Term Code-2023-

X Semester 1st Moot Court Competition 2023

Before the Hon’ble International Criminal Court

PTC -Chamber II

Original Jurisdiction
Under
Article 12 and 13 of Rome Statute

In the Matter of
Prosecutor……………………………………………………………Petitioner
Vs
Henry Poore…………………………………………………………Respondent

Memorandum on behalf of Respondent

1
TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. LIST OF ABBREVIATION
2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
I. Book and commentaries referred
II. Website
III. Statute
3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
4. STATEMENT OF FACTS
5. ISSUED RAISED
6. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
7. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
I. Whether the case against Henry Poore concerning Crime against humanity
and Genocide false within the jurisdiction of the Court?
II. Whether the case against Henry Poore concerning Crime against humanity
and Genocide is admissible, particularly whether the amnesty can be involved
before the Court?
III. Whether the present case would serve the interest of justice?
IV. Whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that Henry Poore is
criminally responsible for Crime against the humanity and Genocide under
Article 28(b) of the Rome statue?
8. PRAYER

2
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS:

1) MERC: Maria Educational Reforms Committee.

2) KYM: Know your Marialand.
3) V: versus.
4) RS: Rome Statute.
5) ICC: International Criminal Court
6) PTC: Pre- Trial Chamber.
7) SC: Supreme court
8) NGO: Non Governmental Organization.

3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
* BOOKS AND COMMENTARIES REFERRED:
I) .Dr.H.O.Agarwal on the International Law and Human Rights, Published by Central Law
Publishers,107-Darbhanga Castel, Allahabad -211002,21st Edition.
II) .Kai Ambos on the interest of Justice,June11 2019.
III) WilliamA.Schabas on an Introduction to the International Criminal court, Cambridge
University Press New York,4th Edition 2011.
IV) Gilbert Bilti, the interest of justice, August 14 2019.

II.WEBSITES
 .https://www.legal service under.com.
 .http://www.icc-cpi.int.
 .https://www.ohchr.org.
 IV) www.studocu.com
 .www.justsecurity.org.
 VI.I.://cepaz.India org
 VII.https://legal.un.org//ICC
 VIII.https://hrw.org.
 IX.Voelkerrechts blog org.

III.STATUTESREFERRED
 Rome Statue of the International Criminal court.
 .Amnesty Act of 2021.

4
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Counsel for Respondent has humbly submitted memorandum before this Hon’ble
International Criminal Court (ICC) by the virtue of power warranted under 12 and 13 of the
Rome Statute which is read as follows:
 Under Article 12- Pre-conditions to the exercise of jurisdiction

1. A State which become a Party to this Statute their by accepts the jurisdiction of the
court with respect to the crimes referred to in article 5.
2. In the case of article 13, paragraph (a) or (c) , the court may exercise each jurisdiction
if one or more of the following states are parties to this Statute or have accepted the
jurisdiction of the court in accordance with paragraph 3:
a) The State on the territory of which the conduct in question occurred or , if the
crime was committed on board or vessel or aircraft, the state of registration of
that vessel or aircraft;
b) The State of which the person accused of the crime is a national
3. If the acceptance of a state which is not a party to this statute is required under the
paragraph 2, the state may, by declaration lodged with the registrar, accept the
exercise of jurisdiction by the court with respect to the crime in question. The
accepting state shall cooperate with the court without any delay or exception in
accordance with paragraph 9.
 Under Article 13- Exercise of jurisdiction
The Court may exercise its jurisdiction with respect to a crime referred to in article 5 in
accordance with the provisions of this Statute if:
a) A situation in which one or more of such crimes appears to have been committed is
referred to the Prosecutor by a state party in accordance with article 14;
b) A situation in which one or more of such crimes appears have been committed is referred
to the prosecutor by the Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the
United Nations; or
c) The Prosecutor has initiated an investigation in respect of such a crime in accordance
with article 15.

5
STATEMENT OF FACT:

 Marialand is a country which got independence on 1975. It is situated in the south east
Asia. It shares it south border with Gingerland and other boundaries are inaccessible and
due to rough terrain.
 The country comprises of 75% Poores, 23% Muggles and 2% of other different religions.
 Before 1975 Muggles rulers but after the independence the country became democratic
and Henry Poore was elected as president as Poores were in majority. Though high
government post were given to Muggles.
 In 2020 Henry Poore was elected as president, during his campaigning he made
dominating comments against his opponent party that is Muggles due to which he
remained a hot topic in the media. The comments were made for the sake of contest only.
 The negative comments and speech he made against his opponent party that is Muggles
made him unintentionally portray as a racist.
 Henry Pooreset up a committee namely “Maria Educational Reforms Committee”
(MERC), and put Dr. Umella as incharge. The committee had to admit 500 Poores
students to prepare them for government jobs in Marialand.
 Another committee names “KNOW YOUR MARIALAND “ (KYM), was set up for
proper census and also to issue an identity card which clearly gave the details of an
individual including his/her religion.
 On 25th August 2021 Mr. Mike Muggle a prominent Muggles leader and Mr. Cramp
Muggle judge of Supreme court of Marialand announced death penalty to 2 Poores who
were convicted for the murder of 5 Muggles. Later these 2 were murdered and their dead
bodies were found hanging in the middle of the capital with a note stating “ Rats leave or
prepare to die, deadline 01.11.2021. After the incident thousands of Muggles started to
migrate form Marialand to Gingerlandcausing refugee problem in Gingerland. The
president of Gingerland made talks with Henry Pooreto take the control of the situation.

6
 Henry Poore replied that necessary steps are being taken to bring the situation under
control. Henry Poore made announcement that Muggles were safe in Marialand.
 On 02.11.2021 a group of 100 men marched in Marialand and killed 300 Muggles they
also raped around 50 Muggle women and uploaded their videos. The men in the videos
can be seen wearing Balck t-shirts with M.E.R.C imprint, jeans and their face covered by
a mask.
 On 10.11.2021 a Muggles defence group mainly comprising of retired army and current
serving army personnel named “Army of Mike Muggle” was established. The rebel group
invaded the Marialand army arsenal and looted arms and ammunitions and conflict stared
against the two groups.
 On 15.11.2021 an adress was made to the nation by Henry Poore requesting both the
parties to surrender arms and Amnesty shall be granted to those who surrenders in a
peaceful manner.
 On 16.11.2021 the parliament of Marialand enacted Amnesty Act 2021 which was later
confirmed constitutionally valid.
 After the enactment of the Act the violence stopped but the Muggles were still migrating
to Gingerland as they started that they were not safe in Marialand until Henry Poorewas
acting President.
 After no improvement in the immigrant situation Gingerland made a request to the ICC to
investigate if any alleged crimes against humanity and genocide were committed in the
state of not. The prosecutor accepted the request.
 According to the report published by an N.G.O names “Justice for Muggles” stated that
all the 100 men were the initial batch of students of M.E.R.C. And also that Dr. Umella
was providing arms and ammunitions and training to the pupils and also that she planned
all of the attacks. It further stated that Dr. Umella was working under the instructions of
Henry Poore and Henry Poore had all the information of the attacks.
 Various photographs of weapons and training provided in the MERC institution were
published.
 According to the report KYM records were shared with MERC for identification of
Muggles and their houses.

7
 Certain call recordings between Dr. Umella and Henry Poore were made public. On the
records Henry Poore can be heard taking report of the MERC functioning from Dr.
Umella. The recording sates Henry Poore saying “I have trusted you with my master
plan. It’s your duty to assure that my dreams come true and I fullfilled the promise that I
made during the elections campaign.ake sure that no rats spoils our plant and we
eliminate all the rats from the country”.
 The reports created an international outrage and Henry Pooreseeked amnesty as per the
Act and same was approved by the court.
 On 31.01.2022 the ICC Prosecutor requested the Pre Trial Chamber II (PTC II) to issue a
summon for Henry Poore on the basis that he was responsible for the crime against
humanity and genocide in reference to all the published photograph and recording. The
request of the prosecutor was granted.

8
 ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the case against Henry Poore concerning Crime against humanity and genocide
falls within the jurisdiction of the Court?

2. Whether the case against Henry Poore concerning Crime against humanity and genocide
is admissible, particularly whether the amnesty can be invoked before the Court?

3. Whether the present case would serve the interest of justice?

4. Whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that Henry Poore is criminally
responsible for crimes against humanity and genocide under Article 28(b)of the Rome
Statute.

9
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS:

1) THE CASE AGAINST HENRY POORE CONCERNING CRIME AGAINST

HUMANITY AND GENOCIDE DOES NOT FALLS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION
OF THE COURT.

The case against Henry Poore concerning crime against humanity and genocide does not falls
with in the jurisdiction of the court, as according to the Article 12.12(a), 13 (a) and 13 (b) the
ICC has no jurisdiction to the states who are not a part of the RS, or in case if the state has
not agreed to the jurisdiction of the RS. Marialand not being a part of the Rome statute And
neither acceptance of the jurisdiction, the ICC has no power of jurisdiction in the domestic
matters of Marialand.

2) THE CASE AGAINST HENRY POORE CONCERNING CRIME AGAINST

HUMANITY AND GENOCIDE IS IN ADMISSIBLE, THE AMNESTY CAN BE
INVOKED BEFORE THE COURT.

The case against Henry Poore concerning crime against humanity and genocide is
inadmissible in the court as the matter is totally domestic matter and Marialand not being a
part of the RS ICC has no jurisdiction over the matter, thus the case is inadmissible.
According to Article 17 (a), 17 (1) (b) the ICC has no jurisdiction over the matters where
there are no substantial evidence or enough gravity. Also ICC has no power until the state
accepts the jurisdiction of ICC.

10
 The Amnesty Act Of 2021 can be invoked as the Act has been enacted by the sovereign
power and the state not being the part of the RS the ICC becomes powerless, as the Act is
totally under the jurisdiction of the sovereign nation that is Marialand.

3) THE PRESENT CASE WOULD NOT SERVE THE INTREST OF JUSTICE.

The present case would not serve the interest of justice as it would destabilize the peace
process.

4) THERE ARE NO REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THAT HENRY POORE

IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY AND GENOCIDE UNDER
ARTICLE 28 (b) OF ROME STATUTE.

Henry Poore cannot be held liable for the crime against humanity and genocide under Article
28(b) of RS as there are no substantial evidence to held Henry Poore liable under the Article
28(b). According to Article 69(7) of the RS the grounds and evidences produced could not be
entitled as a substantial evidence as they can be easily forged.

There are no proper or substantial evidence which proves the connection of Henry Poore with the
riots in Marialand. As all the evidences and grounds submitted are baseless or insubstantial, the
only point that the grounds and evidences points towards a conspiracy to overthrow the Poore
Government by misinterpreting Henry Poore and his government racist.

11
ARGUMENTS ADVANCE:

I) Whether the case against Henry poore concerning crimes against humanity and
genocide falls within the jurisdiction of the court?
No the case against Henry poore cannot be concerned crimes against humanity because
Marialand is not a state party to the Rome statue. So, the rules and principal is not binding to
Marialand. The Rome statue require that several criteria exist in a particular case before an
individual can be prosecuted by the court. It is clearly stated in article 12 of the Rome statue that
certain precondition has to fulfill to exercise of jurisdiction. It is well established principal of the
international law that an international tribunal cannot enforce its jurisdiction over non state party
state. 1
Article 13:
The Court may exercise its jurisdiction with respect to a crime referred to in article 5 in
accordance with the provisions of this Statute if:
(a) A situation in which one or more of such crimes appears to have been committed is
referred to the Prosecutor by a State Party in accordance with article 14;
(b) 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;
1
https://www.icc-cpi.int

12
C) The Prosecutor has initiated an investigation in respect of such a crime in accordance with
article 15. Article 15 is prosecutor where he/ she initiated the investigation pro prio Motu on the
basis of information on crimes within the jurisdiction of the court. A number of safeguard have
been provided to ensure that the prosecutor is not led by political moves but based on her/ his
decision on object criteria. 2
ICC can only enforce this article 13 if it fulfills one of the two conditions mentioned in
precondition to the exercise of jurisdiction article 12 of the Rome Statue of ICC.
Article 12(2) State which becomes a Party to this Statute thereby accepts the jurisdiction of the
Court with respect to the crimes referred to in article 5.
In the case of article 13, paragraph (a) or (c), the Court may exercise its jurisdiction if one
or more of the following States are Parties to this Statute or have accepted the jurisdiction of the
Court in accordance with
a) The State on the territory of which the conduct in question occurred or, if the crime was
committed on board a vessel or aircraft, the State of registration of that vessel or aircraft;
b) The State of which the person accused of the crime is a national.

Here in this case both the essential of article 12 aforementioned is not fulfilled neither the
territory on which the riots and the violence occurred is the part of the rome statue. Neither the
solicitors or the victims were part of the RS a citizen of the Gingerland including Henry poore
who was the citizen of the Marialand itself making the acts of violence totally out of jurisdiction
of Rome statue.
According the article 12( a) of the Rome statue provides that the ICC may exercise it’s
jurisdiction over a crime if the “ state or the territory of whom the conduct in question
occurred”is a party to the statute or had accepted the courts jurisdiction by a declaration. Neither
the marialand or hanrypoore has accepted the courts jurisdiction which gives no authority to the
ICC in the first place to interfere in a countries domestic.
This case should be decided on the court of marialand only. Marialand has its own criminal
jurisdiction over international crimes. ICC has a secondary justifications only.ICC can only act in
a given situation if the relevant state are unwilling or unable to prosecute the crime within their
jurisdiction. In case of prosecutorvs Bemba 3the Appeal chamber emphasized that the principal
of the complementary is an essential features of the rome statue and regarding the ICC
jurisdiction.

2
https://www.ictj.org.
3
The Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba GomboICC-01/05-01/08

13
In the case of the prosecutor vs Myanmar/ Bangladesh4 the appeal chamber determine that the
ICC did not have jurisdiction over the alleged deportation of Rohingya people from Myanmar is
not State party to the rome statue and the deportation occurred entirely within the territory of
Myanmar.
In the case of Prosecutor v. Katanga5, the ICC held that it does not have jurisdiction over
crimes committed on a territory of non-state party, even if those crimes have impact over the
State party.
In the case of Prosecutor v. Al Bashir6, the former President of Sudan the accused was held
liable for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against hunanity. The ICC issued an arrest warrant
for him but, he could not be apprehended because Sudan is not a state party to the Rome Statute
therefore Icc did not have any jurisdiction over crimes allegedly commited.

In the case of Georgia vs Russia7The ICC prosecutor requested authorization to investigate

alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity committed during the conflict between Georgia
and Russia, but the Pre-Trial Chamber decided that the ICC lacked jurisdiction because the
situation did not meet the criteria of the Rome Statute.

In the case of Comoros VS Israel 8The ICC prosecutor requested authorization to investigate
alleged war crimes committed during an Israeli military operation in the Gaza Strip, but the
PreTrial Chamber decided that the ICC lacked jurisdiction because Palestine was not a State
Party to the Rome Statute at the time of the alleged crimes.

Israel: Israel is not a party to the Rome Statute and has objected to the ICC’s jurisdiction over
crimes committed in the Palestinian territories. In 2021, the ICC launched an investigation into
alleged war crimes committed by Israel and Palestinian militants in the West Bank, Gaza, and
East Jerusalem. Israel has argued that the ICC lacks jurisdiction over the case because Palestine
is not a sovereign state and therefore cannot confer jurisdiction on the ICC.

4
Prosecutor vs Myanmar/ Bangladesh ICC- 01/ 19-18
5
The Prosecutor v. Germain KatangaICC-01/04-01/07
6
The Prosecutor v. Omar Hassan Ahmad Al BashirICC-02/05-01/09
7
GEORGIA v. RUSSIA (2008)
8
Comoros VS Israel( 2013)

14
China: China has also objected to the ICC’s jurisdiction over crimes committed in Xinjiang,
where the government is accused of committing genocide against the Uyghur Muslim minority.
China is not a party to the Rome Statute and has refused to cooperate with the ICC’s
investigation. China has argued that the ICC lacks jurisdiction over the case because it involves
China’s domestic affairs.

In our present case Henry Poore is a Citizen of Marialand and neither Marialand which is the
territory not Henry Poore the accused is of a state party of the Rome statute of ICC. Hence this
case should be decided on the court of Marialand only.

II) Whether the case against Henry Poore concerning crime against humanity and
genocide is admissible, particularly whether the amnesty can be invoked before
the court?

No, the case against Henry Poore concerning crime against humanity and genocide is
inadmissible as it is clearly stated in the Article -17(a)of the Statute that, the case is being
investigated or prosecuted by a state which has jurisdiction over it, unless the state is unwilling
or unable genuinely to carry out the investigation or prosecution.
In Marialand the Amnesty Act 2021 was enacted by the Parliament following the enacted of the
Act, all the violent activities in the country stopped and also Marialand has not given the consent
to ICC to conduct the investigation.
Under Article -17and 53 of the Rome Statue provides that. A case is inadmissible before the ICC
if it is currently under investigation by a State with Jurisdiction over it.
Marialand has its own jurisdiction to carry out the prosecution and investigation and also.
Marialand has not given the consent to ICC to prosecute or conduct the investigation. Hence, the
case is inadmissible.
in the case of Prosecutor vs Al-Senussi;9the Libyan authorities, filed a challenge to the

9
ICC-01/11-01/11-466

15
admissibility of the case with regard to Addullah Al-Senussi before Pre-Trial Chamber -I of the
ICC On 11 October 2012, PreTrial Chamber -Up decided that the case against MrAl Senussi was
inadmissible before the Court as it was subject to on-going domestic proceeding conducted by
the competent Libyan authorities and that Libyan was willing and able genuinely to carry out
such investigation.
The appeal Chamber of the International Criminal court (ICC) unanimously confirmed.Pre-Trial
Chamber is the decision which declared the case against Abdullah Al-Senussi inadmissible
before the ICC.
According to article 17(1)(d) of theRomeStatuteoftheInternationalCriminalCourt(Statute),
‘the Court shall determine that a case is inadmissible where [it is] not of sufficient gravity to
justify further action by the Court’.
In the case of Prosecutor vs Gbagbo and BleGoude10; Mr.BléGoudé was charged with
(inter alia) murder, rape, and other inhumane acts in the context of post-electoral violence in
Côte d’Ivoire. Mr. BléGoudé was eventually acquitted of all charges in 2019 (confirmed by the
Appeals Chamber in 2021), his case had nonetheless been deemed to be of sufficient gravity
under article 17(1)(d) of the Statute.

Yes, the Amnesty Act,2021 should be invoked.The Act was confirmed by the Supreme court of
Marialand as constitutionally valid.
Amnesty is the fundamental sovereign right.ICC should respect the sovereignty of the nation.
The key provisions for amnesties are Article -17 and 53 of the Rome Statue preventing crime
could be better served by Amnesty processes instead of interference of ICC.
Article-1of the Amnesty Act stated shall extend to anyone who took part in the hostilities in
Marialand shall be granted amnesty for the period between November 2,2021 and the adoption
of the present law. 11

Article 3 of the Act stated,In order for an individual to receive an amnesty,the following
conditions shall be met:
(i) Disarmament :The individual shall surrender all his weapons at the closet government
centres.
(ii) Public apology to the victims:The public apology shall be conducted during the
sessions organised by the government.

10
ICC--01/05-01/08
11
https://www.icc-cpi.int.

16
 (iii) Undertaking:The individual shall give an undertaking that he will never take part in
any violent activities.
(iv) Donation:The individual shall make a donation of Rupees 10,000 to the Relief fund.
(v) Judicial Control:The individual shall then appear before a judge who will assess
whether the pre-conditions set above have been met and in case all the pre-conditions
are met then the amnesty shall be granted.
It is true that Henry Poore has already been tried and ask to seek amnesty for his conduct in the
court of Marialand and the court had granted amnesty.
Therefore ICC can support the decision provides by the court of Marialand on the basis of
Amnesty Act,2021.12

iii)Whether the present case would serve the interest of justice?

No, the present case would not serve the interest of justice because first it would destabilize the
peace among the country. After the enactment of the Amnesty Act 2021, the violence were stop
in the Marialand. If the ICC interfer the matter of the Marialand which was already been solved,
It would create hostile relation with Marialand which violate the fundamental principles of
International law,i.e, the maintaining friendly relation with nations.13
It will create more conflict between the two religious ,i.e, pooresand muggles. There might be a
possibility that this will disintegrate the Marialand two part one consisting of poore people and
other muggles people. And there will be possibility future riots in the name of religion.
In the case of Afghanistan the chamber agreed with the prosecutor that the requirements of
admissibility and jurisdiction were met adequately but rejected the request on the ambiguous
ground of justice. The trend set by this decision of the pre-trial chamber is dangerous. Several
nation claims that the ICC is selective in its procession white allowing powerful states like the
USA to engage in serious crimes with impunity. It would be against the interest of justice.

12
Dr. H.O Agarwal on the international law and Human Rights, central law publication,15th edn,
2002, pg.350.
13
http://www.Icc-cpi.int.

17
The PTC based its decision on a board Interpretation of the ambiguous concept of interest of
justice, Art.53 (1) (a) allegedly resulting and the expected lack of cooperation by Afghanistan
and the USA , allegedly resulting in limited chances of a successful investigation. International
Criminal Court (ICC) is incompatible with the wording of. Art.53 (1) (c) which link the interest
of justice to inter alia, the gravity of the crime and interest of the victim, both of these criteria
speak for the opposite result than that reached by the chamber, it would not serve the interest of
justice.

IV)Whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that Henry Poore is criminally
responsible for crimes against humanity and genocide under Article 28(b)of the Rome
Statute.

No, the grounds presented against Henry Poore for the crime against humanity and genocide is
not acceptable as there are no proper and substantial evidence against Henry Poore that supports
the grounds. According to Article 28(b) Henry Poore cannot be held criminally liable for the
crimes as according to Article 28 (b) of RS.

Article 28 (b) Of RS:

With respect to superior and subordinate relationships not described in paragraph (a), a superior
shall be criminally responsible for crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court committed by

18
subordinates under his or her effective authority and control, as a result of his or her failure to
exercise control properly over such subordinates, where:

i) The superior either knew, or consciously disregarded information which clearly indicated, that
the subordinates were committing or about to commit such crimes.

ii) The crimes concerned activities that were within the effective responsibility and control of
the superior.

iii) The superior failed to take all necessary and reasonable measures within his or her power to
prevent or repress their commission or to submit the matter to the competent authorities for
investigation and prosecution.

There are no substantial evidence or any grounds under the Article 28(b) of RS as Henry Poore
had no consent or information about the attacks. Henry Poore had no control over the riots and
crimes occurring all around the state, he even had made steps to control the situation and even
enacted Acts and made announcement for the sake of peace. Henry Poore took all the necessary
steps for the solution of the matter by enacting Acts like Amnesty Act Of 2021, making
announcement and other steps for neutralizing the riots.

Article 69(7) of RS.

The testimony of a witness at trial shall be given in person, except to the extent provided by the
measures set forth in article 68 or in the Rules of Procedure and Evidence. The Court may also
permit the giving of viva voce (oral) or recorded testimony of a witness by means of video or
audio technology, as well as the introduction of documents or written transcripts, subject to this
Statute and in accordance with the Rules of Procedure and Evidence. These measures shall not
be prejudicial to or inconsistent with the rights of the accused.

According to the Article 69(7) of RS the grounds of call recordings submitted against Henry
Poore cannot be termed as substantial evidence. As these recordings can be forged easily.

19
The published photographs which were published showing the weapons and training of students
in the MERC institution were totally misguided and overhyped as the weapons and training was
carried out by the institution for self-defense and educational purposes only. The published
photographs were overhyped and intentionally framed to defame the Poore Government.

The reports stating the sharing Of the records from KYM to MERC were baseless as no records
were found which supported the ground. The videos uploaded on the internet can be found Of
people performing inhuman activities where people wearing jeans and a black t-shirt with MERC
imprint and their face covered with mask cannot be a substantial evidence in proving the
participation of the MERC pupils as anybody can wear a MERC imprinted t-shirt and do
immoral activities to defame the institution. As if they really intend to show their identitythey
would not be covering their face. Anyone can use such technique to defame any institution.

 The Prosecutor v Mathieu Ngudjolo .

Based on the evidence presented, the Trial Chamber reasoned that the prosecutor had
failed to present sufficient evidence to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused
was responsible for the commission of the alleged crimes during the attack on Bogoro
village.

The judges emphasized, however, that their decision did not mean that no crimes were
committed in Bogoro or that the people of the community had not suffered in the attacks.
In addition, the Trial Chamber ordered the immediate release of Ngudjolo Chui.

PRAYER
Wherefore, in the light of the case, issue raised , arguments advanced and authorities cited, the
Counsel for the Respondent side humbly prays that the Hon’ble International Criminal Court
(ICC) may be pleased to:

Find that:
1. That, the Petition flied before Hon’ble International Criminal Court (ICC) , the case
against Henry Poore concerning Crime against humanity and genocide does not falls
within the jurisdiction of the Court.

20
 2. That, the case against Henry Poore concerning Crime against humanity and genocide is
inadmissible, and the Amnesty Act, 2021 can invoked before the ICC.
3. That, the present case does not serve the interest of justice.
4. That, there are no reasonable rounds to believe that Henry Poore is criminally
responsible for crimes against the humanity and genocide under the Article 28(b) of the
Rome Statute.
And pass any other order that it may deem fit in the ends of justice, equality, and good
conscience. All of which is respectfully submitted.

21
22