Henry Dunant Memorial Moot Court Competition 2024

THE OFFICE OF THE PROSECUTOR

Team Number:
Year: 2024
Total Word Count:
MEMORIAL for PROSECUTION

Original: English Date: 19th June 2024

BEFORE THE PRE-TRIAL CHAMBER

Case before the International Criminal Court (ICC):

Prosecutor v. TechAnon

The Office of the Prosecutor’s Submission in the

Confirmation of Charges against Defendant TechAnon of The Kingdom of Rufus

-1-
MEMORIAL for PROSECUTION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents 2
List of Abbreviations 3
Index of Authorities 4
Statement of Facts 6
Charges 8
Summary of Arguments 9
I. WITH RESPECT TO THE USE OF PROJECT HAWK TARGETING SOFTWARE IN
RAF ARMOURED VEHICLES RESULTING IN THE KILLING OF 140 AND
WOUNDING OF 50 CIVILIANS GATHERED AT MOOSEVILLE PLAZA IN
MOOSEVILLE ON 21 DECEMBER 2022:

On The Basis Of Individual Criminal Responsibility For Aiding And Abetting Or Otherwise
Assisting The Commission Of The Crime, Pursuant To Article 25(3)(C) Rome Statute The War
Crime Of Intentionally Directing Attacks Against The Civilian Population As Such Or Against
Individual Civilians Not Taking Direct Part In Hostilities In Article 8(2)(E)(I) Of The Rome
Statute
1. ESTABLISHMENT OF MENS REA AND LACK OF DUE DILLIGENCE

It is asserted that there was a lack of effective control and active negligence from the side of
TechAnon’s. Individuals within TechAnon who had effective control over the development and
deployment of the software failed to prevent its misuse or address known limitations. TechAnon’s
acceptance of the project, customization of the software, and integration into RAF systems without
thorough testing and legal review of its impact demonstrate a lack of due diligence and oversight.

1. Lack of due dilligence

The risks of malfunctions in identifying threats in large crowds were foreseeable, and the potential for
civilian casualties should have been clear given the known limitations of the software.
Internal Techmania memos and simulation results indicated a higher likelihood of malfunction with
large groups. These results were known to TechAnon before the software’s deployment.

 RELIANCE ON LEGAL PRECEDENT

It is argued that the prosecution relies on drawing parallels to the situation involving TechAnon, by
emphasizing the principles of aiding and abetting, command responsibility, and complicity in war
crimes. These cases provide a strong legal foundation to argue that TechAnon and its representatives
should be held liable for their role in the Mooseville Plaza massacre

Submissions 14
Prayer
-2-
MEMORIAL for PROSECUTION
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AC Appeals Chamber

AJ Appeals Judgment

CAH Crime(s) against humanity

Court/ICC International Criminal Court

fn. Footnote number(s)

ICJ International Court of Justice

ICTY International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

OTP Office of the Prosecution

p. Page

Prosecution Counsel for the Prosecution

PTC Pre-Trial Chamber

RAF RAF - Rufus Armed Forces

SCSL Special Court for Sierra Leone

TC Trial Chamber

TJ Trial Judgement

-3-
MEMORIAL for PROSECUTION
Index of Authorities
STATUTES

1. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 17 July 1998 (as amended 2010),
2187 UNTS 3 [RS]

2. Article 36 of The ADDITIONAL PROTOCOL I TO THE GENEVA

CONVENTIONS
CASE LAWS
1. Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Pre-Trial Chamber I, 12
Decision on Confirmation of Charges, 14 October 2008, ICC-01/04-01/07-717 [The
Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga]

2. Prosecutor v. Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi, PRE-TRIAL CHAMBER I, Decision on 12

the confirmation of charges against Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi, 24 March 2016,
ICC-01/12-01/15 [THE PROSECUTOR v. AHMAD AL FAQI AL MAHDI]

3. Prosecutor v. Al Hassan Ag Abdoul Aziz Ag Mohamed Ag Mahmoud, PRE-TRIAL 12

CHAMBER I, Decision on the confirmation of charges brought against Al Hassan
Ag Abdoul Aziz Ag Mohamed Ag Mahmoud, 13 November 2019, ICC-01/12-
01/18 [THE PROSECUTOR v. AL HASSAN AG ABDOUL AZIZ AG
MOHAMED AG MAHMOUD]
4. The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, PRE-TRIAL CHAMBER I, Decision on 12
the confirmation of charges, 29 January 2007, ICC-01/04-01/06, [THE
PROSECUTOR v. THOMAS LUBANGA DYILO]

5. The Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic, International Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia 12
(ICTY); Trial Chamber, Opinion and Judgment, 7 May 1997, IT-94-1-T,
[PROSECUTOR v. DU [KO TADI] a/k/a “DULE”]

6. The Prosecutor v. Charles Ghankay Taylor, TRIAL CHAMBER II, JUDGMENT, 13

18 May 2018, SCSL-03-01-T, [ Prosecutor v. Charles Gankkay Taylor].

-4-
MEMORIAL for PROSECUTION

ARTICLES

Graff, J. (2004b). Corporate War Criminals and the International

1. . Criminal Court: Blood and profits in the Democratic Republic of
Congo. Journal of Thermophysics and Heat Transfer, 11(2), 7.

2. Plomp, C. (2014). Aiding and Abetting: The Responsibility of

Business Leaders under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal
Court. Utrecht Journal of International and European Law, 30(79), 4–
29.

-5-
MEMORIAL for PROSECUTION

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Geographical and Economic Background:

1. The Republic of Dave is a highly developed country with a population of 12 million. It boasts
rich soil and a thriving agricultural sector. Major exports include natural gas and grain,
contributing significantly to its economy.
2. The Kingdom of Rufus is a prosperous monarchy ruled by a royal family. It primarily exports
oil and gold, which are vital to its economic stability and international trade relations.
2. Historical Context:
1. The Clemon population, indigenous to the region, was forcibly relocated to the north of
Rufus (Rosebud Province) during the colonial era. This displacement has led to centuries of
oppression and marginalization.
2. The Clemon people have continuously faced systemic discrimination and economic
disadvantages, exacerbating tensions between them and the Rufus government.
3. Conflict Over Land Rights:
1. Historical conflicts over land rights, particularly in the ClemRock area, have been a
significant source of tension. The Clemons claim ancestral rights to this land, which is rich
in resources and holds cultural significance.
4. The Clemon people have faced persistent discrimination and economic disadvantages,
exacerbating tensions between them and the Rufus government. Their exclusion from political
processes and lack of access to resources have fueled resentment and calls for autonomy.
5. Historical conflicts over land rights, particularly in the resource-rich ClemRock area, have been
a major source of tension. The Clemon people claim ancestral rights to this land, which holds
significant cultural and economic value. The Rufus government's refusal to recognize these
claims has further strained relations.
6. Formation of the Rebellion:
1. In response to ongoing injustices, the Clemon population formed a rebel group known as the
Rebellion. This group, driven by a desire for self-determination and justice, aims to combat
the systemic oppression imposed by the Rufus government. The Republic of Dave has
provided substantial financial and military support to the Rebellion, intensifying the conflict.
7. On 12 January 2023, the Rebellion bombed a Rufus Armed Forces (RAF) storage facility. This
attack resulted in the deaths of five soldiers and enabled the Rebellion to capture military
vehicles and weapons, significantly boosting their combat capabilities.
8. King Rufus IV demanded the immediate return of the stolen military assets and compensation
-6-
MEMORIAL for PROSECUTION

9. for the losses incurred. He declared the Rebellion a significant threat to international peace and
security, justifying an escalated military response to suppress the insurgents.
10. On 11 April 2023, the RAF conducted artillery strikes around Rosebud Hospital, a critical
infrastructure within the Clemon community. The strikes led to a devastating explosion,
resulting in numerous casualties, including medical personnel and civilians. The Rufus
government claimed the hospital was being used as a base by the Rebellion, justifying the attack
as a necessary military action.
11. TechAnon, a global hacktivist group, became involved in the conflict by targeting the Rufus
government's disinformation campaign. Initially, TechAnon hacked into the Rufus
government’s databases and uncovered evidence of the deepfake video, and the doctored
intelligence report used to falsely accuse the Rebellion and justify the attack on Rosebud
Hospital.
12. TechAnon also conducted cyber-attacks causing significant disruptions. hey disabled
communication networks, which hindered the coordination of military operations and led to
unintended and uncontrolled military actions, resulting in civilian casualties.
13. Further, TechAnon released sensitive information that compromised the safety and security of
individuals within Rufus, including those not involved in the conflict. This information included
personal data of government officials and military personnel, leading to targeted attacks and
reprisals by various factions within the conflict.

-7-
MEMORIAL for PROSECUTION
CHARGES

[A]

With respect to the use of Project Hawk targeting software in RAF armoured vehicles resulting in the
killing of 140 and wounding of 50 civilians gathered at Mooseville Plaza in Mooseville on 21
December 2022:

On the basis of individual criminal responsibility for aiding and abetting or otherwise assisting the
commission of the crime, pursuant to Article 25(3)(c) Rome Statute the war crime of intentionally
directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct
part in hostilities in Article 8(2)(e)(i) of the Rome Statute

[B]

With respect to Operation Dark Horse in leading the dissemination campaign on Rosebud Hospital
and its medical personnel as part of the RAF’s attack on the hospital killing civilians including
medical personnel:

On the basis of individual criminal responsibility for contributing to the commission of the crime or
attempted commission of the crime in any other way by a group of persons with a common purpose,
pursuant to Article 25(3)(d) of the Rome Statute The war crime of intentionally directing attacks
against buildings, material, medical units and transport, and personnel using the distinctive emblems
of the Geneva Conventions in conformity with international law in Article 8(2)(e)(ii) of the Rome
Statute.

-8-
MEMORIAL for PROSECUTION
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

[A]

1. The Prosecution submits that ‘TechAnon’ (Ashley Krish) must be individually held liable for
the war crime of intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or
against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities under Article 8(2)(e)(i) of the
Rome Statute for the following reasons:

 ESTABLISHMENT OF MENS REA AND LACK OF DUE DILLIGENCE

2. Lack of effective control resulting into the establishment of mens rea

It is asserted that there was a lack of effective control and active negligence from the side of
TechAnon’s. Individuals within TechAnon who had effective control over the development and
deployment of the software failed to prevent its misuse or address known limitations. TechAnon’s
acceptance of the project, customization of the software, and integration into RAF systems without
thorough testing and legal review of its impact demonstrate a lack of due diligence and oversight.

3. Lack of due dilligence

The risks of malfunctions in identifying threats in large crowds were foreseeable, and the potential for
civilian casualties should have been clear given the known limitations of the software.
Internal Techmania memos and simulation results indicated a higher likelihood of malfunction with
large groups. These results were known to TechAnon before the software’s deployment.

 RELIANCE ON LEGAL PRECEDENT

It is argued that the prosecution relies on drawing parallels to the situation involving TechAnon, by
emphasizing the principles of aiding and abetting, command responsibility, and complicity in war
crimes. These cases provide a strong legal foundation to argue that TechAnon and its representatives
should be held liable for their role in the Mooseville Plaza massacre

-9-
MEMORIAL for PROSECUTION

MAIN ARGUMENTS

ON THE BASIS OF INDIVIDUAL CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR AIDING AND

ABETTING OR OTHERWISE ASSISTING THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME,
PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 25(3)(C) ROME STATUTE

With respect to the use of Project Hawk targeting software in RAF armoured vehicles resulting in the
killing of 140 and wounding of 50 civilians gathered at Mooseville Plaza in Mooseville on 21
December 2022, the Prosecution submits that ‘TechAnon’ (Ashley Krish) must be individually held
liable for the war crime of intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or
against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities under Article 8(2)(e)(i) of the Rome
Statute.

 ESTABLISHMENT OF MENS REA AND LACK OF DUE DILLIGENCE

1. Lack of effective control resulting into the establishment of mens rea

The Mooseville Plaza massacre resulted from the malfunctioning of the Project Hawk software,
which misidentified civilians as threats due to the large crowd. The deployment of the software in the
targeting systems directly led to the death of 140 civilians and injuries to 70 more which was only
made possible through TechAnon's customization and provision of the Project Hawk software. This
substantially contributed to the commission of war crimes or crimes against humanity.

The Prosecution submits that TechAnon, through its representatives, knew or should have known
that the Project Hawk software would be used in a manner that could lead to war crimes or crimes
against humanity.

TechAnon was aware the software would be integrated into RAF's targeting systems, and internal
memos revealed known limitations in distinguishing between civilians and combatants in large
groups. These memos indicated that the software was prone to malfunction with large crowds, a
-10-
MEMORIAL for PROSECUTION
foreseeable risk in a conflict zone.

It is also asserted that there was a lack of effective control and active negligence from the side of
TechAnon’s. Individuals within TechAnon who had effective control over the development and
deployment of the software failed to prevent its misuse or address known limitations. TechAnon’s
acceptance of the project, customization of the software, and integration into RAF systems without
thorough testing and legal review of its impact demonstrate a lack of due diligence and oversight.

2. Lack of due dilligence

After the internal simulations revealed significant risks, TechAnon proceeded with the deployment.
There was no evidence of steps taken to rectify or mitigate these risks before or after the software
was used in the field.

The risks of malfunctions in identifying threats in large crowds were foreseeable, and the potential
for civilian casualties should have been clear given the known limitations of the software.

Internal Techmania memos and simulation results indicated a higher likelihood of malfunction with
large groups. These results were known to TechAnon before the software’s deployment.

Violation of Article 36 of Additional Protocol I

The RAF’s legal officers struggled to understand the software due to its technical complexity.
However, due to pressure from Lt. Gen. Crendle, the system was approved without a thorough and
informed legal review. The legal officers' inability to understand the algorithms, combined with the
pressure to approve the system and TechAnon’s failure to provide necessary technical insights, led to
the approval of a system that had not been adequately assessed for compliance with international
humanitarian law

-11-
MEMORIAL for PROSECUTION

 RELIANCE ON LEGAL PRECEDENT

The Prosecution submits that Tech Anon must be held liable for the malfunctioning of Project Hawk
targeting software in RAF armoured vehicles resulting in the killing of 140 individuals and
wounding of 50 civilians gathered at Mooseville Plaza in Mooseville on 21 st December, 2022.

Relying upon relevant precedents, it is submitted that in the case of Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga
and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, 1upon a deliberation on the execution of a crime, it was held that the
provision and utilization of communication devices were considered as aiding and abetting the
commission of crimes, demonstrating how technology facilitated operational planning and execution
of criminal acts.

Further, in the case of Prosecutor v. Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi2, the Defendant was charged with war
crimes related to the destruction of cultural heritage sites in Timbuktu, Mali.

Although this case primarily focused on the destruction of cultural heritage, the prosecution noted the
use of digital cameras and other recording devices to document and publicize the destruction. This
use of technology facilitated the crime by spreading fear and demonstrating the group’s power, thus
contributing to the aiding and abetting under Article 25(3)(c).

In the case of Prosecutor v. Al Hassan Ag Abdoul Aziz Ag Mohamed Ag Mahmoud3, the Defendant
faced charges for crimes against humanity and war crimes in Mali, including torture, rape, and
persecution. The prosecution highlighted the use of communication and information technology to
enforce decrees and coordinate activities that resulted in crimes.

In the case of The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo4, it was demonstrated that the principles of
individual criminal responsibility and the importance of understanding the chain of command and
control over individuals committing crimes are integral in establishing liability.

In the case of The Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic5 of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former
Yugoslavia, it was significant for its detailed analysis of aiding and abetting liability. The ICTY
established that aiding and abetting requires practical assistance, encouragement, or moral support

1
ICC-01/04-01/07
2
ICC-01/12-01/15
3
ICC-01/12-01/18
4
ICC-01/04-01/06
5
IT-94-1-AR72
-12-
MEMORIAL for PROSECUTION
that has a substantial effect on the perpetration of the crime.

The Prosecutor v. Charles Taylor6 of the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL) held the Defendant
liable for aiding and abetting due to his provision of support and resources that significantly

contributed to the commission of crimes. This case underscores the principle that providing material
support, even indirectly, can establish liability for aiding and abetting.

These cases support the argument that TechAnon, by providing the Project Hawk software with
known risks, substantially contributed to the commission of war crimes. The knowledge of potential
misuse and the provision of critical technology align with the aiding and abetting principles
established in these cases.

The importance of command responsibility, where individuals in positions of authority within

TechAnon, who had control over the development and deployment of the software, can be held liable
for failing to prevent its misuse.

Hence, it is argued that the prosecution relies on drawing parallels to the situation involving
TechAnon, by emphasizing the principles of aiding and abetting, command responsibility, and
complicity in war crimes. These cases provide a strong legal foundation to argue that TechAnon and
its representatives should be held liable for their role in the Mooseville Plaza massacre.

6
SCSL-03-01-T
-13-
MEMORIAL for PROSECUTION

PRAYER

On the basis of the charges and arguments set forth in this memorial, the Prosecution hereby
respectfully requests the hon’ble ICC to:

1. Declare that:

With respect to the use of Project Hawk targeting software in RAF armoured vehicles resulting in the
killing of 140 and wounding of 50 civilians gathered at Mooseville Plaza in Mooseville on 21
December 2022:
On the basis of individual criminal responsibility for aiding and abetting or otherwise assisting the
commission of the crime, pursuant to Article 25(3)(c) Rome Statute, TechAnon (Ashley Krish) must
be held liable.

Respectfully submitted,

Office of The Prosecutor

Dated 19th of June, 2024.

-14-
MEMORIAL for PROSECUTION

-43-