I) Whether the ICC has jurisdiction to prosecute and hear the case against

Mr. Ken Adams.

It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that in this case, All the three kinds

of jurisdiction laid down by the legal framework for preliminary examination

abiding which the Office of The Prosecutor has requested to initiate an

investigation is fulfilled, namely:

a) Temporal Jurisdiction

b) Territorial Jurisdiction

c) Material Jurisdiction

In the following ways:

i- Jurisdiction Ratione Temporis:

Article 11 of the Rome Statute talks about temporal jurisdiction. It lays down

the following condition in order for the ICC to have temporal jurisdiction-

a) The Court has jurisdiction only with respect to crimes committed after the

entry into force of this Statute

may exercise its jurisdiction only with respect to crimes committed after the

entry into force of this Statute for that State, unless that State has made a

declaration under article 12, paragraph 3.1

Both conditions are satisfied as the crime was committed after the entry into force

of the statute as well as after the statute’s entry into that state (Xacuti)

ii- Territorial Jurisdiction:

The airstrikes took place in and around Asgard which is a part of the territory of

the Republic of Xacuti. Considering that the Republic of Xacuti has ratified the

Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998)2. The court may exercise

its jurisdiction if the state on the territory of which the conduct in question took

place is a party to the Rome Statute3.

i.i- The Afghanistan Situation: The Office of the Prosecutor via Proprio Motu4

previously had requested to open an investigation into the ‘Afghanistan Situation’.5

1
Article 11, Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 1998
2
Annexure B, Moot Proposition
3
Article 12(2)(a), Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 1998
4
Article 15(1), Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 1998
5
The Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Fatou Bensouda, requests judicial authorization to commence
an investigation into the Situation in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan
Image, www.icc-cpi.int
Although the pre-trial chamber denied the request with the rationale that

investigation into the situation in Afghanistan at this stage would not serve the

interests of justice6, both the pre-trial chamber as well as appeals chamber

recognized the ICC’s jurisdiction over crimes that happened on the territory of

Afghanistan and that took place on the territory of other state parties to the

convention in the context of the armed conflict in Afghanistan even despite

American nationals arguing that they could not be prosecuted for the aforesaid

crimes because The United States of America had not ratified The Rome Statute of

the International Criminal Court, 1998. The Appeals Chamber found that the Pre-

Trial Chamber's decision contained all the necessary factual findings and

confirmed that there is a reasonable basis to consider that crimes within the ICC

jurisdiction have been committed in Afghanistan.7

iii- Jurisdiction Ratione Materiae:

It is humbly submitted to the court that the crime committed falls under armed

conflict not of an international nature. Under Article 3 common to the Geneva

Conventions of 12 August 1949, non-international armed conflicts are armed

conflicts in which one or more non-State armed groups are involved.8 The ICTY

6
ICC judges reject opening of an investigation regarding Afghanistan situation, www.icc-cpi.int
7
Afghanistan: ICC Appeals Chamber authorizes the opening of an investigation, www.icc-cpi.int
8
Non-International Armed Conflict, www.icrc.rg
developed the notion of non-international conflict by describing it as “protracted

armed violence between governmental authorities and organized armed groups or

between such groups within a State.”9

 One of the criteria of NIAC provided by both the Geneva Conventions

and the Tadić case gives importance to the parties involved in the conflict

for the following determination. To qualify, the non-state group in

question must possess a particular level of organization.

 The second characteristic of NIAC is that the hostilities must reach a

certain level of intensity.

The “Red Faction” is an organized non-state group that has been terrorizing Xacuti

as well as the surrounding areas. It was found by the court in Prosecutor v. Limac

that the ability of the non-state armed group to constantly engage in armed conflict

with state forces and be a part of such “varied operations” is an indicator of its

level of organization.10 Red Faction had been engaged in armed conflict with

Ramen frequently which led to a “full-blown proxy war” since 2019 in Xacuti.

Additionally, Ramen has also directed offensive attacks against ships passing

through the coast of Asgard with advanced weaponry funded and provided by

9
. Tadić, Jurisdiction, See also Rome Statute, art. 8(2)(f).
10
Prosecutor v. Limaj
Zekovo.11 This proves the level of organization in Red Faction and hence

constitutes to a characteristic in NIAC.

The second characteristic of NIAC is also fulfilled because of the intensity of the

attacks which is violative article 3 common to the four Geneva conventions; some

of these violations are:

1) Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or

against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities.

2) Intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion,

education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals,

and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not

military objectives. 12

It is submitted that due to the aforesaid reasons, the court has complete jurisdiction

to hear this particular matter.

11
See moot proposition ¶5
12
Article 8 (2)( c) of the Rome Statute
II) Whether the case against Mr. Ken Adams is admissible before the ICC

under Article 17 of the Rome Statute.

It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that in this case, the two factors to

determine admissibility laid down by the legal framework for preliminary

examination abiding which the Office of The Prosecutor has requested to initiate

an investigation is fulfilled, namely:

a) Complementarity

b) Gravity

The case at hand is admissible in the ICC due to the following reasons:

ii- Complementarity:

In accordance with Article 17 of the Rome Statute, A case will be rendered

inadmissible in the court if the investigation or prosecution by a state which has

jurisdiction over the case is unwilling or unable to genuinely carry out the

investigation or prosecution; Also, as given as the second test to admissibility in

the court provided by this very court13.

13
The Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chu
In accordance with the facts of the case, the United Provinces of Ramen had

approved prosecution of Mr. Ken Adams after a delay of about two months, and

after merely 15 days of investigation Mr. Adams was discharged.

Taking into consideration the two months delay in approving prosecution as well

as the short span of investigation before which Mr. Adams was acquitted the

reports produced by the newspaper, Ramen Chronicle cannot be brushed off as

mere baseless allegations. Henceforth, it can be proved that the court was

unwilling to genuinely carry out the prosecution in question.

Furthermore,