19th HD Memo PROSECUTOR FINAL

THE 19TH HENRY DUNANT MEMORIAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019
ICC TRIAL CHAMBER
At The Hague
SITUATION IN THE STATE OF SOHULWA
IN THE CASE OF
THE PROSECUTOR v. Z. KARMONIC
DISPUTE CONCERNING CRIME OF GENOCIDE AND WAR CRIMES
PUBLIC DOCUMENT
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTOR

(19TH HENRY DUNANT MEMORIAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES…………….……………….........………………………..……..3
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION………..........……………...……………….….………...7
STATEMENT OF ISSUES….……………......………………………………….…...…….....8
STATEMENT OF FACTS……..………..……………………………………………..……..9
SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS..………..………………………………………………........11
PLEADINGS..........................…………………….……….……………………..…………..13
I. WHETHER MR. Z KARMONIC IS GUILTY OF COMMITTING THE

CRIME OF GENOCIDE UNDER ARTICLE 6(a) OF THE STATUTE OF THE
INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT?
A. The action of Mr. Z. Karmonic has caused catastrophic deaths of followers of Rokum
religion.
B. Mr. Z. Karmonic intended the killings with complete knowledge
II. WHETHER MR. Z KARMONIC IS RESPONSIBLE FOR COMMITTING

WAR CRIMES UNDER ARTICLE 8(2)(B)(II) FOR INTENTIONALLY
LAUNCHING AN ATTACK AGAINST THE NUCLEAR ENERGY PLANTS
OF ROKUMBA?
A. The perpetrator directed attacks against civilian objects, not military objectives
B. The perpetrator intended such civilian objects to be the object of the attack
C. The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international
armed conflict
D. Command Responsibility Of Mr. Karmonic For Attack On Civilian Objects
III. WHETHER MR. Z.KARMONIC IS LIABLE FOR THE WAR CRIME OF

EXCESSIVE INCIDENTAL DEATH, INJURY, OR DAMAGE UNDER
ARTICLE 8(2)(B)(IV) OF THE STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL
CRIMINAL COURT
A. Z.Karmonic Is Accountable For The Disproportionate Attacks And Incidental

Damage Caused To Civilian Objects And The Environment
B. The Damage Was Excessive And Damages Cause Were Widespread, Long-Term And
Severe In Relation To The Concrete Military Advantage Anticipated
PRAYER………………………………………………………………………………...…..29
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTOR 2 of 29

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
STATUTES
1. ROME STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT
2. STATUTE OF THE ICTY (INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL TRIBUNAL FOR THE
FORMER YUGOSLAVIA)
3. STATUTE OF THE ICTR (INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL TRIBUNAL FOR
RWANDA) STATUTE
TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS
1. THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS OF 12 AUGUST 1949
2. PROTOCOLS ADDITIONAL TO THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS OF 12
AUGUST 1949
3. THE CONVENTION ON THE PREVENTION AND PUNISHMENT OF THE
CRIME OF GENOCIDE, 1948
4. CUSTOMARY RULES OF INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW, ICRC
5. The International Law Commission’s Nuremberg Principles
BOOKS AND COMMENTARIES

1. MALCOLM SHAW, INTERNATIONAL LAW, 7TH EDN, CAMBRIDGE
2. KNUT DORMANN, ELEMENTS OF WAR CRIME UNDER THE ROME STATUTE OF
ICC, SOURCES AND COMMENTARY, 2004 EDN.
3. RALPH HENHAM, THE CRIMINAL LAW OF GENOCIDE, INTERNATIONAL,
COMPARATIVE AND CONTEXTUAL ASPECTS

4. ROBERT CRYER, AN INTRODUCTION TO INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW
AND PROCEDURE, 2ND EDN, CAMBRIDGE
5. W.A. SCHABAS, AN INTRODUCTION TO THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL
COURT, 4th EDN., 2011, CAMBRIDGE
6. W.A. SCHABAS, GENOCIDE IN INTERNATIONAL LAW, 2ND EDN, CAMBRIDGE
7. MARK KLAMBERG; COMMENTARY ON THE LAW OF THE INTERNATIONAL
CRIMINAL COURT; TORKEL OPSAHL ACADEMIC EPUBLSIHER BRUSSELS; 2017
8. ICRC REPORT, INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW AND THE CHALLENGES

OF CONTEMPORARY ARMED CONFLICTS
9. COMMENTARY ON THE ADDITIONAL PROTOCOLS TO THE GENEVA
CONVENTIONS, INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE OF THE RED CROSS (ICRC
STUDY)
10. G METTRAUX ‘THE LAW AND COMMAND RESPONSIBILITY’ (2009)
CASES
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
1. Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, 1996 I.C.J.
Rep. 226, 257 (July 8, 1996).
INTERNATION CRIMINAL COURT
1. Prosecutor v Omar Hassan Ahmad Al-Bashir Case no ICC-02/05-01/09-139, ICC, 12
December 2011
2. Prosecutor v. Bemba (Case No. ICC–01/05–01/08), Decision on the Confirmation of
Charges, 15 June, 2009

INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL TRIBUNAL OF FORMER YUGOSALAVIA
1. Prosecutor v. Tadic, (Case No. IT-96-23/1-A), Judgment ,12 June, para. 459
2. Prosecutor v Stakic Case No. IT-97-24-T), Judgment, 31 July 2003
2. Prosecutor v. Jelisic (Case No. IT-95-10-A), Judgment, 5 July 2001
3. Prosecutor v. Karadˇzi ́c (Case No. IT-95-5-R61), Judgment, 11th July 2013
4. Prosecutor v. Blaškić, (Case No. IT-95-14-T), Judgment, 3 March 2000
5. Prosecutor v. Kvočka (Case No. IT-98-30/1-T), Judgment, 2 November 2001
6. Prosecutor v Delalic, (Case No. IT-96-21-T), Judgment, 16 November, 1998
7. Prosecutor v Kordić and Cerkez IT-95-14/2, Judgment, 26 February 2001
8. Prosecutor V Dario Kordic And Mario Erkez, Appeal Chamber, IT-95-14/2-A
9. Prosecutor v. Galic, Case No. IT-98-29-T, Trial Chamber, December 5, 2003
10. Prosecutor v. Halilovic, Case No. IT-01-48-T, Trial Chamber, November 16, 2005
11. Prosecutor v. Strugar, Case No. IT-01-42-T, Trial Chamber, January 31, 2005
12. Prosecutor v. Naletilic and Martinovic, Case No. IT-98-34, Trial Chamber, March 31,
2003
13. Prosecutor v. Zoran Kupreskic and Others, IT-95-16-T
14. Prosecutor v. Hadzihasanovic, and Kubura, Judgment, IT-01-47-T, 15 Mar2006
15. Prosecutor v Vujadin Popović (Case No. IT-05-88-T) Judgment, 10 June 2010
INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL TRIBUNAL FOR RWANDA
1. Prosecutor v Seromba (Case No. ICTR-2001-66-I), Judgement 13 December, 2006
2. Prosecutor v Rutaganda (Case No. ICTR-96-3), Judgment and Sentence, 6 December
1999
3. Prosecutor v Kayishema and Ruzindana (Case No. ICTR-95-1), Judgment, 21 May
1999

4. Simba v Prosecutor (Case No. ICTR-01-76-A), Judgment, 27 November 2007
5. Prosecutor v Jean- Paul Akayesu (Case No. ICTR-96-4), Judgment September 2, 1998
6. Prosecutor v Gacumbitsi (Case No. ICTR-2001-64-T), Judgment, 17 June, 2004
7. Prosecutor v. Bagilishema (Case No. ICTR-95-1A-T), Judgment, 7 June 2001
8. Prosecutor v. Semanza (Case No. ICTR-97-20-T), Judgment and Sentence, 15 May
2003
9. Prosecutor v. Kamuhanda (Case No. ICTR-99-54-A-T), Judgment and Sentence, 22
November 2004
10. Prosecutor v. Muhimana (Case No. ICTR-95-1B-T), Judgment and Sentence, 28 April
2005
11. Prosecutor v Nahimana (Case No. ICTR-99-52-T), Judgment, 3 December, 2003
12. Prosecutor v. Kajelijeli (Case No. ICTR-98-44A-T), Judgment and Sentence, 1
December 2003
13. Prosecutor v. Ndindabahizi( Case No. ICTR-2001-71-I), Judgment and Sentence, 15
July 2004
MISCELLANEOUS
1. TALLINN MANUAL
2. USAF Intelligence Targeting Guide — AIR FORCE PAMPHLET 14- 210

Intelligence‟. 1998-02-01.
3. UNWCC, LRTWC, vol. XV, p. 111; 15 AD 656 at 660–1.
4. ICRC Draft Rules for the Limitation of Dangers incurred by the Civilian Population
in Time of War
5. Report of the detailed findings of the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission

on Myanmar, Human Rights Council

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
It is hereinafter most respectfully submitted that the Prosecutor of this International Criminal
Court has the jurisdiction to exercise this petition under Article 5 read with Article 13 of the
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 1998. Article 5(1) states a follows –
“The jurisdiction of the Court shall be limited to the most serious crimes of concern to the
international community as a while. The Court has jurisdiction in accordance with this Statute
with respect to the following crimes:
(a) The Crime of Genocide;
(b) Crimes against humanity;
(c) War Crimes;
(d) The Crime of Aggression.”
And both Sohulwa and Rokumba are parties to the ICC statute1
1 Page 14, Moot Problem

STATEMENT OF ISSUES
-I-
WHETHER MR. Z KARMONIC IS GUILTY OF COMMITTING THE CRIME OF

GENOCIDE UNDER ARTICLE 6(a) OF THE STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL
CRIMINAL COURT
-II-
WHETHER MR. Z KARMONIC IS RESPONSIBLE FOR COMMITTING WAR CRIMES

UNDER ARTICLE 8(2)(B)(II) FOR INTENTIONALLY LAUNCHING AN ATTACK
AGAINST THE NUCLEAR ENERGY PLANTS OF ROKUMBA?
-III-
WHETHER MR. Z.KARMONIC IS LIABLE FOR THE WAR CRIME OF

EXCESSIVE INCIDENTAL DEATH, INJURY, OR DAMAGE UNDER ARTICLE
8(2)(B)(IV) OF THE STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT

STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. The Sarozula subcontinent is located in continent Z , comprising of 4 nations namely

Sambhota , Sohulwa , Rokumba and Zumanja . 70% of the area of Sohulwa is
between the rivers R1 and R2. Four prominent kingdoms existed in the subcontinent
which witnessed many colonial wars over natural resources , etc. After signing the
treaty of Sarozula each colonial power got its independent area to administer .
2. Some pockets of Sohulwa’s land were declared to be Lands for Sarozula (LfS) ,
administered by representatives from all the nations .
3. Predominance of different religions that is, Sohu, Sambho, Zuma and Rokum in
different areas of the subcontinent resulted in the demarcation of formal borders for
these countries but religious minorities were present in each country. Sohu, the most
ancient religion of Sarozula was opposed by the reformative movements which
opened doors for other religions in Sarozula. Rokum religion is the most recent
religion to emerge in the subcontinent, bearing no connection to the Sohu religion.
4. After gaining independence in 1955, all countries became secular democracies. 4
universities were established under the banner name of University of Sarozula, one in
each country.
5. Failure of successive governments in socio-economic sphere gave birth to aggressive
nationalism. Superiority of Sohu religion started emerging. Sarozula of Sohus (SoS)
was established on the banks of R2 advocating the adoption of Sohu religion by
religious minorities in Sarozula. SoS was receiving patronage from the Sohu Voice
Party (SVP).
6. Branches of SoS had extended to all parts of the subcontinent except Rokumba from
1919 onwards. A ban on SoS movement was ordered by Rokumba in 2007 on
grounds of law and order. Though the smallest country, Rokumba saw massive
progress in the field of science and technology. Several industries were established on
the banks of small rivers that ultimately joined R2. Environmental disputes started
becoming common between Sohu and Rokumba.
7. With the advent of nuclear technology in Rokumba, it declared that it would use its
nuclear technology for peaceful purposes and 2 nuclear plants were subsequently
established.

8. Rokumba started diverting water for industrial purposes which led to water pollution,
however, it offered compensation to all affected countries. Water pollution cost many
lives in adjoining areas of R2 in Sohulwa. Negotiation soccured but failed. On 11th
March, 2018, all supplies from LfS to Rokumba were stopped by Sohulwa and
citizens of Rokumba ordered to leave Sohulwa within 48 hours.
9. Rokumba withdrew from the Treaty of Sarozula on 13th March, 2018, Rokumban
nationals working in LfS had gone missing. Media reports stated that they did not
return to Rokumba. In Rokumba, Sohulwan students and faculties in the University of
Sarozula were taken into custody on charges of sedition and conspiracy.
10. On 30th March, 2018, Help Sarozula, a facebook account was created by Mr.
Z.Kaarmonic - an ardent follower of SoS and head of its cyber wing, he held a
computer engineering degree from the world’s most reputed institution. This account
became the source of generating hatred against Rokumba. An invitation to march
towards the border of Rokumba was mailed through the page on 15th April. The
account became inoperable but the message spread across facebook rapidly. Armed
marchers gathered near the borders. Mr. Z. Karmonic arrested by Sohulwan
government for inciting public disobedience and the government discouraged public
from following the march. The situation went out of control with people joining the
march in 1000s.
11. While Help Sarozula laid down its demands, Sohulwan government ordered its armed
forces to ensure security at the borders. On 20th April, 2018, Rokum religious sites in
the capital of Rokumba were bombed, killing 100 people and injuring 200 further.
The Rokumban government accused the banned SoS group for this.
12. Havoc wrecked in the capital of Sohulwa and several civilians and policemen died.
Z.Karmonic along with many other prisoners managed to escape custody.
13. Missile attacks on 5 SoS offices in Sohulwa were initiated by Rokumba on 22nd
April, 2018. Rokumba demanded withdrawal of the marchers.
14. Help Soruzola became active again on facebook spreading venom against Rokumba
and the Rokums. Z.Karmonic glorified the marchers as fighters. Another round of
hostilities across the border killed 500 people in total.
15. ICRC, initiated negotiations between the 2 countries for safety and security. But some
Help Sarozula marchers were still at the border.

16. On 25th May, 2018, Mr. Z. Karmonic shared false post on facebook carrying ICRC
insignia deploring killings at the hand of Rokumban government. It was later found
out and clarified by ICRC that its website was hacked and this was false news.
Rokumban minorities in Sohulwa were targeted and killed in large numbers by mobs
only in a single night.
17. Cyber attacks ensued from Rokumba’s armed forces on the Sohulwan army. Mr. Z.
Karmonic was granted pardon by the SOhulwan government and made the head of the
cyber cell of the Sohulwan armed forces. His task was to properly answer the cyber
actions of Rokumba.
18. On 15 July 2018, there were sudden blasts in both nuclear energy plants of Rokumba.
These blasts resulted in radioactive leaks and caused great suffering. These blasts also
caused severe damage to the natural environment and permanent damage in
unquantifiable terms.
19. Committees subsequently were constituted by the Security Council to look into the
cause of the attacks which subsequently discovered 10 supercomputers in an
underground village of Sohulwa which were alleged to be the instruments used in
causing the attacks.
20. After complying with all formalities the ICC issued arrest warrants against five
persons including Mr. Z. Karmonic, on 15 June 2019. Mr. Z. Karmonic was arrested
on 10 June 2019, from a village in Sohulwa. Subsequently he was handed over to the
ICC.
After complying with all formalities the Trial Chamber of the ICC will now commence with a
trial based on charges of genocide and war crimes under Articles 6 and 8 of the ICC Statute

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS
I. MR. Z KARMONIC IS GUILTY OF COMMITTING THE CRIME OF

GENOCIDE UNDER ARTICLE 6(a) OF THE STATUTE OF THE
INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT?
Mr. Z.Karmonic is guilty of committing the crime of genocide by killing the followers of
Rokum religion under Article 6(a) of the ICC Statute. Firstly, his prior conduct and
statements, particularly the one made on 25th May , 2018 have caused catastrophic deaths of
followers of Rokum religion. Mr.Karmonic intended the killings of Rokum minorities with
complete knowledge. It was in the knowledge of Mr. Z. Karmonic that his actions will lead to
the mass killings of Rokums. Secondly, he has willfully incited genocide. He has both
individual as well as civilian superior responsibility for inciting the crime of genocide
II. MR. Z KARMONIC IS RESPONSIBLE FOR COMMITTING WAR CRIMES
UNDER ARTICLE 8(2)(B)(II) FOR INTENTIONALLY LAUNCHING AN
ATTACK AGAINST THE NUCLEAR ENERGY PLANTS OF ROKUMBA?
That Mr. Karmonic, as the cyber head of Sohulwa State, directed the attacks against civilian
objects unrelated to the acquisition of any military advantage in complete violation of
International Humanitarian Law. He intended such civilian objects to be the object of attack
within the context of an international armed conflict. By declaration of the victim state, such
objects had not been directed towards any established military purpose, and as such Mr.
Karmonic has violated the principle of distinction.
III. MR. Z.KARMONIC IS LIABLE FOR THE WAR CRIME OF EXCESSIVE
INCIDENTAL DEATH, INJURY, OR DAMAGE UNDER ARTICLE
8(2)(B)(IV) OF THE STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL
COURT
That Mr. Karmonic directed the launching of an attack against the nuclear energy plants of
Rokumba with knowledge that such attack will widespread, long-term and severe damage to
the natural environment and which would be clearly excessive

PLEADINGS
FIRST COUNT
THAT MR. Z. KARMONIC IS GUILTY OF THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE BY
KILLING THE FOLLOWERS OF ROKUM RELIGION UNDER ARTICLE 6 (a) OF
ICC STATUTE
Mr. Z. Karmonic incited public violence and committed gross human rights violations against
the followers of Rokum religion (hereinafter ‘Rokums’) by sharing unauthorised and
fabricated fake messages on Facebook, where he had already garnered support through
unanimous anger and hatred of radical Sohu followers. And this hatred ultimately led to the
heinous and most deplorable crime of genocide under Art. 6 (a) of ICC Statute. The actions
on Mr. Z. Karmonic fulfil the elements of crime requirement of the ICC 2. Raphael Lemkin
has stated that ‘genocide is intended to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming
at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of
annihilating the groups themselves’.
A. THE ACTION OF MR. Z. KARMONIC HAS CAUSED CATASTROPHIC
DEATHS OF FOLLOWERS OF ROKUM RELIGION.
1) The Elements of Crime provide that 'the term “killed” is interchangeable with the
term “caused death”'. 3 That indicates that the death of the victim is a necessary
consequence of the perpetrator's conduct and that a causal link needs to exist between
conduct and consequence. 4
2) As per Article 6 of Elements of Crime, the victim of the perpetrator’s conduct must
belong to a ‘particular national, ethnical, racial or religious group’. The characteristics
2
Report of the Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court, United Nations
3
Article 6(a), note 10, Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
4
Prosecutor v Vujadin Popović (Case No. IT-05-88-T) Judgment, 10 June 2010, para 810

of members of a religious group ‘share the same religion, denomination or mode of
worship’. Followers of Rokum clearly fall under the ‘group element’ mandated to
determine the crime of genocide.
3) Further, the concept of 'destruction of the group' (in the context of genocidal intent)
refer to the "material destruction of a group either by physical or by biological
means.” Therefore, the killings of the Rokums squarely fall under the elements of
crime. 5
(i) Manifest pattern of conduct
4) Mr. Z. Karmonic, as the head of the cyber wing of SoS, used Facebook as a medium
to incite lethal violence against the Rokums, firstly, by creating the page “Help
Sarozula” and inviting radical followers of Sohu religion to march towards the
borders of Rokumba; secondly, the turnout of massive numbers of armed marchers
(increasing from the twenty-five thousand marchers on the first day itself), who
subsequently conducted a series of bomb blasts at Rokum religious sites killing 100
and injuring 200 people, is a clear indication of the power and influence Mr. Z.
Karmonic had in the ignition of the genocide; thirdly, he further encouraged the
killings by the marchers by calling them fighters and according them with bravery.
5) Lastly, he fabricated and posted fake news with unauthorised use of ICRC insignia
and called for killings publicly on 25 May 2018. Following which, on the same day,
large scale riots broke out where Rokum minorities were targeted and six hundred
Rokum minorities were killed by mobs.6 The series of events clearly highlight how
Mr. Z. Karmonic’s actions were the cause of death behind the large scale ‘murders’ of
the Rokum minorities in Sohulwa.
5
Prosecutor v. Seromba (Case No. ICTR-2001-66-I), Judgment, 13 December 2006
6
Moot Proposition, Page. 11

6) The medium of Facebook has been used to incite violence and public hatred in
another devastating case of genocide leading to the finding that “[t]he role of social
media is significant. Facebook has been a useful instrument for those seeking to
spread hate, in a context where for most users Facebook is the Internet.” 7 The
provocation for genocide is attributable to the Chiefs and their posts on Facebook 8 is
similar to the present case.
B. MR. Z. KARMONIC INTENDED THE KILLINGS WITH COMPLETE
KNOWLEDGE
(i) The killings of the Rokums were intended:
7) Intent has been construed to rfer to homicide 'committed with the intent to cause
death'. 9 The element of intent makes genocide a specific intent crime (dolus
specialis) thereby, differentiating it from other crimes of mass destruction. 10
8) It is submitted that recognizing the specific intent may be difficult, if not impossible,
to establish through direct evidence. 11, thus, genocidal intent may be inferred from
the circumstances surrounding the commission of the alleged offence.
9) A person may be found guilty of the crime specified in Article 2(3)(c) of the Statute if
he or she directly and publicly incited the commission of genocide (the material
element or actus reus) and had the intent directly and publicly to incite others to
commit genocide (the intentional element or mens rea). he crime of direct and public
7
Report of the detailed findings of the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar, Human
Rights Council
8
Decision on the “Prosecution’s Request for a Ruling on Jurisdiction under Article 19(3) of the Statute”, ICC-
RoC46(3)-01/18-37, 06 September 2018, Pre-Trial Chamber Decision

9
Prosecutor v Jean-Paul Akayesu, (Case No. ICTR-96-4-T), Judgment, 2 September 1998, para. 500
10
Mark Klamberg; ‘Commentary on the Law of the International Criminal Court’
11
Prosecutor v Gacumbitsi (Case No. ICTR-2001-64-T), Judgment July 7, 2006

incitement to commit genocide is an inchoate offence, punishable even if no act of
genocide has resulted therefrom. This is confirmed by the travaux préparatoires to the
Genocide Convention.12
10) There is sufficient evidence available against Mr.Karmonic via his intention to cause
the calamitous situation in Rokumba. He escaped custody to only cause more harm in
the most severe and terrifying forms than what could have been prevented had he
been behind the bars. The Rokum minorities living in his own country, have either
died or have gone missing because of the vandalism inflicted by Help Sarozula
protesters involved in massive destruction under the guidance of their leader.
(ii) Mr. Z. Karmonic knew that his actions will lead to the mass killings of Rokums:
11) That the intention to cause serious bodily harm which 'the accused should reasonably
have known might lead to death', has in the past been accepted as a sufficient
subjective element13. In it is the existence of destructive intent which gives the crime
its particular character. 14 It is sufficient for the ‘mental element’ part of the crime that
the perpetrator "knew that his acts were destroying, in whole or in part, the group, as
such", and made clear that such knowledge must refer to actual (as opposed to
probable) destruction. 15
12) Having established the mental element, it is imperative to highlight that Mr Z.
Karmonic having complete knowledge and understanding of his influence and actions
continued to post hateful messages. Immediately, this page garnered immense public
attention and followers. One provocative post on Facebook inviting radical followers
12
Prosecutor v Nahimana (Case No. ICTR-99-52-T), Judgment, 3 December, 2003
13
Prosecutor v Popović (Case No. IT-05-88-PT), Judgment, 10 June 2010, para. 788
14
Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brđanin, (Case No. IT-99-36-T), Judgment, 1 September 2004, para. 699
15
Prosecutor v. Jelisic (Case No. IT-95-10-A), Judgment, 5 July 2001, para. 42

of the Sohu religion to march to the Rokumba border and over twenty-five thousand
people showed up. With this kind of power and influence, the person is required to be
more responsible for what is shared with the public by him.
13) If the accused accompanied or preceded the act with some sort of genocidal
declaration or speech, its content may assist in establishing the special intent. In
practice, because of the large scale of genocide, its association with a State plan or
policy, and the requirement of a racist climate in public opinion, as a minimum, there
is actually no shortage of examples in the case law of perpetrators betraying their
intent through public speeches or in meetings with others.16
14) It is hereinafter most respectfully submitted that Mr Karmonic, despite knowing the
extent of sway among his followers, intentionally warranted and praised the violent
acts of the marchers and awarded them by calling them “fighters to help Sarozula
ensure a victory for justice”. This call for bravery led to a more organised form of
armed violence and the horrid deaths that followed as an aftermath to the Facebook
posts. The subsequent post calling for retaliation and war, despite being aware of the
ongoing negotiations to ensure the safety and security of the captives, and culminated
with the attacks on 25th May.
15) Evidence shows that ‘he must have had knowledge’ of the most likely result. 17 In the
present case, the causal link has been established by the above-mentioned facts. The
mental element required has consequently been proved too.
16
Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi (Case No. ICTR-2001-64-A), Judgment, 7 July 2006, para. 43; Nahimana et al. v.
Prosecutor (Case No. ICTR-99-52-A), Judgment, 28 November 2007, para. 527; Prosecutor v. Kajelijeli (Case
No. ICTR-98-44A-T), Judgment and Sentence, 1 December 2003, para. 531; Prosecutor v. Kamuhanda (Case
No. ICTR-95-54A-A), Judgment, 19 September 2005, para. 81; Prosecutor v. Karera (Case No. ICTR-01-74-
T), Judgment and Sentence, 7 December 2007, para. 542

17
Prosecutor v. Tadic, (Case No. IT-96-23/1-A), Judgment ,12 June, para. 459

C. ATTRIBUTION OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR INCITEMENT OF GENOCIDE
(i) Incitement to genocide
16) It is most respectfully submitted that Mr. Karmonic must be held liable for inducing
genocide18, as well as civilian superior responsibility19 for the events of 25th May.
17) That not only has there been a pattern of incitement20, but that such inciteful content
has culminated into the attacks on 25th May which makes Mr. Karmonic complicit in
the violation of International Criminal Law and international Humanitarian Law. 21
18) The intent to incite is clearly reflected in the nature of content as well as the medium
so chosen to ensure greater reach of propaganda which has egregiously misused the
emblem of the ICRC. 22 Such misuse via usurpation is explicitly prohibited by
customary IHL.23
19) That the repetition of such content also provides for inference of his intent to incite
such actions from his “words or deeds”. 24 Deliberate reproduction of content shows
that the focal point was on wider dissemination with inherent recklessness.
(ii) Control and authority of Mr. Karmonic as civilian superior
20) Mr. Karmonic, through the de facto authority and had the ability to exercise control or
“effective control” over her subordinates. A superior-subordinate relationship has
18
Article 25, Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
19
Article 28, Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
20
Prosecutor v Nahimana (Case No. ICTR-99-52-T), Judgment, 3 December, 2003
21
Nuremberg Principle VII; The International Law Commission’s Nuremberg Principles,1946
22
M. Michael, “Protecting the Emblems in Peacetime: The Experiences of the British Red Cross”, in IRRC, No.
272, September-October 1989, pp. 459-464; S. Habib, “Protection of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Emblems
and the Repression of Misuse”, in IRRC, No. 272, September-October 1989, pp. 420-437
23
Article 12, Additional Protocol II
24
Prosecutor v Jean-Paul Akayesu (Case No. ICTR-96-4-T), Judgment, 2 September 1998

been established by virtue of the declaration of the marchers. Further, prior pattern
reflects that that his supporters have acted on his previous statements, naming
themselves “HS Fighters” after his issuance of statement requiring them to act as
such25.
21) The superior-subordinate relationship is not required to be direct or immediate in
nature for a commander to be found liable for the acts of his subordinate. Thus, no
direct subordination needs to be established, only that the superior must be senior in
some sort of formal or informal hierarchy to the subordinate.26
SECOND COUNT
Z.KARMONIC IS RESPONSIBLE FOR COMMITTING WAR CRIME UNDER
ARTICLE 8 (2)(B)(II) OF THE ICC STATUTE FOR INTENTIONALLY
DIRECTING ATTACK AGAINST NUCLEAR ENERGY PLANTS OF ROKUMBA
Z.Karmonic violated Article 8(2) (b) (ii) of the Rome Statute as material elements of the
crime have been satisfied, i.e., A) The perpetrator directed attacks against civilian objects, not
military objectives, B) The perpetrator intended such civilian objects to be the object of the
attack, C) The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international
armed conflict.
A. THE PERPETRATOR DIRECTED ATTACKS AGAINST CIVILIAN
OBJECTS, NOT MILITARY OBJECTIVES
22) Prosecution most respectfully submits that deliberate attacks on civilian objects are
absolutely prohibited by international humanitarian law27. The requirement that “the
25
Moot Proposition, Page 10
26
Prosecutor v. Halilovic (Case No. IT-01-48-T), Trial Chamber, November 16, 2005
27 Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons ICJ Advisory Opinion, 8 July 1996, [1996] ICJ Rep. 226,

perpetrator directed an attack”28 as elaborated under the concept of “attack” in the
context of Article 8(2)(b)(ii), likewise for Article 8(2)(b)(i), refers to Article 49(1) AP
I29 which asserts that an attack are “acts of violence against the adversary, whether in
offence or in defense30.
23) The second element in the Elements of Crimes that is that the object of the attack was
civilian objects, must be analyzed as a behavior.31
i) Violation of Principle of Distinction
24) Further, the principle of distinction 32 requires parties to distinguish at all times
“between the civilian population and combatants, between civilian and military
objectives, and accordingly direct attacks only against military objectives33
25) In the instant case, Z.Karmonic can be said to have directed attacks against civilian
objectives, due to the nature and purpose of the Nuclear Energy Plants, which were
being used to generate electricity and due to the wanton nature of Z.Karmonic’s
actions, his attacks directly affected civilian life in general
26) It is sufficient to show that enough individuals were targeted in the course of the
attack, or that they were targeted in such a way that the attack was, in fact, directed
against a civilian “population” and not against a limited and randomly-selected
at 257 (Para. 78).
28 Elements of Crimes
29 Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, 1949
30 Prosecutor v. Katanga and Chui, ICC PT. Ch. I, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, ICC-01/04-01/07-
717, 30 September 2008, para. 266)
31 Prosecutor v. Chui, ICC-01/04-01/07-4-tFRA, 6 July 2007, para. 41
32 Prosecutor v. Kordic and Cerkez (Case No. IT-95-14/2-A), Appeals Chamber, Judgment, 17 December, 2004
33 Prosecutor v Galić (Case No. IT-98-29), Judgment, 5 December, 2003 para. 190

number of individuals34
27) It is submitted that the prohibition in Articles 51 and 52 of Additional Protocol I of
attacks on civilians and civilian object35 embodying the customary international law
principle of protection of civilians in situations of conflict36 have been violated by the
defendant. These prohibitions reconcile the underlying humanitarian purpose of
Geneva Convention IV, which is to ensure the protection of civilians when and
wherever possible.
28) That the Trial should deem that the attack has caused deaths and/or serious bodily
injury within the civilian population in abject violation of the requirement to
distinguish between military targets and civilian persons and such targeting of
civilians is an offence when not justified by military necessity. 37
B. THE PERPETRATOR INTENDED SUCH CIVILIAN OBJECTS TO BE THE
OBJECT OF THE ATTACK
29) The ICTY Prosecution has defined the mental element of ‘unlawful attacks on civilian
objects’ in the Kordic and Cerkez 38 case as follows: The civilian character of the
objects damaged was known or should have been known; The attack was willfully
directed at civilian objects.
30) The mens rea requirement is met if it has been shown that the acts of violence, which
constitute this crime, were willfully directed against civilians, that is, either
34 ICRC Commentary, para. 1922
35 Prosecutor v Blaškić (Case No. IT-95-14)
36 Prosecutor v Blaškić (Case No. IT-95-14)
37 Prosecutor v Blaskic (Case No. IT-95-14)

38
Prosecutor v. Kordic and Cerkez (Case No. IT-95-14/2-A), Appeals Chamber, Judgment, 17 December, 2004

deliberately against them or through recklessness.39
31) The intent to target civilians can be proved through inferences from direct or
circumstantial evidence.40 There is no requirement of the intent to attack particular
civilians; rather it is prohibited to make the civilian population as such, as well as
individual civilians, the object of an attack.41
32) Once the perpetrators launch the attack with the intent to target individual civilians
not taking direct part in the hostilities or the civilian population, the offence is
completed. This is the case when individual civilians not taking direct part in the
hostilities or the civilian population are the sole target of the attack.42
33) In the instant case, there is no evidence to the fact that the Rokumban civilians were a
part of the hostilities. Z.Karmonic instituted an attack against objects, which were not
military in nature and intended to do so in light of his manifest history of orchestrated
animosity towards the Rokumban nationals. His intention is evident as Mr. Z.
Karmonic was an ardent follower of a populist religious extremist group of Sohulwa
religion and at that time was the head of its cyber wing. It was through the mass social
movement that followed, Z.Karmonic being able to vicariously harness a corpus of
people against civilian objects.
C. THE CONDUCT TOOK PLACE IN THE CONTEXT OF AND WAS
ASSOCIATED WITH AN INTERNATIONAL ARMED CONFLICT
39
Prosecutor v. Pavle Strugar, (Case NO. IT-01-42), Judgment 16 January, 2009
40
Prosecutor v Galić (Case No. IT-98-29), Judgment 5 December, 2003
41
Additional Protocol I, Article 52 (2)
42
The Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, ICC-01/04-01/07

34) Common Article 2 of the Geneva Conventions of 194943 states that the conventions
apply to ‘all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise
between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not
recognized by one of them’
35) It can be established, as in the present case, that the perpetrator acted in furtherance of
or under the guise of the armed conflict, and it would be sufficient to conclude that his
acts were closely related to the armed conflict. The Trial Chamber’s finding in the
Rutaganda case44 on that point is unimpeachable.
(i)International armed conflict defined
36)The definition of an international armed conflict to include conflicts opposing a State
against an armed opposition group when “(i) another State intervenes in that conflict
through its troops (direct intervention), or (ii) some of the participants in the internal
armed conflict on behalf of that other State (indirect intervention)” 45
37) The existence of an international armed conflict is manifest in the facts of this case as
there was an uprising against the Rokumban authorities instigated due to
Z.Karmonic’s provocative call to march towards the borders of Rokumba and
congregate along the border46. Pursuant to this many governmental structures were set
on fire and Rokumba launched missile attacks on Sohulwa, thus instigating an
international armed conflict.
43
Article 2, Geneva Conventions of 1949- “In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in
peacetime, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which
may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one
of them.
44
The Prosecutor Versus Georges Anderson Nderubumwe Rutaganda, ICTR-96-3-T
45
Prosecutor v. Tadic (Case No. IT-94-1-A), Judgment, 15 July 1999, para. 84
46
Moot Problem, Page 9

38) The threshold for an international armed conflict to exist is very low: whenever there
is resort to hostile armed force between two States, there is an international armed
conflict.47 Such an approach is functional: a single border skirmish between the armed
forces of two states or the capture of an individual soldier may amount to an
international armed conflict because international humanitarian law contains specific
rules that apply to such circumstances. A state`s intent may provide evidence against
the existence of an armed conflict48
(ii)Knowledge of existence of international armed conflict
39) “The nullum crimen sine lege principle does not require that an accused knew the
specific legal definition of each element of a crime he committed. It suffices that he
was aware of the factual circumstances.49
40) In the present case, Z.Karmonic was well aware of the factual circumstances and the
existing international armed conflict. The circumstances of the IAC had escalated to
Rokumba using environmental modification techniques and cyber attacks 50
significantly disrupting the military prowess of Sohulwa. Z.Karmonic in full
knowledge of these circumstances, and as recently appointed Head of the cyber cell of
the Sohulwan Armed forces instituted a disparaging attack on the Rokumban Nuclear
Energy Plants.
D. COMMAND RESPONSIBILITY OF MR. KARMONIC FOR ATTACK ON
CIVILIAN OBJECTS
47
‘Article 2: Application of the Convention’, ICRC, Commentary on the First Geneva Convention, 2016
48
ICRC, ‘Report on International Humanitarian Law and the Challenges of Contemporary Armed Conflicts
49
Prosecutor v. Kordic and Cerkez (Case No. IT-95-14/2-A), Appeals Chamber, Judgment, 17 December, 2004,
para. 311
50

41) That command responsibility is attracted for cyber attacks due to his role as the leader
entrusted with cyber warfare.51 He had the “material ability to prevent and repress the
commission of the crimes or submit the matter to the competent authorities.”
42) His duty as a commander therefore attaches dual responsibility; to prevent or suppress
the attack, and to punish such attacks. Mr. Karmonic has failed on both counts. The
standard in the alternative of not having committed the attack himself is to be in
consonance with “should have known”. Even if alternative interpretation is to be
taken there is a duty to have been informed of any such acts having the complete
authority to regulate the cyber space. The failure of this duty is not a defense.
43) Considering that the modus operandi involved supercomputers, it is highly unlikely
that non-state actors would have similar capabilities. Further, the armed non-state
actors in the territory of Sohulwa also follow Mr. Karmonic’s declarations and have
shown remarkable compliance to his statements.
The prosecution on the count of War Crimes under Article 8(2)(b)(ii) thus submits that
Attacks against civilian objects would amount to a war crime pursuant to the absolute
Prohibition in the Rome Statue of the ICC and Geneva Convention of 1949 and holds
Z.Karmonic absolutely liable
COUNT THREE
Z.KARMONIC IS RESPONSIBLE FOR COMMITTING WAR CRIME UNDER
ARTICLE 8 (2)(B)(IV) OF THE ICC STATUTE FOR INTENTIONALLY CAUSING
WIDESPREAD, LONG-TERM AND SEVERE DAMAGE TO CIVILIAN OBJECTS
Prosecution submits that defendant is responsible for committing war crimes under article
51 Rule 24, Talinn Manual

8(2)(b)(iv) for intentionally launching an attack against the nuclear energy plants of Rokumba
in the A) knowledge that such attack will widespread, long-term and severe damage to the
natural environment B) which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and
direct overall military advantage anticipated.
A. Z.KARMONIC IS ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE DISPROPORTIONATE
ATTACKS AND INCIDENTAL DAMAGE CAUSED TO CIVILIAN OBJECTS
AND THE ENVIRONMENT
44) Article 8(2)(b)(iv) reflects the principle of proportionality52 and brings environment
into the equation53.
45) Respect for the environment is one of the elements that go to assessing whether an
action is in conformity with the principles of necessity and proportionality. Articles
35, paragraph 3, and 55 of Additional Protocol I provide additional protection for the
environment 54 . Taken together, these provisions embody a general obligation to
protect the natural environment against widespread, long-term and severe
environmental damage which was not duly foreseen by Z.Karmonic due to the wanton
nature of his attacks.
46) Disproportionate attacks, which are a form of indiscriminate attack under AP I, 55 may
lead to inferences that civilians were the direct object of the attack in certain
circumstances.56 There is an equation of the use of indiscriminate weapons with a
52
Articles 51(5)(b) and 85(3)(b) of Additional Protocol I
53
Articles 35(3) and 55 of Additional Protocol I
54
Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons ICJ Advisory Opinion, 8 July 1996, [1996] ICJ Rep. 226
55
AP I, supra note 9, arts. 51(5)(b), 85(3)(b)
56
Prosecutor v. Galić (Case No. IT-98-29), Judgment 5 December, 2003

deliberate attack against civilians57
47) The Appeals Chamber in Strugar58 recalls that, depending on the circumstances of the
case, the indiscriminate character of an attack can be indicative of the fact that the
attack was indeed directed against the civilian population.59
48) The intent to cause the attack on the Nuclear Energy Plants in Rokumba are well
founded as the technical committee to investigate the cause of the blasts discovered
on 5 April 2019, with the help of Sohulwan security forces a set of ten super
computers, which were connected with each other, in an underground room in a
village near Sohulwa’s capital. The First Committee has established that these
computers had been used for the attack.60
49) As a “reasonably well-informed person in the circumstances” that is attributed to his
position as a military leader, Mr. Z.Karmonic “could have expected excessive civilian
casualties,” 61 and thus launched the attacks “willfully and in knowledge of
circumstances giving rise to the expectation of excessive civilian casualties.62
B. THE DAMAGE WAS EXCESSIVE AND DAMAGES CAUSE WERE
WIDESPREAD, LONG-TERM AND SEVERE IN RELATION TO THE
CONCRETE MILITARY ADVANTAGE ANTICIPATED
50) In order to constitute a war crime, Art.8 (2)(b)(iv) of the ICC Statute requires an
57
Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, supra note 13, para 78; Prosecutor v. Martić, (Case No.
IT-95-11-T)
58
(Case No. IT-01-42-T), Trial Chamber, January 31, 2005, para. 275
59
Prosecutor v. Galić (Case No. IT-98-29), Judgment 5 December, 2003
60
61
Prosecutor v. Galić (Case No. IT-98-29), Judgment 5 December, 2003 para.58
62
AP I, Art.85(3)(b); Customary IHL Study, Rule 156

attack to cause ‘widespread, long-term and severe damage’ to the natural
environment. Although the ICC Statute does not define ‘widespread, long-term and
severe damage’, the identical terms have also been used in the ENMOD Convention
and Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Convention. According to the ENMOD
Convention, ‘widespread’ encompasses an area on the ‘scale of several hundred
square kilometers’; ‘long-lasting’ indicates ‘a period of months or approximately a
season’; and ‘severe’ involves ‘serious or significant disruption or harm to human life,
natural and economic resources or other assets’.63
51) The Prosecution submits that the radioactive leak as a result of the attack on the
nuclear energy power plants meets the ENMOD standard of ‘widespread, long term
and severe damage’.
52) The legal foundation for this war crime of excessive attack rests on the jus in bello
principle known as proportionality, which itself reflects the principles of military
necessity, humanity, and distinction/discrimination. 64 The “cardinal principle” 65 of
distinction requires that military forces distinguish civilians and their property from
combatants and military targets and only direct their attacks at the latter.66
53) To satisfy the test of proportionality, Art.8(2)(b)(iv) requires an attack to produce a
‘concrete and direct’ advantage. This phrase indicates that an anticipated advantage
63
Understandings, CONVENTION ON THE PROHIBITION OF MILITARY OR ANY OTHER HOSTILE
USE OF ENVIRONMENTAL MODIFICATION TECHNIQUES, U.N. Doc. No. A/RES/31/72 (1977).

64
William J. Fenrick, ‘The Rule of Proportionality and Protocol I in Conventional Warfare’, 98 MIL. L. REV.
91, 93 (1982)
65
Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, 1996 I.C.J. Rep. 226, 257 (July 8,
1996).
66
LTC RICHARD P. DIMEGLIO, JA, USA ET AL., LAW OF ARMED CONFLICT DESKBOOK 148
(William J. Johnson & Andrew D. Gillman, eds. 2012) [hereinafter LOAC DESKBOOK]

must be both substantial and imminent.67 In the instant case, the cyber manipulation
of Rokumba’s Nuclear Energy Plants was done with the objective of retribution.
However, as such an outcome would not occur in the ‘proximate short term’, it cannot
be considered a direct and concrete military advantage.68
54) The collateral damage to civilians includes death of 500 medical patients at ICUs in
hospitals of Rokumba and 1000 employees working in the nuclear plants and
surrounding units who died on the spot due to the radioactive leakage from the blast.69
The damage by far outweighs the military advantage anticipated.
67
J. Pictet ed., COMMENTARY ON THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS OF 12 AUGUST 1949, VOL. III
68
J. Pictet ed., COMMENTARY ON THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS OF 12 AUGUST 1949, VOL. III, J.
Dill, Applying the Principle of Proportionality in Combat Operations, Policy Briefing, OXFORD INSTITUTE
OF ETHICS, LAW AND ARMED CONFLICT, 3 (2010).

69
Moot problem, Page 12

PRAYER
Wherefore in light of the questions presented, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the
Prosecution respectfully requests this Court to adjudge and declare that:
a) Z. Karmonic be held guilty of the Crime of Genocide under article 6 (a) of the ICC
Statute
b) Z. Karmonic be held guilty of committing War Crimes under article 8 (2)(b)(ii) of the
ICC Statute
c) Z. Karmonic be held guilty of committing War Crimes under article 8(2)(b)(iv) of the
ICC Statute
On Behalf of the Prosecution
Counsel for the Prosecution

19th HD Memo PROSECUTOR FINAL

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

19th HD Memo PROSECUTOR FINAL

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

THE 19TH HENRY DUNANT MEMORIAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019

ICC TRIAL CHAMBER

SITUATION IN THE STATE OF SOHULWA

THE PROSECUTOR v. Z. KARMONIC

DISPUTE CONCERNING CRIME OF GENOCIDE AND WAR CRIMES

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTOR

I. WHETHER MR. Z KARMONIC IS GUILTY OF COMMITTING THE

II. WHETHER MR. Z KARMONIC IS RESPONSIBLE FOR COMMITTING

III. WHETHER MR. Z.KARMONIC IS LIABLE FOR THE WAR CRIME OF

A. Z.Karmonic Is Accountable For The Disproportionate Attacks And Incidental

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTOR 2 of 29

2. STATUTE OF THE ICTY (INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL TRIBUNAL FOR THE

3. STATUTE OF THE ICTR (INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL TRIBUNAL FOR

TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS

1. THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS OF 12 AUGUST 1949

2. PROTOCOLS ADDITIONAL TO THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS OF 12

3. THE CONVENTION ON THE PREVENTION AND PUNISHMENT OF THE

CRIME OF GENOCIDE, 1948

4. CUSTOMARY RULES OF INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW, ICRC

5. The International Law Commission’s Nuremberg Principles

BOOKS AND COMMENTARIES

2. KNUT DORMANN, ELEMENTS OF WAR CRIME UNDER THE ROME STATUTE OF

ICC, SOURCES AND COMMENTARY, 2004 EDN.

3. RALPH HENHAM, THE CRIMINAL LAW OF GENOCIDE, INTERNATIONAL,

COMPARATIVE AND CONTEXTUAL ASPECTS

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTOR 3 of 29

4. ROBERT CRYER, AN INTRODUCTION TO INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW

AND PROCEDURE, 2ND EDN, CAMBRIDGE

5. W.A. SCHABAS, AN INTRODUCTION TO THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL

COURT, 4th EDN., 2011, CAMBRIDGE

6. W.A. SCHABAS, GENOCIDE IN INTERNATIONAL LAW, 2ND EDN, CAMBRIDGE

7. MARK KLAMBERG; COMMENTARY ON THE LAW OF THE INTERNATIONAL

CRIMINAL COURT; TORKEL OPSAHL ACADEMIC EPUBLSIHER BRUSSELS; 2017

8. ICRC REPORT, INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW AND THE CHALLENGES

9. COMMENTARY ON THE ADDITIONAL PROTOCOLS TO THE GENEVA

CONVENTIONS, INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE OF THE RED CROSS (ICRC

10. G METTRAUX ‘THE LAW AND COMMAND RESPONSIBILITY’ (2009)

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

Rep. 226, 257 (July 8, 1996).

INTERNATION CRIMINAL COURT

1. Prosecutor v Omar Hassan Ahmad Al-Bashir Case no ICC-02/05-01/09-139, ICC, 12

2. Prosecutor v. Bemba (Case No. ICC–01/05–01/08), Decision on the Confirmation of

Charges, 15 June, 2009

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTOR 4 of 29

INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL TRIBUNAL OF FORMER YUGOSALAVIA

2. Prosecutor v Stakic Case No. IT-97-24-T), Judgment, 31 July 2003

2. Prosecutor v. Jelisic (Case No. IT-95-10-A), Judgment, 5 July 2001

3. Prosecutor v. Karadˇzi ́c (Case No. IT-95-5-R61), Judgment, 11th July 2013

4. Prosecutor v. Blaškić, (Case No. IT-95-14-T), Judgment, 3 March 2000

5. Prosecutor v. Kvočka (Case No. IT-98-30/1-T), Judgment, 2 November 2001

6. Prosecutor v Delalic, (Case No. IT-96-21-T), Judgment, 16 November, 1998

7. Prosecutor v Kordić and Cerkez IT-95-14/2, Judgment, 26 February 2001

8. Prosecutor V Dario Kordic And Mario Erkez, Appeal Chamber, IT-95-14/2-A

9. Prosecutor v. Galic, Case No. IT-98-29-T, Trial Chamber, December 5, 2003

13. Prosecutor v. Zoran Kupreskic and Others, IT-95-16-T

14. Prosecutor v. Hadzihasanovic, and Kubura, Judgment, IT-01-47-T, 15 Mar2006

INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL TRIBUNAL FOR RWANDA

1. Prosecutor v Seromba (Case No. ICTR-2001-66-I), Judgement 13 December, 2006

2. Prosecutor v Rutaganda (Case No. ICTR-96-3), Judgment and Sentence, 6 December

3. Prosecutor v Kayishema and Ruzindana (Case No. ICTR-95-1), Judgment, 21 May

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTOR 5 of 29

4. Simba v Prosecutor (Case No. ICTR-01-76-A), Judgment, 27 November 2007

6. Prosecutor v Gacumbitsi (Case No. ICTR-2001-64-T), Judgment, 17 June, 2004