INDIAN INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES

intra Moot Court Competition, 2022

BEFORE THE HON’BLE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT

UNDER ARTICLE 5 OF ROME STATUTE OF ICC

IN THE MATTER OF:

THE PROSECUTOR

…………………PETITIONER

V.

JACK BROWN

..…………….RESPONDENT

ON SUBMISSION TO HON’BLE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT, HAGUE

UNDER ARTICLE 5 OF ROME STATUTE

MEMORIAL SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF PROCECUTION

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS............................................................................................................................

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

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

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

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

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

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED.............................................................................................................................

PRAYER

2
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

¶ PARAGRAPH

ICC INTERNATIONAL CIMINAL COURT

Amen AMENDMENT
d.

Hon’ble HONORABLE

Art. ARTICLE

ICTY THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL

TRIBUNAL FOR THE FORMER
YUGOSLAVIA

& AND

pmt PERMANENT

PTC PRE-TRIAL CHAMBER

Govt. GOVERNMENT

AC APPEAL CHAMBER

TGC TRANSITIONAL GOVERNING COUNCIL

Or ORDER

No NUMBER

RC RULING COUNCIL

NGOs NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION

UNSC UNITED NATION SECURITY COUNCIL

INTER POL INTERNATIONAL POLICE

3
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

LEGISLATIONS
S.NO. PARTICULARS
1 The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court,2002
2 United Nation Security Council Resolution Chapter 7
3 International Customary Law
4 Slavery Convention,1926

TABLE OF CASES
1.The prosecutor v. jean – Pierre Benba Gombo / icc-01/05-01/08
2.The prosecutor v. walter osapirie barasa icc -01/09

BOOKS

1.The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Challenge to Impunity Routledge; 1st edition
(18 May 2001)
2. Central Law Agency’s International Law & Human Rights by DR SK KAPOOR Edition 2017
3. International Humanitarian And Refugee Law Author: Puneet Pathak Eastern book company Edition
1st
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER
6
7

ARTICLES

WEBRESOURCES

Title Web Address

Serial No Manupatra www.manupatra.co.in/
1 Lexis Nexis www.lexisnexis.co.in/
2 Live Law www.livelaw.in/
3 Council on foreign www.cfr.org/backgrounder/role-international-criminal-court
relation
4 UNSC www.un.org/securitycouncil/
5 ICC www.icc-cpi.int/
6 HUMAN RIGHT www.hrw.org/topic/international-justice/international-criminal-court
WATCH
7

LEGALDICTIONARIES

Serial No Title

1 Merriam-Webster's Law Dictionary: Legal Terms in Plain English

2 Dictionary of Law - Oxford Reference
3 Black's Law Dictionary
8

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Prosecution in The Present Case Humbly approached Honorable

International Criminal Court under Article 5 of the Rome statute.

Article 51
Crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court
The jurisdiction of the Court shall be limited to the most serious crimes of concern to the international
community as a whole. 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.
9

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. This case arises out of allegations of crimes against humanity committed in the
territory of the Republic of Sindia, which is not a state party to the International
Criminal Court (ICC). Sindia (population 10 million) and the Kingdom of Kitania
(population 8 million), are located on a single island, with Sindia situated on the
western half. Since gaining independence from its colonial power in 1990, Sindia
has been governed by a five-person Ruling Council headed and appointed by the
democratically elected Premier, Jack Brown.

2. Although Sindia’s cities and major towns are fairly modern, the rural areas tend
to follow traditional religious and cultural practices with roots going back hundreds
of years. One of those is the practice of ritual servitude.

3. The series of reports by human rights NGOs, on 15 May 2016, the UN High
Commissioner for Human Rights established a fact-finding mission, headed by Sir
Morister Johnson of the Unitid Tingdom, to investigate the practice of ritual
servitude in Sindia from 2000 to the present. One year later, on 15 May 2017, the
Johnson Commission issued a 320 page report, documenting 5,489 past and 2,346
ongoing cases of ritual servitude in Sindia. The Johnson Commission concluded
that “ritual servitude in Sindia constitutes sexual slavery in violation of the Slavery
Convention; the Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave
Trade, and Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery; the 1957 Abolition of
Forced Labour Convention; the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination Against Women; and the Convention on the Rights of the Child – all
of which Sindia had ratified in the 1990s.” The Johnson Commission specifically
named 419 Shrine Overseers who were involved in acts of sexual slavery.

4. After the publication of Johnson commission report the rulling council of sindia
promulgated a national law after two weeks rendering ritual servitude punishable by
three years imprisonment over found guilty.on 10th march 2020 the Johnson
commission followed up to undertake an investigation according to which although
ritual servitude has been criminalized no one ever been prosecuted for the crime.

5. In The second Johnson commission report although there was no allegation against
jack brown it concluded that “as head of Sindian government, Premier Brown
should have known of the extensive continuing practice of ritual servitude yet failed
10

to use the machinery of his government to eradicate it. We therefore, conclude that
Premier Brown knowingly tolerated and thereby encouraged the commission of
systematic and widespread crimes against humanity in Sindia.”

6. On 11th march 2021 Jack Brown told the assembled media: “Sindia is being unfairly
singled out. Ritual servitude is practiced in a number of other countries. We don’t
condone the practice, but we believe education, not prosecution, is the best solution.
We’re making progress, but it takes time. after the statement of Jack Brown, the
thirteen year old Sindian girl was subject to ritual servitude doused herself with
gasoline and set herself on fire to protest the practice. The self-immolation of
Sindian girl triggered anti-government protests and rioting in Sindian urban centers,
ultimately escalating into a nation-wide popular uprising against the ruling regime.

7. On 15 April 2021, the U.N. Security Council adopted a Chapter VII resolution (S.C.
Res. 1990-A), referring “the situation of Sindia relating to the widespread practice
of ritual servitude/sexual slavery since 10 March 2021 to the International Criminal
Court,” in accordance with Article 13 of the ICC Statute. The resolution is
appended to this decision. A week later, on 22 April 2021, the Pre-Trial Chamber
approved the Prosecutor’s request to initiate an investigation in accordance with
Article 15 of the ICC Statute.

8. At the request of the ICC Prosecutor, on 30 May 2021, this Pre-Trial Chamber
issued an arrest warrant for Jack Brown, finding that there were reasonable grounds
to believe that he is criminally responsible under Article 25(3)(e) (co-perpetration),
Article 25(3)(b) (command responsibility), and Article 25(3)(c)(aiding and abetting)
for crimes against humanity in Sindia, including enslavement, rape, torture, sexual
slavery, and other inhumane acts, from 10 March, 2021 to the present. Immediately
thereafter, at the request of the ICC Prosecutor, INTERPOL issued a Red Notice for
Jack Brown's arrest.

9. Jack Brown travelled to Kitania on 10th June 2021 to participate in annual summit
of regional leader. Since 2018 although Kitania has been a state party to the ICC did
not arrest brown that doing so would violate the state immunity. While Brown was
out of the country, the revolutionaries seized control of the capital city of Cuba and
announced the establishment of a new government, headed by a three-member
“Transitional Governing Council.” The Transitional Governing Council announced
that it would rule the country until elections for a new Premier are held the first
Tuesday of November 2022.

10. During the next few weeks, the Transitional Governing Council promulgate a
11

series of decrees including one of those TGC order were establishing the Sindian
High Tribunal to prosecute Jack Brown and the members of his Ruling Council
for crimes against humanity in the form of ritual servitude committed against
thousands of Sindian women and girls from 2000 to June, 2021.

11. According to the submission of the Transitional Governing Council, the Statute
and Rules of Procedure of the Sindian High Tribunal are closely modelled upon
the Statute and Rules of the Iraqi High Tribunal which prosecuted Mohammad
Tasfeeq, including the death penalty as a possible punishment upon conviction
for crimes against humanity. The Transitional Governing Council has begun
construction of a secure courtroom facility and appointed a special prosecutor,
public defender, and panel of trial and appeals judges for the trial of Jack Brown.
The International Bar Association has organized a series of training sessions for
the newly appointed judges, prosecutors, and defence counsel of the Sindian
High Tribunal, and the Transitional Governing Council has represented that it
will be ready to commence the trial of Jack Brown within eighteen months.

12. At a press conference in Kitania on 15 June 2021, Jack Brown proclaimed that
he continued to be the legitimate, democratically-elected, Head of State of
Sindian and that he had organized a government in exile, based in Kitania.

13. Sindia and Kitania have an extradition treaty dating back to 2001. Upon the
request of the Transitional Governing Council for the extradition of Jack Brown
for crimes against humanity and with Jack Brown's consent, on 21 June, 2021
the authorities of Kitania placed Jack Brown under “voluntary house arrest” at
the King of Kitania's Summer Palace. Faced with competing requests for Brown
from the ICC and the Transitional Governing Council, Kitania announced that it
would take no further action until its obligations were clarified by the ICC.

14.On 1 August, 2021, representatives of the Sindian Transitional Governing

Council, the ICC Office of the Prosecutor, victims counsel, and counsel for Jack
Brown submitted briefs and made oral presentations before this Pre-Trial
Chamber. After duly considering these submissions, the Chamber makes certain
considerations. Firstly, the Chamber finds without merit the Defence argument
that the allegations against Jack Brown do not constitute a cognizable case of
crimes against humanity under the Court’s Statute. Secondly, the Chamber finds
without merit the Defence argument that the customary international law
doctrine of Head of State Immunity precludes Kitania from surrendering Jack
Brown to the ICC. Thirdly, the Chamber finds that the Sindian Transitional
12

Governing Council’s actions are not sufficient to render the case inadmissible
under Article 19 of the Court’s Statute. The Chamber also finds without merit
the Transitional Governing Council’s argument that its intent to prosecute
crimes pre-dating 10 March, 2021 brings this case within Article 94 of the ICC
Statute. Moreover, the Chamber rejects the Transitional Governing Council’s
argument that the ICC should defer prosecution in the interests of justice in
accordance with the standard set forth in Article 53 of the Statute.
13

ISSUES RAISED

ISSUE 1
WHETHER THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST JACK BROWN CONSTITUTE A
COGNIZABLE AND SUFFICIENTLY SERIOUS CASE OF CRIMES AGAINST
HUMANITY WITHIN THE COURT’S JURISDICTION?

ISSUE 2
WHETHER THE CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW DOCTRINE OF HEAD OF STATE
IMMUNITY PRECLUDES KITANIA FROM SURRENDERING JACK BROWN TO THE
ICC?

ISSUE 3
WHETHER THE SINDIAN GOVERNING COUNCIL’S ACTIONS ARE SUFFICIENT TO
INVOKE COMPLEMENTARITY AND RENDER THE CASE INADMISSIBLE?

ISSUE 4

WHETHER THIS COURT SHOULD TEMPORARILY DEFER PROSECUTION

TO SINDIA UNDER ARTICLE 94 OF THE ICC STATUTE?
14

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. WHETHER THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST JACK BROWN CONSTITUTE A

COGNIZABLE AND SUFFICIENTLY SERIOUS CASE OF CRIMES AGAINST
HUMANITY WITHIN THE COURT’S JURISDICTION?

It is humbly submitted before the Honorable ICC on behalf of the

prosecution that the allegation against jack brown constitute a
cognizable and sufficiently serious case of crime against humanity
within the court’s jurisdiction under article 5 of roman statute of
ICC. Although Sindia is not a state party to ICC. however, if the
non-state party willingly submit to the court jurisdiction it has
power to exercise jurisdiction over the non-state party or if the
case is referred to the prosecutor by the UNSC under article 13 (b)
OF THE ICC ROME STATUTE.

2. WHETHER THE CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW DOCTRINE OF HEAD

OF STATE IMMUNITY PRECLUDES KITANIA FROM SURRENDERING JACK
BROWN TO THE ICC?

It Is Humbly Submitted to the honorable ICC on behalf of

prosecution that the customary international law doesn’t preclude
Kitania from surrendering jack brown to ICC because Kitania is a
state party so Kitania is obliged to surrender jack brown to ICC under
article 86,88,89 of Rome statute.

3. WHETHER THE SINDIAN GOVERNING COUNCIL’S ACTIONS ARE

SUFFICIENT TO INVOKE COMPLEMENTARITY AND RENDER THE CASE
INADMISSIBLE?

It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble International criminal court

on behalf of prosecutor that the Sindian’s governing councils’ actions
are not sufficient to invoke complementarily and render the case
15

inadmissible. The prosecutor humbly submits to the court that the

very first article of the Rome statute which specifically states that the
ICC shall be permanent institution and shall have power to exercise
its jurisdiction over person for the most serious crime of international
concern as referred to in the statute and shall be complementary to
national criminal jurisdiction.

4. WHETHER THIS COURT SHOULD TEMPORARILY DEFER PROSECUTION TO

SINDIA UNDER ARTICLE 94 OF THE ICC STATUTE?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble court that after looking into the
present situation of the case where Mr Jack brown has orally presented
before the (pre- trial chamber) where the chamber also finds without merit
the transitional governing council argument that it only intends to
prosecute crime pre-dating 10 march 2021 and not the present and day to
day growing cases. The chamber also rejects the transitional governing
council argument that the ICC should defer prosecution in the interest of
justice in accordance with the standard forth in Article 53 of the statute.
[16]

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1

1. WHETHER OR NOT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE

SECTION 6A OF CITIZENSHIP (AMEND.) ACT 1985 VIOLATES FRs ENSHRINED IN
PART III OF THE CONSTITUTION OF OMBERLANDSS?

1.It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble International Criminal Court (ICC)
on behalf of the prosecutor that the allegation made against Jack Brown who
has the authority and control of government, police, people and military
institutions headquarters in Sindia. That he knowing ignored the heinous
crimes done in his domain Sindia and when Johnson commission
specifically named 419 shrine overseers who were involved in acts of sexual
slavery, Mr Jack Brown within two weeks without collecting or delivering a
proper knowledge about the said crimes against the genocide and violation of
human rights promulgated a national law rendering ritual servitude a crime
punishable by a mandatory three -years prison terms for those found guilty.
However, these problems were only recognized by him when he was
pressurized and although the laws were made with the second survey result
of Johnson commission no one has ever been prosecuted for the crime till
date and that the question of the cognizance for such offense can be taken up
within the court’s jurisdiction as mention under article 5,6,7,25 of the ICC
Rome statute.

2.The ‘universal jurisdiction conception’ of a referral under Article 13 (b) is that

this trigger mechanism activates the international community’s jurisdiction
to adjudicate serious international crimes. Despite its multilateral-treaty
character, the Rome Statute asserts that the ICC, when acting under Article
13 (b), can exercise jurisdiction to adjudicate beyond its States parties’
territories and nationals. The ‘universal jurisdiction conception’ justifies this
intrusion in a non-party State’s domestic jurisdiction on three grounds.

First, it must be reckoned that the category of crimes within the ICC’S
jurisdiction are not solely treaty crimes. The category of crimes
within the jurisdiction ratione materiae of the ICC are war crimes,
crimes against humanity, genocide and aggression. These crimes are
typically considered ‘core’ international crimes.42 It is generally
[17]

recognized that these ‘core’ crimes are established in customary

international law (some argue that they have jus cogens status),43
and that they are subject to universal jurisdiction. While it is unclear
whether the crime of aggression is also subject to universal
jurisdiction under customary international law,44 its ancestor, crime
against peace, is undeniably a crime against (customary)
international law.45 It must be noted in this regard that the very
definition of crimes against international law is that they are not
crimes within the exclusive jurisdiction of the State concerned.

Second, the outlawing of aggression, genocide, crimes against

humanity and war crimes are generally the type of obligations that
are erga omnes in nature.46 The icj in the Barcelona Traction Case
recognized the legal interest of all States in seeing obligations erga
omnes observed.47 Obligations erga omnes are a type of obligations
which are the concern of all States and for the protection of which
all States have a legal interest. Some have claimed, indeed, that
States exercising universal jurisdiction can base their jurisdiction in
the concept of erga omnes obligations.48 The icj stated in the 1996
Case Concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention
and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide that “the rights and
obligations enshrined in the [Genocide] Convention are rights and
obligations erga omnes.”49 Although the Genocide Convention
establishes the obligation to exercise jurisdiction of the territorial
State, the ICJ noted that “the obligation each state […] has to
prevent and to punish the crime of genocide is not territorially
limited by the Convention.”50 In other words, a norm that creates
obligations erga omnes is owed to the “international community as a
whole” and the international community thus has an interest in
prosecuting such crimes.

Third, national courts exercising universal jurisdiction over these ‘core’

international crimes conceive themselves in a sort of ‘dédoublement
fonctionnel’ whereby while sitting in judgment over international
crimes they act as organs of the international community. As it was
stated in Demjanjuk, “[t]he underlying assumption is that [these]
[18]

crimes are offenses against the law of nations or against humanity

and that the prosecuting nation is acting for all nations.”
In other words, when prosecuting a crime under international law a
State enforces international law.
Nuremberg Principle I read, “[any person who commits an act which
constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefor
and liable to punishment.” The person who commits an international
crime is directly responsible under international law. Therefore, a
judicial organ adjudicating a crime under international law is not
proscribing a new offence; it is adjudicating an offence proscribed
by international law.
Like national courts, international courts can exercise jurisdiction to
adjudicate international crimes. It is indeed a legacy of Nuremberg
that nations together may create a court to try cases they could each
try in their own courts.
The ICTY even stated that with the rise of universal jurisdiction
exercised by States an accused should be pleased with the idea that
he will be tried by an international judicial body which is free from
political consideration.

3.It is humbly submitted to the learned court that although Sindia is not
a state party to ICC there are various provisions and case laws which
support its jurisdiction to non -party state also such as, there are two
doctrines by means of which it is often argued that the ICC can
extend its jurisdiction onto non- party states(the objective
territoriality doctrine ) and the effects doctrine objective territoriality
and effect doctrine refers to acts done outside the jurisdiction, yet
intended to produce detrimental results within the said jurisdiction.
Moreover, interpreting article 12 (2) (a) in a way that would allow
the ICC to Exercise jurisdiction over non-party states would mean
allowing the ICC to exercise universal jurisdiction and that ICC is
founded upon a treaty governed by the states the purpose of the
treaty is defeated if the ICC is allowed to exercise jurisdiction over
non-party states. As already mentioned the articles of ICC 5,6,7,25
helps to establish a jurisdiction for the said crime article 5 of ICC
the jurisdiction of court is a concern of international community
with the matters relating to 5 (a) the crime of genocide and 5(b)
[19]

crime against humanity, which is totally applicable in this matter as

here the people of Sindia are tortured in the name of ritual servitude /
sexual slavery, article 6 defines (genocide) as an act with intend to
destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnical, racial or religious
group like the rural areas people of Sindia are both harmed both
bodily and mentally, article 7 talks about crime against humanity as
here only the rural areas people of Sindia are victim of enslavement,
tortured, sexual slavery, forced, sexual violence at a huge number
since very long and article 25 of ICC with individual criminal
responsibility that any person who commits tha crime, whether as an
individual, jointly in respect of the crime of genocide, directly and
publicly incites other to commit genocide will come under court’s
jurisdiction as here Mr Jack Brown and his government has
committed the crime of genocide, violation of human rights rural
area people of Sindia.

4.And with due respect I would also like to draw the attention of the
learned court that were the Johnson commission concluded that
ritual servitude in Sindia constitute sexual slavery in violation of the
slavery convention, the supplementary convention on the abolition
of slavery, the slave Trade, and the 1957 abolition of forced labour
convention all of which Sindia had ratified in 1990's thus states the
facts that Sindian's Government acknowledged the various
convention and also rectified it but however they didn't followed the
rules of the convention and also violated then so it constitute the
cognizable offense against the Jack Brown.

CASE LAWS
In the Myanmar case1, the PTC held that, in the case of deportation,
only one element of the alleged crime must have taken place on the
territory of a state party to the statute. The PTC was of the opinion
that the crime of deportation was one that was “inherently
transboundary” in nature, and for deportation to have occurred there
needs to be a crossing of international borders.in this case, the
Rohingyas were deported to Bangladesh, a state party to the statute,
and the PTC held that the precondition to the exercise of
jurisdictions, pursuant to article 12(2)(a) of the statute, were
[20]

fulfilled. This decision in effect extended the jurisdiction of the ICC

over the non-party state of Myanmar, not only for the crime of
deportation but also for the crime of deportation but also for the
crime of forced prosecution and other crimes.
1.
2..gambia v. myanmar

ISSUE 2

WHETHER THE CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW DOCTRINE OF HEAD OF STATE

IMMUNITY PRECLUDES KITANIA FROM SURRENDERING JACK BROWN TO THE ICC?

1. It is humbly submitted to the Hon'ble Court on behalf of the prosecutor

that in this case Kitania who is a state party to the ICC is having a legal
obligation to cooperate with ICC , So kitania is kot precluded under the
customary international law doctrine of head of state immunity from
surrendering Jack Brown to the ICC.As it has been laid down under
Article 86 of the Rome Statute of ICC:General obligation to cooperate
States Parties shall, in accordance with the provisions of this Statute,
cooperate fully with the Court in its investigation and prosecution of
crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court.

2. Also, Article 88 of the Rome statute makes an obligation to the state

party that they should ensure that all the provisions mentioned in the
rome statute shall be followed by the state parties which reads as follows
Availability of procedures under national law States Parties shall ensure
that there are procedures available under their national law for all of the
forms of cooperation which are specified under this Part.

3. Article 89 Surrender of persons to the Court

1. The Court may transmit a request for the arrest and surrender of a person,
together with the material supporting the request outlined in article 91, to
any State on the territory of which that person may be found and shall
request the cooperation of that State in the arrest and surrender of such a
person. States Parties shall, in accordance with the provisions of this Part
and the procedure under their national law, comply with requests for
arrest and surrender.
[21]

2. Where the person sought for surrender brings a challenge before a

national court on the basis of the principle of ne bis in idem as provided
in article 20, the requested State shall immediately consult with the Court
to determine if there has been a relevant ruling on admissibility. If the
case is admissible, the requested State shall proceed with the execution of
the request. If an admissibility ruling is pending, the requested State may
postpone the execution of the request for surrender of the person until the
Court makes a determination on admissibility.

3. (a) A State Party shall authorize, in accordance with its national

procedural law, transportation through its territory of a person being
surrendered to the Court by another State, except where transit through
that State would impede or delay the surrender.

(b) A request by the Court for transit shall be transmitted in accordance with
article 87. The request for transit shall contain:
(i) A description of the person being transported;
(ii) A brief statement of the facts of the case and their legal characterization; and
(iii) The warrant for arrest and surrender;

(c) A person being transported shall be detained in custody during the period of
transit;

(d) No authorization is required if the person is transported by air and no

landing is scheduled on the territory of the transit State;

(e) If an unscheduled landing occurs on the territory of the transit State, that
State may require a request for transit from the Court as provided for in
subparagraph (b). The transit State shall detain the person being transported
until the request for transit is received and the transit is affected, provided that
detention for purposes of this subparagraph may not be extended beyond 96
hours from the unscheduled landing unless the request is received within that
time.

4. If the person sought is being proceeded against or is serving a sentence in

the requested State for a crime different from that for which surrender to
the Court is sought, the requested State, after making its decision to grant
the request, shall consult with the Court
[22]

5. Further, it is humbly submitted to the Court that the Rome statute requires
a State party to surrender a person upon request. It does not require the
persons extradition. the Rome statute makes a careful distinction between
extradition of a person to a foreign jurisdiction and the surrender of the
person to the ICC. Article 102 defines "surrender" as the delivering up of
a person by a state to the Court. Under the Rome statute and extradition
as the delivering up of a person by one state to another provided by the
treaty, convention or National legislation.

6. It is humbly submitted to the Court as it is mentioned in the facts of the

case that Sindia and Kitania were having an extradition treaty which was
dating back to 2001., however under Article 90 of the Rome statute it is
clearly mentioned that " The situation of a State receiving request for the
surrender to a person from the ICC and his or her extradition from
another state at the same time.

7. It establishes a hierarchy for responding to competing request so that the

ICC takes precedence when the state requesting the extradition is also a
state party to the Rome statute. In Addition, if the state requesting the
extradition is not a party to the Rome statute and if the requested state
does not have an international obligation to extradite to that country.

8. It is humbly submitted to the Court that Article 27 of the Rome statute

states that no position of authority of an individual shall bar the Court
from exercising jurisdiction.
Article 27
Irrelevance of official capacity
1. This Statute shall apply equally to all persons without any distinction
based on official capacity. In particular, official capacity as a Head of
State or Government, a member of a Government or parliament, an
elected representative or a government official shall in no case exempt
a person from criminal responsibility under this Statute, nor shall it, in
and of itself, constitute a ground for reduction of sentence.
2. Immunities or special procedural rules which may attach to the official
capacity of a person, whether under national or international law, shall
not bar the Court from exercising its jurisdiction over such a person.

3.One central question that dominated the question in the ICC is that even
as a matter of interpretation of the Rome statute does customary
practice accepted as law on relation, amongst nations otherwise known
as customary international law recognize immunity for head of state
which immunity may be asserted to bar this Court front the exercise of
[23]

its proper jurisdiction?

9.CASE LAWS IN SUPPORT OF THE ABOVE-MENTIONED PROVISIONS
1 THE PROSECUTOR VS AL BASHIR
(JUDGEMENT OF APPEAL CHAMBER)
In this case the Appeal chamber of the international criminal Court
hold that head of state have no immunity under customary international
law.
The judge Chile Eleoe- Osugi the Appeal Chamber appears to have
held that under customary international law, head of state have no
immunity from criminal prosecution to the international criminal
Court.
The provisions In Article 27 (2) of the ICC Rome statute states that
"immunities or special procedural rules which may attach to the official
capacity of a person, whether under national or international law shall
not bar the court from exercising jurisdiction over such a person "
According to the summary of the judgement.
Represents more than a stipulation treaty law the provisions also
reflects the statute if customary international law, as it concerns the
jurisdiction that an international criminal Court is properly entitled to
exercise.
Although the Chamber was unanimous in holding that Jordan violated
its obligations not to arrest Bashir the majority decided not to refer
Jordan to in security Council and reverse the pretrial chamber decision
on this point.

THE PROSECUTOR V SIMONE GBAGBO

In another instance, the ICC issued an arrest warrant against Simone
Gbagbo, a former first lady of the Côte d’Ivoire (Ivory Coast), in 2012
on four counts of crimes against humanity as a co-perpetrator for
planning murder, rape and other sexual violence, persecution and other
inhuman acts, allegedly committed in the country during the post-
election violence of 2010-11.

She was arrested by the Ivorian authorities in 2014, who refused to

transfer her to the ICC. She was prosecuted and convicted by an
Ivorian court in 2015 for undermining state security and sentenced to
twenty years in prison. The appellate chamber of the ICC determined
that the Ivorian trial and sentence did not include the same crimes as
the ICC’s case and hence the ivory Coast is duty bound to surrender
her to the ICC for trial.

The prosecutor wants to submit to the home bless Court that Jack
[24]

brown is common criminal, prosecuted for crimes against humanity

which will be detrimental and threat to the international law so the ICC
can't bow down by merely relying on the doctrine of customary law.
The prosecutor firmly belief that Kitania should not be precluded from
surrendering Jack Brown to the ICC and support ICC by all necessary
means
ISSUE 3

3. WHETHER THE SINDIAN GOVERNING COUNCIL’S ACTIONS ARE

SUFFICIENT TO INVOKE COMPLEMENTARITY AND RENDER THE CASE
INADMISSIBLE?

1.It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble International criminal

court on behalf of prosecutor that the Sindian’s governing councils’
actions are not sufficient to invoke complementarily and render the
case inadmissible.

2.The prosecutor humbly submits to the court that the very first
article of the Rome statute which specifically states that the ICC
shall be permanent institution and shall have power to exercise its
jurisdiction over person for the most serious crime of international
concern as referred to in the statute and shall be complementary to
national criminal jurisdiction.

3.It is mention in the facts of the case that Jack brown is being
prosecuted which is considered to be heinous crime and article 5
specifically provide that the crime against humanity shall be dealt by
ICC which comes under the jurisdiction of it.

4.it is humbly submitted to the court that the UNSC (united nation
security council) referral itself depicts that the case was of
international concern as at the press conference held on 11 march
2021the words of Jack brown impliedly provoked, instigated the 13
years old Sindian girl name Reeta who recently ran away from a
shine were she was subject to ritual servitude doused herself to
gasoline and set herself on fire to protest the practice and given
group of famous Hollywood actors and numbers of prime time
television specials were devoted to the subject.

5.it is humbly submitted that the transitional governing council

action were not sufficient to render the case inadmissible as the
council was itself not recognized by number of states even the
[25]

Sindian people did not voluntarily submit to the govt because it is

mention in the fact that while jack brown was out of the country they
ceased control of the capital and announced the establishment of new
govt.

6.furthermore the prosecutor submits before honorable court that

Article 19 clause (6) of the Rome statute provides that prior to
conformation to the charge’s challenges to the admissibility of a case
or challenges to the jurisdiction of the court shall be referred to the
pre- trial chamber.

So, in this case, the matter has been referred to the pre-trial chamber
and the chamber made consideration that the Sindian governing
council action were not sufficient to render the case inadmissible
under article 19 of the Rome statute of ICC.

CASE LAW IN SUPPORT OF THE ABOVE ARGUMENT

In this case the prosecutor v. Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi, in this case Libya
challenged the admissibility of the case against mr Gaddafi on 1 st may
2012.and the chamber decided that Libya may postponed the surrender
of mr Gaddafi to the icc until such time that the chamber has ruled on the
admissibility challenge.
It was indicated that even though Libya’s legislation does not provide for
international crimes, such as the crimes against humanity of persecution
and murder, the crimes with which Mr Gaddafi is charged are sufficient
to successfully challenge the admissibility of the case. It was confirmed
that some of the offences with which Mr Gaddafi will potentially be
charged provide for the death penalty.

The Chamber found that it is for the State challenging the admissibility of
the case to demonstrate that the case is inadmissible before the Court.
To that effect, domestic authorities must demonstrate that they are
taking concrete and progressive steps to ascertain whether a suspect is
responsible for the conduct under prosecution before the Court. This
requires the submission of concrete and tangible evidence of a sufficient
degree of specificity and probative value. The evidence may relate to
the merits of the national case, such as interviews of witnesses or
suspects, documentary evidence collected, or forensic analyses and it
may also include directions, orders and decisions issued by the
authorities in charge of the investigation as well as internal reports,
updates, notifications or submissions contained in the Libyan
investigative file.
[26]

On 10 December 2014, Pre-Trial Chamber I issued a finding of non-

compliance by the Government of Libya with respect to the non-
execution of two requests for cooperation transmitted by the ICC,
and decided to refer the matter to the Security Council of the United
Nations.
The Chamber found that Libya has failed to comply with the requests
by the Court: (i) to surrender Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi to the Court; and
(ii) to return to the Defence of Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi the originals of
the documents that were seized by the Libyan authorities from the
former Defence counsel for Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi in June 2012 in
Zintan, and to destroy any copies thereof.
The Chamber emphasized that its decision was only based on the
objective failure to obtain cooperation. It was not intended to
sanction or criticize Libya but solely to seek the assistance of the
Security Council to eliminate the impediments to cooperation.
[27]

ISSUE 4
4. WHETHER THIS COURT SHOULD TEMPORARILY DEFER PROSECUTION TO SINDIA
UNDER ARTICLE 94 OF THE ICC STATUTE?

1.It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble court that after looking into the
present situation of the case where Mr Jack brown has orally presented before
the (pre- trial chamber) where the chamber also finds without merit the
transitional governing council argument that it only intend to prosecute crime
pre-dating 10 march 2021 and not the present and day to day growing
cases.The chamber also rejects the transitional governing council argument that
the icc should defer prosecution in the interest of justice in accordance with the
standard forth in Article 53 of the statute .

2.The prosecution here state that the icc should not temporarily defer
prosecution to Sindia under article 94 of icc because in the current
situation the Sindia is looked upon by Transitional Governing council
as it itself is a weak body and also for the fact that it has not been
accepted by the whole of Sindia at first.

3. And if we also deny any relevance of article 94 with this case as it defines
( postponement of execution of a request in respect of an admissibility
challenge)
Where the investigation can be challenged but it must be different from that to
which the request relate, however in this case the every point lead to violation
of human rights conducted in land of Sindia since very which now needs to be
stop.

4.There is now need to postponed the prosecution as enough evidence,

witnesses, complains and reports have been submitted already and there
no time to delay this proceeding further as millions of young girls are
loosing their childhood and tortured everyday. This ritual servitude has
already destroyed lives of many and we will not accept it this time.
[28]

5. Now coming towards the provisions of article 53 of the icc as it states

( initiation of an investigation) yes investigation must be started as soon
as possible as this case fulfill every criteria on this article 53 such as ,It
has given all the reasonable basis to believe that Mr Jack Brown has
committed this crime and this case is or would be admissible under
article 17 as the Sindia's local court is not able of look after such
important case regarding the lives of millions and that icc has received a
million of complain regarding such cruelty and thus icc has come into
action as a last resort.

6.That an investigation would serve the interest of justice to the people of

Sindia, there is enough factual basis to seek a warrant or summon against Mr
Jack Brown under article 58.

The prosecution is in the interest if justice considering all the circumstances,

by looking into the gravity of the crime, the interest of victims so we therefore
deny ICC to make any temporary defer prosecution to Sindia under article 94 of
the ICC statue as it will delay the process and also prosecution must be done for
all so that this problem will be cured as soon as possible and we can save as
many as lives.

For Instance, It Is Most Humbly Submitted that the ICC appeal chamber
authorized the court prosecutor to open an investigation in Afghanistan which
could include elite crimes committed by the Taliban, Afgan national security
forces and united states military and central intelligence agency personal.
The authorities in Afghanistan have asked the ICC prosecutor o differ her
investigation asserting that they can conduct credible national proceeding and
the matter remains under consideration, based on research in afgan justice
system the icc strongly doubt the afgan govt capacity and willingness to bring
alleged perpetrators to justice.

It is humbly submitted that the icc should not defer the prosecution as the
transitional governing councils’ government is not credible enough and doesn’t
possess a requisite quality to try the case of Jack brown who has committed a
heinous crime and cognizable offence which is refer to as a crime against
humanity.
[29]

PRAYER

IN THE LIGHT OF THE ISSUES RAISED, ARGUMENTS ADVANCED AND

AUTHORITIES CITED, THE PETITIONER MOST HUMBLY AND
RESPECTFULLY PRAY AND REQUEST THE HON’BLE COURT:

1. TO DECLARE THAT THE ALLEGATION AGAINST JACK BROWN CONSTITUTE A

COGNIZABLE OFFENCE UNDER COURT’S JURISDICTION.
2. TO HOLD AND DECLARE THAT KITANIA IS NOT PRECLUDED FROM
SURRENDERING THE RESPONDENT TO ICC.
3. TO DECLARE THAT SINDIAN GOVERNING COUNCILS ACTION WERE
NOT SUFFICENT TO INVOKE COMLIMENTERITY AND RENDER THE
CASE INADMISSIBLE.

4. TO DECLARE THAT ICC TEMPERORILY DEFFER PROSECUTION TO

SINDIA UDER ARTICLE 94 OF ICC.

AND/OR

GRANT ANY OTHER RELIEF WHICH THE HON’BLE COURT MAY DEEM
FIT IN THE EYES OF JUSTICE, EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE.

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED AND FOR SUCH ACT OF KINDNESS THE
PETITIONER SHALL BE DUTY BOUND AS EVER PRAY.

(COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER)