,h TEAM CODE: JISU02

TEAM CODE: JISU02

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

BEFORE THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT, HAGUE

___________________________________________________________________________________

IN THE MATTERS OF
IN THE MATTERS OF
INDIAN YOUNG LAWYERS ASSOCIATION AND ORS. …APPELLANT
___________________________________________________________________________________

V.
VINELAND …PROSECUTION

STATE OF KERALA AND ORS. …RESPONDENT

V.

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 373/2006

KATONIA AND RIDGELAND …DEFENSE
___________________________________________________________________________________
ON SUBMISSION TO THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ON SUBMISSION TO THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

___________________________________________________________________________________
UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

WRITTEN
WRITTENSUBMISSIONS
SUBMISSIONSON
ONBEHALF
BEHALFOF
OF PROSECUTOR
PETITIONER
___________________________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL
COUNSELON
ONBEHALF
BEHALFOF
OFPROSECUTOR
PETITIONER
 JIS UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT COMPETITION

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF AABBREVIATION ----------------------------------------------------------------------- IV

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ------------------------------------------------------------------------- V

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ---------------------------------------------------------------- VI

STATEMENT OF FACTS -------------------------------------------------------------------------- VII

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION ------------------------------------------------------------------- IX

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS ----------------------------------------------------------------------- X

WRITTEN PLEADINGS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- XI

1. CAN THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT EXERCISE ITS JURISDICTION
OVER THE ACCUSED IN ORDER TO SERVE THE VERY PURPOSE FOR WHICH
THE COURT WAS ESTABLISHED? _____________________________________ XI

1.1. Exercising Jurisdiction over the Accused Fulfils the Jurisdictional Requirements of
the Rome Statute ……………………..…………………………………….……………..… XI
1.2. The jurisdiction of ICC has to follow the principle of being impartial…………….. XII

2. DOES THE CRIME COMMITTED BY THE DEFENDANTS VIOLATES THE ROME

STATUE AND CAN THEY BE PROSECUTED ACCORDINGLY? ___________ XIII

2.1. There is a clear cut violation of Article 8 of the Rome Statue by the pilots of
Defendants …………………………………………………………………….………….. XIII
2.2. The Military police officers from the defendant side have committed crime because of
the violation of Article 7(1)(e) of the Rome Statue …..………………………………. XIV

PRAYER ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- XV

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTOR ii

 JIS UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT COMPETITION

LIST OF AABBREVIATIONS

& And

¶ Paragraph

AC Appeal Case

Anr. Another

Hon’ble Honourable

i.e., That is

Ors. Others

p. Page

PCIJ Permanent Court of International Justice

Sec. Section

ss. Sections

u/ss. Under Sections

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTOR iii

 JIS UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT COMPETITION

v. Versus

Vol. Volume

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTOR iv

 JIS UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT COMPETITION

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES
1. FRANCE V. NORWAY 1957 I.C.J. 9, 53
2. NORTH SEA CONTINENTAL SHELF CASE 1969 I.C.J. 4
3. NETHERLANDS V. BELGIUM 1937 P.C.I.J. (SER. A/B) NO. 70
4.
CONVENTIONS & TREATIES
1. Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War
2. United Nations Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court
3. Rome Statue to International Criminal Court
4. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties

LEGAL DATABASES
1. Oxford Legal Research Library

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTOR v

 JIS UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT COMPETITION

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The prosecutor have approached the International Criminal Court under Article 131 of Rome
Statute of the International Criminal Court.

1
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; or
(c) The Prosecutor has initiated an investigation in respect of such a crime in accordance with article 15.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTOR vi

 JIS UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT COMPETITION

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. After four years of continuous fighting in Vineland between the central government and
three ethnic groups from the southern and northern regions seeking independence, all the
parties to the conflict signed a peace agreement finally in September 2011 to form a
democratic, coalition government whose power would be shared by all the ethnic groups
in the country.

2. In January 2002, the UN Security Council authorized the deployment of 500 military and
600 civilian personnel to the Vineland region with the aim and intent that the UN
peacekeepers, who are presently the Defendants in this court, will "verify cessation of
hostilities, to set up a security zone for civilians and refugees, and to make preparations
for the forthcoming elections in the various regions." Member States Katonia and
Ridgeland both committed and deployed soldiers and paratroopers to the UNVINE
mission in Vineland when the Secretary-General invited member States to contribute
forces, civilian personnel and equipment in order to carry out the mandate.

3. The UN Security Council was considering the renewal of the peacekeeping efforts in
Bosnialand which was vetoed by Katonia in late June. Such discussions were conducted
alongside member nations' consideration about whether to enter into the ICC's
jurisdiction. Some countries, specifically Katonia, were concerned that others might use
the new Court for political reasons to investigate or prosecute its soldiers. Katonia agreed
to extend the deadline of the renewal of peacekeeping efforts for 15 days considering
further negotiation on the question of exemption of its soldiers from ICC jurisdiction
would be made. As a result, the Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1234,
in July 12th 2002 which granted a twelve-month exemption by the ICC to Vineland
peacekeepers taking part in UN Peacekeeping operations. At the time, the only countries
participating in these peacekeeping efforts were Ridgeland, Vineland and Katonia.

4. Meanwhile, In June 2002, ANVA, an insurgent group from Vineland's northern region,
broke away from the coalition government because of dissatisfaction with not only the
lack of ANVA seats in the new government but also the oil revenue shares it received
from oil deposits in the northern region.

5. In attempts to ward off armed groups who attacked UNVINE forces on July 10, 2002,
and to send a befitting response to the insurgent groups attacking UNVINE troops in
the northern region near Bridgetown, Katonia and Ridgeland not only launched a 10-
day bombing campaign in the area of the attacks but also sent paratroopers to cordon
the surrounding areas and conduct house-to-house raids. Press reports indicated that the
attacks were paid for by foreign oil companies interested in keeping the UN
peacekeepers out of the region. In their effort to find insurgents who were connected to

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTOR vii

 JIS UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT COMPETITION

the attacks they detained about 50 men and 20 boys. It was reported that four of them
were tortured in another isolated area of the camp and one of them died of a heart attack.
The record does not, however, indicate the person(s) who perpetrated the torture nor
does it indicate the degree of injury to the victims. The record merely demonstrates that
several ANVA training camps were destroyed and many insurgents were killed.
Paratroopers, it was reported, stole personal property from houses during the searches.

6. On July 20, 2002, Katonia and Ridgeland ordered their paratroopers to bomb ANVA
headquarters. In doing so, Katonia and Ridgeland acted on Vineland intelligence reports
about the headquarters' location. This bombing operation destroyed three villages,
killing three hundred civilians and seriously injuring some more. On the same day,
ANVA captured three Katonia and two Ridgeland pilots whose planes landed in a
nearby marsh due to engines malfunctioning. Without any evidence ANVA believed
that the pilots were engaged in the bombing operations that resulted in the deaths of
civilians and accused them of the same.

7. After the bombing campaign ended, 100 people stormed the local police station where
four Ridgeland military police were stationed as trainers and consultants to the local
police. Four of the police were recognized by women in the mob as men who took their
husbands and sons. These four were taken as prisoners and handed over to ANVA
insurgents who had just captured the five pilots accused of the aerial bombing raids.

8. Consequently, ANVA threatened the peacekeepers i.e. the Defendants with summary
execution without any evidence that they all were involved in the unfortunate deaths of
innocent civilians, or other crimes that are alleged. Such was the circumstances under
which the Defendants herein, Ridgeland and Katonia soldiers, were surrendered to the
International Criminal Court.

9. In the light of such events the written statement/reply of the Respondent requests that
this Court stand corrected and look into the injustice done to these peacekeepers thereby
declining jurisdiction for the reasons stated below.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTOR viii

 JIS UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT COMPETITION

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION

I. CAN THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT EXERCISE ITS

JURISDICTION OVER THE ACCUSED IN ORDER TO SERVE THE VERY
PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE COURT WAS ESTABLISHED?

II. DOES THE CRIME COMMITTED BY THE DEFENDANTS VIOLATES THE

ROME STATUE AND CAN THEY BE PROSECUTED ACCORDINGLY?

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTOR ix

 JIS UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT COMPETITION

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS

I. CAN THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT EXERCISE ITS

JURISDICTION OVER THE ACCUSED IN ORDER TO SERVE THE VERY
PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE COURT WAS ESTABLISHED?

The Court can exercise jurisdiction over the accused because:

1. The crimes were committed on territory which are under ICC's jurisdiction.
2. Vineland, Katonia, and Ridgeland are unwilling or unavailable to investigate the
crimes.
3. The Agreement between Vineland and Katonia does not trump Vineland's
obligations to the ICC.
4. Equity dictates the use of a neutral forum.
5. The military actions in which the accused participated were not part of U.N.
peacekeeping operations in Vineland.

II. DOES THE CRIME COMMITTED BY THE DEFENDANTS VIOLATES THE

ROME STATUE AND CAN THEY BE PROSECUTED ACCORDINGLY?

The people of Vineland faced horrific acts of violence, including a lengthy aerial
bombing and the unlawful detention of civilians without any procedural safeguards.
Also, defendants destroyed the lives and property of innocent civilians of Vineland.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTOR x

 JIS UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT COMPETITION

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE I

CAN THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT EXERCISE ITS JURISDICTION

OVER THE ACCUSED IN ORDER TO SERVE THE VERY PURPOSE FOR WHICH
THE COURT WAS ESTABLISHED?
The Court can exercise jurisdiction over the accused because:
1. The crimes were committed on territory which are under ICC's jurisdiction.
2. Vineland, Katonia, and Ridgeland are unwilling or unavailable to investigate the
crimes.
3. The Agreement between Vineland and Katonia does not trump Vineland's obligations
to the ICC.
4. The military actions in which the accused participated were not part of U.N.
peacekeeping operations in Vineland.

1. Exercising Jurisdiction over the Accused Fulfils the Jurisdictional Requirements of

the Rome Statute.
1.1. It is humbly submitted that this Hon’ble International Criminal Court can exercise its
jurisdiction because the Crimes were committed on territory which are under ICC
Jurisdiction2.
1.2. This Hon’ble Court has few other reasons because of which it can exercise its
jurisdiction. They are:
(A) There is an agreement between Vineland and Katonia and that does not trump
Vineland’s obligation to the International Criminal Court.
(B) The military actions in which the accused participated were not part of United
Nation peacekeeping operations in Vineland.
1.3. The Article 12(2)(a) of the Rome Statue gives International Criminal Court a special
power under which it can exercise its jurisdiction over specific crimes occurring
within the territory of a State party to the Rome Statue and Vineland is a state party to
the same.
1.4. It will not even violate the Article 17 of the Rome Statue which says that in order for
the ICC to hear a case the case must not currently be under investigation or
prosecution by any state having jurisdiction over the accused, and there must not be
any state, with competent national courts and having jurisdiction over the accused,
that is willing or available to carry out an investigation and prosecution.
1.5.In the present case, the states which are competent to hear the case against Rodgeland
and Katonia have stated that they are unwilling and unavailable to hear the case
against the accused parties.

2
Moot Proposition.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTOR xi

 JIS UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT COMPETITION

1.6. Customary international law obligates states parties to a treaty to make a good faith
effort to "refrain from acts which would defeat its object and purpose 3."
1.7. According to Articles 26 and 29 of Vienna Convention, "every treaty in force is
binding upon the parties to it" and is binding "upon each party in respect of its entire
territory."
1.8.Vineland and Katonia, which are not state parties to the Rome Statute, entered into an
Article 98 Agreement. Article 98 agreements are intended to prevent the Court from
"proceeding with a request for surrender which would require the requested state to
act inconsistently with its obligations under international agreements pursuant to
which the consent of a sending State is required to surrender a person of that State to
the Court."
1.9. Vineland and Katonia's Agreement provides that "persons of one party present in the
territory of the other shall not, absent expressed consent of the first Party, (a) be
surrendered or transferred by any means to the International Criminal Court for any
purpose. In the Agreement, Katonia expressed its intention to investigate and
prosecute crimes within the jurisdiction of the ICC.
1.10. Despite the unfortunate change in political circumstances, Vineland remains
bound to its obligation to cooperate in the surrender, investigation, and prosecution of
the accused at the ICC. It is well settled that states remain bound to treaties even
though political changes, however significant, may have occurred.
1.11. In the case between Hungary v. Slovakia4, it was held that despite a change
from a Soviet to a democratic government, Hungary was still bound to a treaty dating
to Soviet times.

2. The jurisdiction of ICC has to follow the principle of being impartial.

2.1. It is humbly submitted that the purpose of the ICC is to prevent impunity, principles
of being impartial is also a necessarily call for the exercise of ICC jurisdiction.
2.2. It has been held in plethora of cases that ‘Equitable principles of law have long been
used to decide international disputes5’.
2.3.Katonia is attempting to completely escape accountability for its soldiers' actions.
And at the same time, Katonia is threatening not to participate in the UNVINE
operation or other peacekeeping operations unless its soldiers gets immunity from
ICC prosecution granted by the Security Council.
2.4. Katonia and Ridgeland's ten-day aerial bombing, thousands of acres of farmland were
ruined and large quantities of crops and livestock were destroyed. Also, the personal
property belonging to Vineland civilians was reportedly stolen during the house-to-
house raids conducted by Katonia and Ridgeland soldiers.

3
Vienna Convention; Norway v. France 1958 I.C.J. 9, 53
4
1997 I.C.J. 3
5
North Sea Continental Shelf Case 1969 I.C.J. 4; Netherlands v. Belgium 1937 P.C.I.J. (ser. A/B) No. 70

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTOR xii

 JIS UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT COMPETITION

ISSUE II

DOES THE CRIME COMMITTED BY THE DEFENDANTS VIOLATES THE

ROME STATUE AND CAN THEY BE PROSECUTED ACCORDINGLY?

The people of Vineland faced horrific acts of violence, including a lengthy aerial bombing
and the unlawful detention of civilians without any procedural safeguards. Also, defendants
destroyed the lives and property of innocent civilians of Vineland.

1. There is a clear cut violation of Article 8 of the Rome Statue by the pilots of
Defendants.
1.1. It is humbly submitted that the pilots of defendants had conducted a ten-day aerial
bombing which violates the Article 8 of the Rome Statue and amounted to war
crimes.
1.2. According to Article 8(1) of the Rome Statue, it criminalizes attacks against civilians.
It says:
“The Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of war crimes in particular when
committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of
such crimes”
1.3. According to Article 8(2)(b)(i), 8(2)(e)(i), Attacks against civilian populations are
forbidden both in conflicts that are of international character and those that are not.
1.4. In response to the attack against peacekeeping forces, Katonia and Ridgeland
bombed the general area of the attacks. They did not limit their bombing to known
and legitimate military targets. The ten-day aerial campaign was designed to affect
civilian populations and, therefore, meets the intent requirement.
1.5. Victimization of the civilians as a result of bombing campaign in the general area
implies that Defendants plan to attack civilians.
1.6. Furthermore, the Defendants had the requisite knowledge that a civilian population
existed in the areas that they chose to bomb indiscriminately.
1.7. Defendants miserably failed to distinguish the civilian populous from the military
targets, intentionally or unintentionally.
1.8. As per the fact and circumstances quoted above it is quite clear that Defendants did
all the activity intentionally to victimise the defence country and they should be held
criminally liable for war crime in the violation of Article 8 of the Rome Statue.

2. The Military police officers from the defendant side have committed crime because
of the violation of Article 7(1)(e) of the Rome Statue.
2.1. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the Defendant Military officers
from the Defendant side have committed the crime as they intentionally violated the
Article 7(1)(e) of the Rome Statue.
2.2. The paratroopers from the Defendant side conducted a house-to-house searches and
detained several men and boys for observation to determine whether they are
insurgents during their reprisal campaign.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTOR xiii

 JIS UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT COMPETITION

2.3. The defendants should be held criminally liable for violating the above mentioned
Article(s) of Rome Statue and their actions should not be justified by any logic or
evidence.
2.4. Article 7(1)(e) criminalizes, as a crime against humanity, imprisonment or other
severe deprivation of physical liberty. It says:
7(1) “For the purpose of this Statute, "crime against humanity" means any of
the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic
attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:”
(e) “Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation
of fundamental rules of International law”

2.5. The Defendants' conduct violates fundamental rules of international law. International law
provides that, "the confinement of civilians during armed conflict may be permissible in
limited cases, but will be unlawful if the detaining party does not comply with the provisions
of article 42 of the Geneva Convention IV."

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTOR xiv

 JIS UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT COMPETITION

PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is
therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:
1. Direct or command the defence to take back its paratroopers and conduct an enquiry.
2. Declare that the act done by the Katonian and Ridgeland Paratroopers violates certain
provisions of Geneva Convention and Rome Statue and take appropriate action.
3. Pass any other order, other order that it deems fit in the interest of Justice, Equity and
Good Conscience.
And for this act of kindness the Petitioner as is duty bound shall humbly pray.

COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTOR xv