2 (2004).................................................................9

SCSL Prosecutor v. Tay/or, SCSL-03-01-T-128 ¶ 6919, 6921-6924 (2012)............................7

SCSL, Brima et al., Appeals Chamber Judgment, SCSL-2004-16-A, 22 February 2008, ¶ 230

....................................................................................................................................................8

SCSL, Brima et al., Trial Chamber Judgment, SCSL-04-16-T, 20 June 2007, ¶ 777...............8

SCSL, Prosecutor v. Sesay et al. SCSL-04-15-A, 26 ¶ 401 (2009)...........................................7

[INDEX OF AUTHORITIES] PAGE | III

 5TH SURANA & SURANA AND RGNUL INTERNATIONAL LAW MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2022
SCSL, Sesay et al., Trial Chamber Judgment, SCSL04-15-T, 2 March 2009, ¶ 279................8

The Prosecutor v Augustine Ngirabatware, MICT-12-29-A (18 Dec 2014).............................5

The Prosecutor v. Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi, ICC-01/12-01/15 ¶ 15 (2016)..........................10

The Prosecutor v. Ferdinand Nahimana, Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza, Hassan Ngeze, ICTR-99-

52-A (3 Dec 2003)......................................................................................................................2

The Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga, 52 ILM 873 (2013), ¶142.............................................17

The Prosecutor v. Jean Paul Akayesu ICTR-96-4-T (2 Sep 1998)............................................3

The Prosecutor v. Tihomir Blaskic, (Trial Chamber) IT-95-14-T, ¶ 185 (2000).....................12

Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U.S. 748,

771-73 & n. 24 (1976);...............................................................................................................6

Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705 (1969).............................................................................6

STATUTES

Additional Protocol (I) to the Geneva Convention, 1997....................................................7, 11

Additional Protocol (II), Geneva Convention, 1997............................................................9, 17

German Penal Code, 1871........................................................................................................14

ICC Statute, 2002.......................................................................................................................7

ICC Statute, 2003.......................................................................................................................6

ICTY Statute, 1997....................................................................................................................7

Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court 1998..........................................................15

The Rome Statute, 2002....................................................................................................passim

CONVENTIONS

Additional Protocol II, Geneva Convention, 1997.....................................................................9

Customary International Humanitarian Law........................................................................9, 12

The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide........................2

[INDEX OF AUTHORITIES] PAGE | IV

 5TH SURANA & SURANA AND RGNUL INTERNATIONAL LAW MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2022
The Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed

Conflict, 1954...........................................................................................................................11

JOURNALS/ARTICLES

Antonio Cassese et al, Incitement to Commit Genocide, OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS,

INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW, CASES AND COMMENTARY, 413 (2011)...........2

Benesch, Susan, Vile Crime or Inalienable Right: Defining Incitement to Genocide,

VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, Vol. 48, No. 3 (2008)........................2

Gregory S. Gordon, “A War of Media, Words, Newspapers, and Radio Stations”: The ICTR

Media Trial Verdict and a New Chapter in the International Law of Hate Speech, 45 VA. J.

INT’L L. 140, 155 (2004-2005).................................................................................................5

McGill Law Journal, Vol. 46, Issue1, 141-172 (Nov 2000); Doug Cassel, Corporate Aiding

and Abetting of Human Rights Violations: Confusion in the Courts, North-western Vol. 6

JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS, (2008);.............................................2

Ndahiro K, “Dehumanisation: How Tutsis Were Reduced to Cockroaches, Snakes to Be

Killed” (The New Times RwandaMarch 13, 2014

<https://www.newtimes.co.rw/section/read/73836> accessed August 17, 2022.......................3

Richard A. Wilson, Inciting Genocide with Words, 36 MICH. J. INT'L L. 277 (2015);.............2

Wibke Kristin Timmermann, Incitement in International Criminal Law, 88 INT’L REV. RED

CROSS 823, 832 (2006);...........................................................................................................2

BOOKS & COMMENTARIES

Ambos Brown, Research Handbook on International Criminal Law (2011) 299, 308............14

Ambos, The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A commentary (2002) 100313

Antonio Cassese et al, Incitement to Commit Genocide, OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS,

INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW, CASES AND COMMENTARY, 413 (2011);..........4

[INDEX OF AUTHORITIES] PAGE | V

 5TH SURANA & SURANA AND RGNUL INTERNATIONAL LAW MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2022
Cryer, An Introduction to International Criminal Law and Procedure (2014) 405.................13

G. Boas, J.L. Bischoff and N.L. Reid, International Criminal Law Practitioner Library –

Volume I: Forms of Responsibility in International Criminal Law (Cambridge: CUP, 2007),.8

G. Werle and F. Jessberger, Principles of International Criminal Law (3rd edn, Oxford: OUP,

2014), at 230...............................................................................................................................8

K. Ambos, Treatise on International Criminal Law – Volume I: Foundations and General Part

(Oxford: OUP, 2013),................................................................................................................8

Kai Ambos, Treatise on International Criminal Law, Vol. I: Foundations and General .Part

(2013);........................................................................................................................................2

Kai Ambose, Treatise on International Criminal Law: International Criminal Procedure 1016

(Oxford University Press 2016);................................................................................................8

Meloni, Command Responsibility in International Criminal Law (n 27)..................................8

Nehemiah Robinson, The Genocide Convention: A Commentary (1960);................................2

W. A. Schabas, Genocide in International Law (2000), at 277.................................................4

William a. Schabas, Genocide in International Law: The Crimes of Crimes 51–101 (2000)...2

UN DOCUMENTS

U.N. Doc. A/Conf.183/9 (July 17, 2002).................................................................................15

MISCELLANEOUS

UN Doc E/447,1947, Art II(II)(2);.............................................................................................2

[INDEX OF AUTHORITIES] PAGE | VI

 5TH SURANA & SURANA AND RGNUL INTERNATIONAL LAW MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2022

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Prosecution request that the International Criminal Court exercise its jurisdiction over

Karata, Mastifa, Aragonia, Magnoa, Catatonia & Tampura pursuant to Article 13 of the

Rome Statute.

[STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION] PAGE | VII

 5TH SURANA & SURANA AND RGNUL INTERNATIONAL LAW MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2022

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The Country of Zanista was one of the largest countries before partition. Zanista comprised

of two main Ethnic groups: Suzus and Pucta. Suzuss hold a liberal mentality with beliefs in

Naturalism and follow practices concerning environment protection, peace, sacrifice, and

equality. Puctas are a religious community that practices idol worship. This difference had

been a major reason for the conflict between the two communities and has resulted in many

riots, massacres, and political instability in Zanista.

The partition of zanista into Araland and Caraland in 1970 led to a brutal experience for the

people belonging to each community and holding properties in the entire country. The two

countries are still in a position of rivalry. Araland, with its natural resource of petroleum had

a peaceful trade relationship with many countries, however, Caraland had built a closed

economy, with only Governmental Contracts as a way of international trade.

Araland was also known for its technological development in the field of environmental

protection and medical assistance. It had a good army with advance military system and well-

oiled political relationships with the major powers of the world. In October 2011, when all

the Member States on ANPA were in support of Aralanda becoming a permanent member of

ANPA, Caraland occupied 2 towns on the borders. The United Nations General Assembly

asked Caral and President Karata to stop this illegal occupation. During this period, Human

Rights Activists and Defenders from around the world were producing reports on the

atrocities committed by Karata's troops. Videos of military atrocities started showing up on

the internet and were being shared with the world population. The United Nations Security

Council referred the situation in Araland to the Prosecutor, in accordance with Article 13 of

the Rome Statute, of the International Criminal Court under Chapter VII of the United

Nations.

[STATEMENT OF FACTS] PAGE | VIII

5TH SURANA & SURANA AND RGNUL INTERNATIONAL LAW MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2022

[STATEMENT OF FACTS] PAGE | IX

 5TH SURANA & SURANA AND RGNUL INTERNATIONAL LAW MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2022

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

[ISSUE 1]

Karata is accused of crime of incitement to genocide, where he made comments and used

propaganda for his election to instil the feeling of necessity to kill the Aralandians. His

statements of the election campaign of 2000 and 2005 are reflective of his crimes where he

uses the term like rats and dirt to refer to Aralandians.

[ISSUE II]

Military Commander of the Aralandian Military and the Commander-in-Chief Colonel

Mastifa of the Caralandian Military have been accused that they have allowed their soldiers

to perpetrate war crimes

[ISSUE III]

Lieutenant Magnoa of Aralandic army is charged with destruction of and using cultural

property as a safe base during the armed conflict.

[ISSUE IV]

Soldiers Aragonia and Catatonia have perpetrated war crimes on the innocent civilian

population of Araland. Aragonia is charged for the atrocities that precipitated on the civilian

in 2011 and Catatonia for the atrocities in 2015. The videos and other documentations by

Human Rights Groups, including the newspaper articles are reflective of that

[STATEMENT OF ISSUES] PAGE | X

 5TH SURANA & SURANA AND RGNUL INTERNATIONAL LAW MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2022

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 1: KARATA IS LIABLE FOR INCITEMENT TO GENOCIDE

Incitement to genocide is a crime under the rome statute and genocide convention. It has two

necessary elements; presence of requisite mental element and the incitement should be direct

and public in nature. The Prosecution has established that the speeches of Karata were direct

and public in nature, Furthermore, it had the required mental element which is required to

constitute incitement to genocide. Moreover, the ICTR has laid down a test to establish

incitement to genocide which is satisfied in the instant case.

ISSUE 2: MASTIFA AND TAMPURA ARE LIABLE FOR ALLOWING THEIR SOLDIERS TO

PERPETRATE WAR CRIMES

Rome statute acknowledges commander responsibility and superiors can be prosecuted for

the actions of their subordinates. Superiors have reasonable duty towards their subordinates

and they can be prosecuted for aiding and abetting the commission of crimes, committed by

their soldiers if they fail to take reasonable and necessary actions to prevent or punish any

such events. Furthermore, they can be held individually criminally responsible if the soldiers

under their supervision commit any war crimes. In the instant case both Mastifa and Tampura

aided and abetted commission of war crimes by not taking reasonable and necessary measure

against such acts, moreover Tampura assisted in commission as acts were carried out on his

orders by mangnoa.

ISSUE 3: LIEUTENANT MAGNOA OF THE ARALANDIC ARMY SHOULD BE CHARGED WITH

THE DESTRUCTION OF AND USING CULTURAL PROPERTY AS A SAFE BASE DURING THE

ARMED CONFLICT

[SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS] PAGE | XI

 5TH SURANA & SURANA AND RGNUL INTERNATIONAL LAW MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2022
Lieutenant Magnoa should be charged with destruction of and using cultural property as a

safe base during the armed conflict and should be held criminally liable because, he has

committed the war crime of attacking protected objects as there was an attack directed by him

against the cultural properties and he intended the properties to be the object of the attack.

Furthermore, Lieutenant Magnoa cannot exclude his criminal liability on the ground of self

defence as there was no imminent threat or danger to him and his defence against it was not

proportional.

ISSUE 4: SOLDIERS ARAGONIA AND CATATONIA HAVE PERPETRATED WAR CRIMES ON

THE INNOCENT CIVILIAN POPULATION OF ARALAND.

Soldier Aragonia was seen in a video standing with 6 Aralandic girls who were made to sit on

their knees with their battered faces exposed and Soldier Catatonia was seen brutally

whipping an Aralandic civilian at the public sphere in one of the towns. Both soldier

Aragonia and Catatonia have committed atrocities on the innocent civilian population of

Araland and therefore have committed war crimes under Section 8 of the Rome statute and

should be charged for Individual Criminal Responsibility as their act was intentionally

directed by them against the civilian population.

[SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS] PAGE | XII

 5TH SURANA & SURANA AND RGNUL INTERNATIONAL LAW MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2022

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I. KARATA IS LIABLE FOR THE CRIME OF INCITEMENT TO GENOCIDE

1. Prosecution submits that Karata is liable for the crime of incitement to genocide. In this

regard, it is further submitted that [A] the Court has the jurisdiction to rule over the above

proceedings; [B] the essentials of incitement to genocide are met in the present case; [C]

the speeches fulfil the criteria laid down by the International Criminal Tribunal of

Rwanda (ICTR).

A. THE TRIBUNAL HAS JURISDICTION TO DECIDE THE PRESENT MATTER

2. Art. 13 of the Rome Statute gives power to exercise jurisdiction. 1 It states that the Court

may exercise its jurisdiction with respect to a crime referred to in Art. 5 in accordance

with the provisions of this Statute if a situation in which one or more of such crimes

appears to have been committed is referred to the Prosecutor by the Security Council

acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations.2

3. In the present case, Karata belongs to Caraland, which is not a signatory to the Rome

Statute; however, it is a permanent member of the United Nations. The United Nations

Security Council has referred the situation to the Prosecutor 3. Therefore, the Hon’ble

Court has jurisdiction over the matter.

B. THE ESSENTIALS OF INCITEMENT TO GENOCIDE ARE MET IN THE PRESENT CASE

4. Article III(c) of the Genocide Convention4 and 25(3) (e) of the Rome Statute5 provides

incitement to genocide as a punishable act. Furthermore, several judgements of the

1
The Rome Statute, 2002, Art. 13.
2
The Rome Statute, 2002 Art. 5.
3
Compromis ¶ 11.
4
The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Art. III (c).
5
The Rome Statute, 2002, Art. 25(3) (e).

[ARGUMENTS ADVANCED] PAGE | 1

 5TH SURANA & SURANA AND RGNUL INTERNATIONAL LAW MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2022
international and national courts6 across jurisdictions and eminent scholars7 of

international law have reasoned that there are two essentials of incitement to genocide

that are; Presence of Dolus Specialis [B.1]; And public and direct nature of incitement

[B.2].

[B.1] PRESENCE OF DOLUS SPECIALIS

5. The mental requirement for the crime of genocide is provided for in Article II (1) of the

Genocide Convention.8 This intent amounts to dolus specialis; that is, to an aggravated

criminal intention, which is required in addition to the criminal intent accompanying the

underlying offence.9 Moreover, in international jurisprudence, the mens rea of incitement

to genocide is that the inciter must have genocidal intent, i.e., dolus specialis.10 Moreover,

the genocidal intent is expressed through explicit phrases, such as the one urged in the

Rwandan genocide “let’s exterminate them”.11

6. In the present case, usage of phrases, such as “Save Pucta, at every cost even when

violence presents as the last choice to do that’ etc.”,12 “This time we will make Zanista

through Caraland”,13 ”Come what may, the land of Zanista belonged to the Pucta and

the Puctas will get it back”14 and “Use of violence in getting your homeland back

6
ICTY Prosecutor v. Krstić, Case No IT-98-33-A (19 Apr 2004); The Prosecutor v. Ferdinand Nahimana, Jean-
Bosco Barayagwiza, Hassan Ngeze, ICTR-99-52-A (3 Dec 2003); Prakash v. State, (1991)1 SCR, 2012.
7
Wibke Kristin Timmermann, Incitement in International Criminal Law, 88 INT’L REV. RED CROSS 823,
832 (2006); Nehemiah Robinson, The Genocide Convention: A Commentary (1960); William a. Schabas,
Genocide in International Law: The Crimes of Crimes 51–101 (2000); McGill Law Journal, Vol. 46, Issue1,
141-172 (Nov 2000); Doug Cassel, Corporate Aiding and Abetting of Human Rights Violations: Confusion in
the Courts, North-western Vol. 6 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS, (2008); Kai Ambos,
Treatise on International Criminal Law, Vol. I: Foundations and General .Part (2013); UN Doc E/447,1947, Art
II(II)(2); Richard A. Wilson, Inciting Genocide with Words, 36 MICH. J. INT'L L. 277 (2015); Benesch, Susan,
Vile Crime or Inalienable Right: Defining Incitement to Genocide, VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF
INTERNATIONAL LAW, Vol. 48, No. 3 (2008).
8
The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 1948, Art. II(1).
9
Antonio Cassese et al, Incitement to Commit Genocide, OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS, INTERNATIONAL
CRIMINAL LAW, CASES AND COMMENTARY, 413 (2011).
10
The Prosecutor v. Ferdinand Nahimana, Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza, Hassan Ngeze, ICTR-99-52-A (3 Dec
2003).
11
Id.
12
Compromis, ¶ 5.
13
Compromis, ¶ 6
14
Compromis, ¶ 6.

[ARGUMENTS ADVANCED] PAGE | 2

 5TH SURANA & SURANA AND RGNUL INTERNATIONAL LAW MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2022
requires the spill of blood and that blood is to be worshipped” 15 by Karata depicts his

intent to incite the people of Caraland to genocide.

7. Therefore, considering the judgement of the court in the Rwanda genocide case and the

phrases used by Karata, it can be concluded that Karata’s intent was to incite genocide.

8. Additionally, the ICTR Chamber concluded that dolus specialis can be inferred either

from words or deeds, together with evidence such as the physical targeting of the group or

their property, and the use of derogatory language towards members of the targeted

group.16 In the case of The Prosecutor v. Ferdinand Nahimana, Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza,

Hassan Ngeze, 17
the court ruled that the term “cockroaches” used for Tutsis was

dehumanising.18

9. Similarly, the word ‘rats’19 was used for Suzuss in the instant case. Karata’s intention

behind using such an offensive term was to dehumanise Suzuss, so that hardly anyone

was likely to feel guilt over the killing of someone.

[B.2] PUBLIC AND DIRECT NATURE OF INCITEMENT

10. In the Akayesu case, the ICTR deemed that to incite “directly” means that another person

is concretely urged or provoked to commit genocide. 20 While dealing with the

interpretation of ambiguous language, the ICTR stated that the direct element is meant to

be “viewed in the light of its cultural and linguistic context”. 21 In the Rwandan genocide,

the president of the interim government exhorted people to “get to work,” and Rwandans

took it as an invitation to kill Tutsis.22

15
Compromis, ¶ 6.
16
Prosecutor v. Kayishema and Ruzindana ICTR-95-I-T (1 Jun 2001).
17
Id. at 9;
18
Ndahiro K, “Dehumanisation: How Tutsis Were Reduced to Cockroaches, Snakes to Be Killed” (The New
Times RwandaMarch 13, 2014 <https://www.newtimes.co.rw/section/read/73836> accessed August 17, 2022.
19
Compromis, ¶ 9.
20
The Prosecutor v. Jean Paul Akayesu ICTR-96-4-T (2 Sep 1998).
21
Id.
22
Antonio Cassese et al, Incitement to Commit Genocide, OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS,
INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW, CASES AND COMMENTARY, 413 (2011); W. A. Schabas, Genocide
in International Law (2000), at 277.

[ARGUMENTS ADVANCED] PAGE | 3

 5TH SURANA & SURANA AND RGNUL INTERNATIONAL LAW MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2022
11. In the instant case, there was usage of phrases such as “to win this battle as it is not just

for their country but also to make the world free from dirt” 23 and “Come what may, the

land of Zanista belonged to the Pucta and the Puctas will get it back” 24 which signifies a

direct call for action. Reports signifying the subsequent attacks as ‘the most inhuman

brutally furious attacks on the civilian population of the decade,’ and some reporters

quoting it as ‘second genocide after the holocaust, clearly establish it was a direct call for

action.

12. Additionally, the cultural context within which the publishing of the statements took

place is pertinent to note. Firstly, the two countries were still in a position of rivalry, with

Puctas being a religious community that practices idol worship. They believed in strong

religious identity, economic and financial progress, above anything.25 Secondly, political

and economic experts explored the events that transpired in Caraland and published

articles where they argued that the specific steps taken by Caraland and the focus of the

governmental policies reflect an alignment of propaganda.26

13. The above arguments clearly establish that the speech made by Karata, considering the

hostile cultural environment, directly led to the incitement of genocide.

14. In Ngirabatware Augustin's case, it was held that “the number of persons and the medium

through which the message is conveyed may be relevant in assessing whether the

attendance was selected or limited, thereby determining whether or not the recipient of

the message was the general public.27 In the instant case, Karata is a political leader who

made several statements during his election campaign that were hateful and incited

genocide.28 The speeches made by Karata were available to the public at large and the

23
Compromis, ¶ 10.
24
Compromis, ¶ .6
25
Compromis, ¶ 5.
26
Compromis, ¶ 5.
27
The Prosecutor v Augustine Ngirabatware, MICT-12-29-A (18 Dec 2014).
28
Compromis, ¶ 5,6,10.

[ARGUMENTS ADVANCED] PAGE | 4

 5TH SURANA & SURANA AND RGNUL INTERNATIONAL LAW MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2022
huge public mandate he got every election establishes the fact that the statements were

given to the public and their essence understood by the public.

15. Therefore, it is clearly established that it was direct incitement as the speeches were

specifically aimed at provoking people to commit genocide; and it is public as the

incitement was qualified by a clear call for criminal action.

C. THE SPEECH MADE BY KARATA FULFILS THE CRITERIA LAID DOWN BY ICTR

16. The ICTR in the Rwanda genocide case laid down four essential criteria to categorize

speech either as a means of legitimate expression or criminal advocacy. The ICTR

employed four criteria, namely: purpose, context, causation, and relationship between

speaker and subject.29

17. In the present case the purpose was not only to grab political mandate but to incite

genocide, as the speeches continued throughout a larger timeline and the usage of phrases

did not stop till violence was provoked. Furthermore, as already established, the social

and political context in which the speeches were being given was very hostile, and adding

to that, it was also working as propaganda, influencing the minds of the public and

military.

18. In the present case, genocide took place notwithstanding that, in arguendo, it can be said

that there was no direct cause in the instant case. However, in international jurisprudence,

there is no specific causation requirement linking the expression at issue with the

demonstration of a direct effect. In the Streicher case, there was no allegation that the

publication, Der Stürmer was tied to any particular violence. It was found to have

“injected into the minds of thousands of Germans” a “poison” that caused them to support

the National Socialist policy of Jewish persecution and extermination.

29
Gregory S. Gordon, “A War of Media, Words, Newspapers, and Radio Stations”: The ICTR Media Trial
Verdict and a New Chapter in the International Law of Hate Speech, 45 VA. J. INT’L L. 140, 155 (2004-2005).

[ARGUMENTS ADVANCED] PAGE | 5

 5TH SURANA & SURANA AND RGNUL INTERNATIONAL LAW MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2022
19. Moreover, in the Turkish cases considered by the European Court of Human Rights, no

specific acts of violence are cited as having been caused by the applicant’s expression.

Rather, the question considered is what the likely impact might be, recognizing that

causation in this context might be relatively indirect.30

20. Furthermore, it is an established fact that Karata had an authoritative relationship with the

general public as he had been in power for a long time and the public viewed and

understood his speeches in their essence. It can be seen from the large mandates and no

opposition from the public that his statements had the ability to incite genocide and the

same happened in the present.

II. COMMANDER TAMPURA AND MASTIFA BOTH ARE INDIVIDUALLY CRIMINALLY

RESPONSIBLE UNDER ART.25 (3) (C).

A. COMMANDER MASTIFA IS LIABLE UNDER 25 (3) (C) OF THE ROME STATUTE

21. An Individual is criminally responsible for a crime if he intends to facilitate the

commission of the crime or if he aids, abets or otherwise assists in its commission. 31The

three essential requirements for aiding and abetting are practical assistance (A.1), moral

support (A.2), or an omission (A.3) collectively having a substantial effect on the

perpetration of the crime.32

30
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447 (1969); Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 572 (1941);
Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705 (1969); Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973); Gertz v. Robert Welch,
Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974); Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425
U.S. 748, 771-73 & n. 24 (1976); Posadas de Puerto Rico Assocs. v. Tourism Co., 478 U.S. 328 (1986); NLRB
v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575, 618 (1969); New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982); F.C.C. v. Pacifica
Foundation, 438 U.S. 726 (1978); Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 U.S. 250, 251 (1952).
31
ICC Statute, 2003, Art. 25(3)(C); ICC, Prosecutor v. Blé Goudé, No. ICC-02/11-02/11-186, ¶. 167 (2014).
32
ICTY, Prosecutor v. Furundžija, No. IT-95-17/1-A, ¶ 117 (2000); ICTR, Prosecutor v. Ndahimana, No.
ICTR-01-68-A, ¶ 147 (2013).

[ARGUMENTS ADVANCED] PAGE | 6

 5TH SURANA & SURANA AND RGNUL INTERNATIONAL LAW MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2022
[A.1] PRACTICAL ASSISTANCE

22. Practical assistance constitutes assistance that has substantial effect on the crime. 33 It does

not require specific direction.34 Mastifa ordered the military commanders to plan and

execute the attack on Araland using deadly weapons to occupy towns and districts. 35As

commander of the Caralandian army, he had substantial control over his army and the

events took place under his supervision, hence it can be concluded that he practically

assisted commission of the crimes.

[A.2] MORAL SUPPORT

23. Moral support includes an Act, which is not explicit, being a silent spectator is enough

when the accused is in a position of authority. 36 It can be construed as tacit approval or

encouragement of the crime.37 It is pertinent to note that presence of a high-ranking

officer during the commission may indicate moral support that has substantial

effect.38 During the initial attack videos of brutality of Caralandian soldiers surfaced the

internet.39 As commander of the army, one gets reports of every event in the war, Mastifa

took no actions against such events acting as a silent spectator to the crimes, thereby

indicated his moral support to such acts.

[A.3] OMISSION

24. The failure to prevent or punish crimes by subordinates or failure to take reasonable care

by superior constitutes an omission.40 It includes responsibility of a commander not

33
SCSL, Prosecutor v. Sesay et al. SCSL-04-15-A, 26 ¶ 401 (2009).
34
SCSL Prosecutor v. Tay/or, SCSL-03-01-T-128 ¶ 6919, 6921-6924 (2012).
35
Compromis, ¶ 10.
36
Prosecutor v. Furundžija, IT-95-17/1- T, ¶ 207 and 232 (1998); Id. at 7, ¶ 277; Id. at 25, 541; Id. at 10, ¶ 370;
Id. at 20, ¶ 2092.
37
Prosecutor v. Aleksovski, IT-95-14/1-T, ¶ 87 (1999); Id. at 7, ¶ 201-202; Id. at 7, ¶ 273 and 277; Id. at 19, ¶
42; Id. at 7, ¶ 80; Id. at 25, ¶ 541; Id. at 27, ¶ 74; Id. at 27, ¶ 147; Id. at 19, ¶ 1687; Id. at 7, ¶ 150; Id. at 20, ¶
1955, 2092; Id. at 4, ¶ 89.
38
ICTR, Prosecutor v. Akayesu, ICTR-96-4-T, (1998), ¶ 484; ICTY, Prosecutor v. Brðjanin, No. IT-99-36-A, ¶
273 (2007); Additional Protocol (I) to the Geneva Convention, 1997, Article 86(2); ICC Statute, 2002, Article
28; ICTY Statute, 1997, Article 7(3); Prosecutor v. Milan Matric, IT-95-11-T, (2007).
39
Compromis, ¶ 8.
40
SCSL, Brima et al., Trial Chamber Judgment, SCSL-04-16-T, 20 June 2007, ¶ 777; SCSL, Brima et al.,
Appeals Chamber Judgment, SCSL-2004-16-A, 22 February 2008, ¶ 230; SCSL, Sesay et al., Trial Chamber

[ARGUMENTS ADVANCED] PAGE | 7

 5TH SURANA & SURANA AND RGNUL INTERNATIONAL LAW MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2022
restricted to situations where the commander/superior has actual knowledge of the crimes

committed by his or her subordinates, but only constructive knowledge that the crimes

can be committed is sufficient.41 It is pertinent to note that if the commander/superior was

“at fault in having failed to acquire such knowledge”, 42 or could have controlled,

prevented, or modified the commission but failed to do so, his lack of objection meets the

substantial requirement of omission.43

25. In the instant case, some posts and videos on social media depicting the atrocities being

conducted by the soldiers of the Caralandic army on civilians went viral. 44 Furthermore,

United World newspapers, reported this attack as "the most inhuman, brutally furious

attacks on the civilian population of the decade.” And "second genocide after the

holocaust.”45

26. In any event, if it is submitted that Mastifa instructed the soldiers not to commit any

crime against humanity or war crime, against any civilian, women, children, or prisoner

of war.46 Then, it is pertinent to note that in Customary international law (herein after

CIL) and international criminal legal jurisprudence the duty which superior has is far

more.47 The ICTY construed the word "necessary and reasonable measures" to measures

as being someone's power in the Delali case in 1998.48 Moreover it is consistent with the

duty that superiors have in CIL and international criminal Jurisprudence.49

Judgment, SCSL04-15-T, 2 March 2009, ¶ 279; Halilović Appeal Judgment, supra n 63, ¶ 59(iii); G. Werle and
F. Jessberger, Principles of International Criminal Law (3rd edn, Oxford: OUP, 2014), at 230; see K. Ambos,
Treatise on International Criminal Law – Volume I: Foundations and General Part (Oxford: OUP, 2013), at 197;
G. Boas, J.L. Bischoff and N.L. Reid, International Criminal Law Practitioner Library – Volume I: Forms of
Responsibility in International Criminal Law (Cambridge: CUP, 2007), at 143-144. See also ICTY, Naletilić
and Martinović, Appeals Chamber; Judgment, IT-98-34-A, 3 May 2006, ¶ 331.
41
Kai Ambose, Treatise on International Criminal Law: International Criminal Procedure 1016 (Oxford
University Press 2016); Meloni, Command Responsibility in International Criminal Law (n 27).
42
IMT (Tokyo), Case of the Major War Criminals (Id.., § 693).
43
ICTY, Prosecutor v. Furundžija, No. IT-95-17/1-T, Judgement, 10 December 1998, paras. 217, 218; CMs
44
Compromis ¶ 8.
45
Compromis ¶ 10.
46
Id. at 43.
47
Pavle Strugar v. Duronik, ¶ 374, (2008).
48
Prosecutor v. Tihomir Blaskic IT-95-14-A 2 (2004)
49
Id.

[ARGUMENTS ADVANCED] PAGE | 8

 5TH SURANA & SURANA AND RGNUL INTERNATIONAL LAW MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2022
27. It was the duty of Mastifa to ensure that such events should not have occurred. He failed

to take necessary measures to prevent such events as only instructing his soldiers was not

sufficient which is evident from the circumstances, he had a greater duty of care and

should have acted more reasonably to carry out his obligations, Mastifa’s blatant failure

to take necessary reasonable measures, his lack of objection and unreasonableness in the

present case resulted in commission of crimes, therefore he must be held liable for

omission.

B. TAMPURA IS LIABLE UNDER 25 (3) (C) OF THE ROME STATUTE.

28. Attacking protected objects or using them in support of the military effort is prohibited

under international criminal law.50 The duty of care needs should be higher in military

operations to avoid damage to protected objects unless they are military objectives. 51

Furthermore, medical units and transports shall be respected and protected at all times and

shall not be the object of attack.52.

29. In the present case, Tampura caused the destruction of cultural property as, on his orders,

Magnoa, in retaliation, carried out strikes that resulted in the destruction of cultural

property.53 Not only that, but he also allowed his army to establish bases on multiple sites

of destroyed cultural properties, hospitals, and schools neglecting the required duty of

care.

30. In light of the above arguments, it can be concluded that the essentials of individual

criminal responsibility are met in the instant case. As commander, Tampura aided in the

commission of the crime and clearly facilitated the crime. Being a high-ranking officer,

he could have controlled, prevented, or modified the commission but failed to do so

50
Additional Protocol (II), Geneva Convention, 1997, Article 16; Rome Statute, 2002, Article 8(2)(e)(iv)
51
Customary International Humanitarian Law, Rule 38.
52
Additional Protocol II, Geneva Convention, 1997, Article 11.
53
Compromis, Clarifications 13.

[ARGUMENTS ADVANCED] PAGE | 9

 5TH SURANA & SURANA AND RGNUL INTERNATIONAL LAW MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2022
makes it evident that he substantially aided the occurring events satisfying the three

essentials, Therefore, he must be held liable.

III.LIEUTENANT MAGNOA OF THE ARALANDIC ARMY SHOULD BE CHARGED WITH THE

DESTRUCTION OF AND USING CULTURAL PROPERTY AS A SAFE BASE DURING THE

ARMED CONFLICT.

31. Lieutenant Magnoa should be charged with destruction of and using cultural property as a

safe base during the armed conflict because, the war crime of attacking protected objects

is committed [A]; Lieutenant Magnoa was not acting under self-defence [B].

A. THE WAR CRIME OF ATTACKING PROTECTED OBJECTS IS ESTABLISHED.

32. Article 8(2) (b) (ix) of the Rome Statute provides three elements that must be fulfilled to

establish the war crime of attacking protected objects.54

[A.1] THE PERPETRATOR DIRECTED AN ATTACK

33. An attack encompasses any act of violence against protected objects. 55 There is no

necessity to show a distinction between an attack that was carried out in the conduct of

hostilities.56

34. During the armed conflict, Araland destroyed cultural properties by using weaponry

system and used other civilian properties as their bases.57 Lieutenant Magnoa was

reported to have made a plan to convert a part of the roof of the cultural building into a

safe place for his troops.58 In light of the above information it can be concluded that

Lieutenant Magnoa directed an attack against the cultural properties.

54
Rome Statute, 2002, Article 8(2)(b)(ix).
55
The Prosecutor v. Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi, ICC-01/12-01/15 ¶ 15 (2016).
56
Id.
57
Compromis, ¶ 10.
58
Id.

[ARGUMENTS ADVANCED] PAGE | 10

 5TH SURANA & SURANA AND RGNUL INTERNATIONAL LAW MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2022
[A.2] THE OBJECT OF THE ATTACK WAS A CULTURAL BUILDING THAT WAS NOT USED

FOR MILITARY OBJECTIVES.

35. Article 52(1) of Additional Protocol I prohibit explicitly attacks or reprisals on civilian

objects.59 It defines civilian objects as "all objects which are not military objectives".

They may be attacked only when they become a military objective.

36. Military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or

use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial

destruction, capture or neutralisation, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a

definite military advantage.60 Cultural property cannot be used to take cover.61

37. The Araland army in retaliation used weaponry system which resulted in destruction of

cultural properties.62 It is pertinent to note that it has nowhere been established that these

cultural properties that were destructed by Araland served any military objective or

advantage, rather it was just done for retaliation. the objects of the attack were cultural

buildings. The cultural properties not being a military objective makes it evident that the

object of the attack in the instant case was the cultural property.

[A.3] THE PERPETRATOR INTENDED FOR SUCH A BUILDING TO BE THE OBJECT OF THE

ATTACK.

38. To prove intent, the perpetrator must act with a direct intent to damage or destroy the

property in question.63 The destruction must have been committed intentionally to

institutions identified as dedicated to religion at the time of the acts. 64 The special

protection awarded to cultural property itself may not be lost simply because of military

59
Additional Protocol, Geneva Convention, 1997, Article 52.
60
Additional Protocol (I), Geneva Convention, 1997, Article 52(2); The Hague Convention for the Protection of
Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, 1954, Article 1(f).
61
Prosecutor v. Jokic’, Judgement, IT-01-42/1, ¶. 51.665 (2004).
62
Compromis ¶ 10.
63
Id. at 47.
64
The Prosecutor v. Tihomir Blaskic, (Trial Chamber) IT-95-14-T, ¶ 185 (2000).

[ARGUMENTS ADVANCED] PAGE | 11

 5TH SURANA & SURANA AND RGNUL INTERNATIONAL LAW MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2022
activities occurring in the immediate vicinity of the cultural property.65 Special care must

be taken in military operations to avoid damage to protected objects unless they are

military objectives.66

39. It has nowhere been established that the cultural property in question was the only

property that could have been used as a safe place for the troops to take cover from the

airstrikes. Furthermore, it has nowhere been established that the attacks by Araland on

Cultural properties provided them with any military advantage and hence, they are not

military objectives. Therefore, it can be concluded that it was Lieutenant Magnoa’s

intention to destroy the cultural properties.

B. LIEUTENANT MAGNOA WAS NOT ACTING UNDER SELF-DEFENCE

40. The Rome Statute provides self-defence as a ground for excluding criminal

responsibility.67 The said provision has two essential requirements for the exclusion of

criminal responsibility, a qualified danger to a person or property by unlawful force [B.1];

an proportionate defence against it [B.2].

[B.1] A QUALIFIED DANGER TO A PERSON OR PROPERTY BY UNLAWFUL FORCE.

41. The exclusion of criminal responsibility in any of the various instances of this provision

requires the ‘imminent’ and ‘unlawful’ ‘use of force’. As force can be exerted in various

ways and to varying degrees and no further qualification is required, it can be understood

in a broad way.68 It is a common agreement that the use of force is imminent if it is

immediately antecedent, presently exercised, or still enduring.69 As a third requirement,

the use of force by the attacker must be unlawful. This is the case when the use of force is

not justified for its part by law or any other legally valid permission or order.

65
Prosecutor v. Pavle Strugar, IT-01-42-T, ¶310 (2005).
66
Customary International Humanitarian Law, Rule 38.
67
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 2002, Article 31 (1)(c).
68
Ambos, The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A commentary (2002) 1003.
69
Id.

[ARGUMENTS ADVANCED] PAGE | 12

 5TH SURANA & SURANA AND RGNUL INTERNATIONAL LAW MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2022
42. The unlawful force need not be criminal in order to be averted. 70 The use of armed force

by a state against the sovereignty, territorial integrity, or political independence of another

state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, is a

crime of aggression.71

43. In the present case, air strikes and other attacks were being conducted on Araland by the

Caralandian army.72 In order to retaliate to those air strikes and attacks, Araland used their

own weaponry which resulted in destruction of cultural properties by the Aralandian

army. 73
Additionally, Lieutenant Magnoa’s plan to convert a part of the roof of the

cultural building into a safe place was to provide cover for his troops in the midst of an

airstrike by the Caralandic army.74

44. Araland was previously attacked by Caraland in 2011. 75 The current armed conflict went

on for 2.5 years. There were attacks and air strikes being conducted throughout the

period. Araland even established bases at destroyed schools and hospitals. Also,

Lieutenant Magnoa was planning to convert a part of the roof of the cultural building as a

safe place. Though, the continuous attacks being conducted on Araland by the Caralandic

army makes the use of force evident in the present case.

45. However, the destruction of Cultural property by Aralandic army was done in retaliation

and the same cannot be said to do under an imminent threat. Therefore, relying on the

above arguments, it can be concluded that Lieutenant Magnoa and the Araland army was

already apprehensive of the threat of air strikes and it was not imminent. Moreover, they

were not under qualified or immediate danger by the unlawful forces of the Carlandian

army to justify the destruction of protected objects.

70
Cryer, An Introduction to International Criminal Law and Procedure (2014) 405.
71
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court 2002, Article 8.
72
Compromis ¶ 10.
73
Id.
74
Compromis ¶ 10.
75
Compromis, ¶ 7.

[ARGUMENTS ADVANCED] PAGE | 13

 5TH SURANA & SURANA AND RGNUL INTERNATIONAL LAW MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2022
[B.2] A PROPORTIONATE DEFENCE AGAINST IT.

46. The defensive reaction must be reasonable in terms of being necessary as well as able to

prevent the danger. This means that the defensive reaction might neither be excessive by

causing more harm to the aggressor than is needed for diverting the attack or a danger nor

inapt by implying inefficient or otherwise futile means.76 Furthermore, even as long as the

defensive reaction is reasonable in terms of being necessary and suitable to divert the

force and danger, it still must be performed in a ‘proportionate manner’.77 “A

disproportionate attack is per se unlawful and therefore cannot be justified by military

necessity”78

47. In the present case, though there were airstrikes being conducted by the Caralandic army,

it has nowhere been established that these airstrikes caused harm to human life or Cultural

property of Araland. However, the airstrikes conducted by Araland in retaliation,

destroyed multiple cultural properties, no justification for which has been established as

their destruction did not provide Araland with any military advantage.. As the properties

that were destructed by the orders of the Lieutenant 79 were not in proportion to the harm

they caused. Therefore, his defence is disproportionate.

IV. SOLDIERS ARAGONIA AND CATATONIA HAVE PERPETRATED WAR CRIMES ON THE

INNOCENT CIVILIAN POPULATION OF ARALAND.

48. Aragonia and Catatonia have committed atrocities on the innocent civilian population of

Araland therefore have committed war crimes under Art. 8 of the Rome statute and

should be charged for Individual Criminal Responsibility.

A. SOLDIERS ARAGONIA AND CATATONIA HAVE COMMITTED WAR CRIMES

76
Ambos Brown, Research Handbook on International Criminal Law (2011) 299, 308.
77
German Penal Code, 1871, § 32.
78
Id.
79
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court 1998, Article 8.

[ARGUMENTS ADVANCED] PAGE | 14

 5TH SURANA & SURANA AND RGNUL INTERNATIONAL LAW MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2022
49. The Rome Statute defines War Crimes as the grave breaches of Geneva convention and

lists out act against persons or property protected under the provisions of Geneva

Convention80. Aragonia and Catatonia have committed war crimes of Intentionally

directing attacks against the civilian population and should be charged for Individual

Criminal Responsibility [A.1].

[A.1] ARAGONIA AND CATATONIA HAVE COMMITTED WAR CRIMES OF INTENTIONALLY

DIRECTING ATTACKS AGAINST THE CIVILIAN POPULATION

50. Intentionally directing against attack against the civilian population as such, and making

them the object of attack is a war crime81. In order to establish liability under this crime,

three elements must be fulfilled.

[A.1.i] There was an attack directed by the perpetrator

51. An attack is defined as “acts of violence against the adversary, whether in offence or in

defence”82 and even the mere launching of an attack without any harmful impact on the

civilian population or individual civilians is sufficient to fall within the meaning of attack

of Article 8(2)(b)(i)83. Furthermore, Video and electronic evidences have been admitted in

the ICC in multiple cases84.

52. In the instant case, Aragonia was seen in a video standing with 6 Aralandic girls who

were made to sit on their knees with their battered faces exposed 85. When taken in

consideration with the circumstances that an armed conflict was taking place and several

videos depicting attacks on civilians been taking place, the video showing the Aralandic

80
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court art. 8, Nov. 10, 1998, U.N. Doc. A/Conf.183/9 (July 17,
2002).
81
Prosecutor v Katanga, ICC-01/04-01/07-3436 (2014), ¶ 798; Prosecutor v Ntaganda, ICC-01/04-02/06-309
(2014), ¶45.
82
Bahar, Ch. I, Public Redacted Version, (Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-02/05-02/09-243-red
(8 February 2010), ¶65; Prosecutor v Katanga, (Trial Chamber II) ICC-01/04-01/07-3436 (7 March 2014),
(“Katanga’s Case II”) ¶ 798; Prosecutor v Ntaganda, (Pre-Trial Chamber II) ICC-01/04-02/06-309 (9 June
2014), (“Ntaganda’s Case”), ¶45.
83
Prosecutor v Katanga, (Pre-Trial Chamber I) ICC-01/04-01/07-55 (6 July 2007), (“Katanga’s Case I”), ¶37.
84
Prosecutor v. Lubanga, ICC-01/04-01/06-1263 2008; Prosecutor v. Bemba, ICC-01/05-01/08 2016.
85
Compromis ¶ 10.

[ARGUMENTS ADVANCED] PAGE | 15

 5TH SURANA & SURANA AND RGNUL INTERNATIONAL LAW MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2022
girls sitting on their knees with battered faces can be conclusive of an act of violence

being committed against them by Aragonia. Additionally, in one of the videos Catatonia

was seen brutally whipping an Aralandic civilian at the public sphere in one of the

towns86. The act of Catatonia is evidently an act of violence in the present case.

[A.i.ii] The object of the attack were civilians

53. A civilian is anyone who is not a member of the State or non-State armed forces 87 and

making the civilians as object of attack or doing acts or threats of violence to spread terror

among the civilians are prohibited88. Where the attack is directed towards a legitimate

military objective and simultaneously the civilian population or civilians not taking direct

part in the hostilities, the perpetrator can still be prosecuted under Article 8(2)(b)(i) 89.The

facts itself establishes that the attack was against civilians and no information in the

compromis is stating otherwise, therefore, it can be reasonably concluded that the object

of the attack were civilians.

[A.i.iii] The perpetrator intended for the civilians to be the object of the attack

54. The threshold for mental element is that the perpetrator knew or should have known about

the civilian character of the objects damaged.90 Such a standard is met when the attack has

been conducted intentionally with the knowledge 91. In case of doubt, persons shall be

considered to be civilians.92

55. 6 Aralandic girls were made to sit on their knees with their battered faces while Aragonia

was standing next to them 93. Furthermore, Catatonia was captured brutally whipping an

Aralandic civilian at the public sphere in one of the towns. 94 No information in the

86
Compromis ¶ 10.
87
Additional Protocol II of Geneva Convention 1997, Article 13.
88
Article 13 of Additional Protocol II.
89
The Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga, 52 ILM 873 (2013), ¶142.
90
Prosecutor v Radovan Karadzic, ICTY, IT-95-05/18-PT (2009), ¶4.
91
ICTY, The Prosecutor v. Blaskic’s, IT-95-14 (2005) ¶180.
92
ICC, Prosecutor v. Mbarushimana, ICC-01/04-01/10-465 (2011), ¶ 279.
93
Compromis ¶ 10.
94
Id.

[ARGUMENTS ADVANCED] PAGE | 16

5TH SURANA & SURANA AND RGNUL INTERNATIONAL LAW MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2022
compromis suggests that Aragonia and Catatonia were not intending to attack the

civilains or that they misunderstood the civilians as soldiers did not intend. Therefore,

based on the arguments made it can be concluded that Aragonia and Catatonia intended

the civilians to be the object of the attack.

[ARGUMENTS ADVANCED] PAGE | 17

 5TH SURANA & SURANA AND RGNUL INTERNATIONAL LAW MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2022

PRAYER

Wherefore In Light of The Questions Presented, Arguments Advanced, And Authorities

Cited, The Applicant Respectfully Requests This Court to Adjudge And Declare That:

I. Karata is liable for the crime of incitement to Genocide;

II. Commander Tampura and Mastifa both are individually criminally responsible;

III. Lieutenant Magnoa of the Aralandic army should be charged with the destruction of

and using cultural property as a safe base during the armed conflict;

IV. Soldiers Aragonia and Catatonis have perpetrated war crimes on the innocent Civilian

Population of Araland.

And pass any order, direction or relief that it may deem fit in the interests of justice, equity

and good conscience. All of which is humbly prayed.

S/d

Counsels for the Applicant.

[PRAYER] PAGE | 18