State - HPNLU

VII S.K.

PURI MEMORIAL INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION JUSTIFIED 2023

TC_20_V

VII S.K. PURI MEMORIAL INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

JUSTIFIED 2023
INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL TRIALADVOCACY COMPETITION
BEFORE
TRIAL CHAMBER II, INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT
The Hague, The Netherlands
THE PROSECUTOR PROSECUTION
V.
RYAN HOWARD DEFENSE
DEFENDANT CHARGED WITH
Crime Against Humanity of Murder and Deportation under Article 7 (1)(a) and (d) of the Rome Statute
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE

Word Count 8928
Page | i Submission by State

VII S.K. PURI MEMORIAL INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION JUSTIFIED 2023
Original: English Date: [1st December, 2023]
TRIAL CHAMBER II
Before: Judge__________________, the Presiding Judge
Judge___________________
SITUATION IN THE STATE OF AMBERLAND IN THE CASE OF
THE PROSECUTOR V. RYAN HOWARD
PUBLIC
Decision Pursuant to Article 7(1)(a) and 7(1)(d) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of
the Prosecutor Against Ryan Howard.
Source: Office of the Prosecutor
Page | ii Submission by State

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS............................................................................................... iv
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................................. v
STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................................................................... ix
ISSUES PRESENTED ........................................................................................................ xii
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ........................................................................................... 1
WRITTEN ARGUMENTS ................................................................................................... 2
ISSUE 1 - Whether the ICC has jurisdiction to prosecute Ryan Howard for commission of
crime against humanity of murder under Article 7(1)(a) of the Rome Statute? ................... 2
[1.1] Provisions related to the jurisdiction of the Rome Statute have been satisfied. ....... 2
[1.2] Element of Article 7(1)(a) Crime against humanity have been satisfied for the
jurisdiction. ................................................................................................................... 6
ISSUE 2- Whether the ICC has jurisdiction to prosecute Ryan Howard for commission of
crime against humanity of deportation or forcible transfer of population under Article
7(1)(d) of the Rome Statute? ............................................................................................. 7
[2.1] Elements of the 7(1)(d) crime against humanity of deportation or forcible transfer
of population of the Rome Statute.................................................................................. 7
[2.2] Provisions related to the Challenges to the jurisdiction of the Court or the
admissibility of a case of the Rome Statute .................................................................... 9
PRAYER ............................................................................................................................ 16
Page | iii Submission by State

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ABBREVIATION EXPANSIONS
¶ Paragraph
AJ Appeals Judgement
AW Arrest Warrant
Art. Article
IHL International Humanitarian Law
ed. edition
EOC Elements of Crimes
Id Ibid
i.e. Id est
ICC International Criminal Court
Rome Statute International Criminal Court Statute
ICTR International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda
ICTY International Criminal Tribunal for the Former

Yugoslavia
pp. Page
v. Versus
TJ Trial Judgement
Page | iv Submission by State

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
INDEX OF CASES
1. The Prosecutor v. Laurent Gbagbo and Charles Blé Goudé, Case No. ICC-02/11-
01/15-1400
2. The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06-2842,
Judgment (Trial Chamber)
3. The Prosecutor v. Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, Case No. ICC-02/05-01/09, 4
March, 2009
4. The Prosecutor v. Radovan Karadžić, Case No. IT-95-5/18-A, Judgement of 11 July
2013
5. Prosecutor v. Jovica Stanišić and Franko Simatović, Case No.IT-03-69-T, Judgement
of 30 May 2013
6. Prosecutor v. Ongwen, ICC-02/04-01/15-1819, (Trial Chamber IX May 06, 2021)
7. Prosecutor v. Bemba, ICC PT. Ch. II, ICC-01/05-01/08-424
8. Prosecutor v. Akayesu, ICTR-96-4, ICTR T. Ch., 2 September 1998, ¶ 580
9. The Prosecutor v. Dragoljub Kunarac, Radomir Kovač and Zoran Vukovi, T-96-23 &
23/1, P 428 (ICTY Trial Chamber February 22, 2001
10. The Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, ICC-01/04- 01/07-
717, ¶ 394 (30 September 2008)
11. Prosecutor v. Blaškić, IT-95-14-T, P 207, (ICTY, March 3, 2000)
12. Prosecutor v. Tadic, IT-94-1-T, Form of the Indictment, ¶ 11 (Nov, 14, 1995)
13. Woolmington v. Director of Public Prosecutions, 1935 App. Cas. ¶ 462 (H.L.)
14. Prosecutor v. Gbagbo, ICC-02/11- 01/11-656, P 223 (12 June 2014)
15. The Prosecutor v. Anto Furundzija , IT-95-17/1, ¶ 249, (ICTY Trial Chamber, 10
December 1998)
16. Prosecutor v. Mitar Vasiljevic, IT-98-32-T, ¶ 71, (ICTY Trial Chamber, 29
November, 2002)
17. Prosecutor v. Milorad Krnojelac ¶ 52( ICTY appeals chamber 17 September, 2003)
18. The Prosecutor v. Charles Ghankay Taylor, SCSL-03-01-A (September 26, 2013)
19. The Prosecutor v. Radovan Karadžić, ¶ 489-491, (Mar. 24, 2016)
20. Prosecutor v. Jovica Stanišić and Franko Simatović, Case No. IT-03-69-T, ¶ 992-
993, (May 30, 2013)
21. Situation in Georgia, ICC-01/15, (October 13, 2015)
22. Situation in the Republic of Côte d'Ivoire, ICC-02/11-01/11-656-Red, P 212 (June
13, 2014)
23. Republic of Kenya, ICC-01/09-19-Corr, 135, (31 March, 2010)
TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS
1. International Committee Of The Red Cross (ICRC), Geneva Convention

For The Amelioration Of The Condition Of The Wounded And Sick In
Page | v Submission by State

Armed Forces In The Field (First Geneva Convention), Aug. 12, 1949,
75 Unts 31, Art. 2
2. UN General Assembly, International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, 16 December 1966, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 999
3. UN Security Council, Statute of the Special Court for Sierra Leone, 16 January
2002
4. ICRC and UNIVERSITE LAVAL, The Principle of Proportionality in

the Rules Governing the Conduct of Hostilities under International
Humanitarian Law, International Expert Meeting, 22-23 June 2016,
Quebec
5. International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Protocol Additional
to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the
Protection of Victims of Non- International Armed Conflicts (Protocol
II), June 8, 1977, 1125 U.N.T.S. 3 [AP-II]
INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT
 Elements of Crime, Rome Statute

 Rome Statute For The Establishment Of The International Criminal Court,
2187 U.N.T.S.90,July 1 2002
 International Criminal Court, Rules of Procedure and Evidence, U.N. Doc.
PCNICC/2000/1/Add.1, 2000
U.N. DOCUMENTS
 Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of

Power, G.A. Res. 40/34, Annex, U.N. Doc. A/RES/ 40/34/Annex (Nov. 29,
1985)
 UN General Assembly, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 10 December
1948, 217 A(III)
 UN General Assembly, Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a
Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International
Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law
Page | vi Submission by State

: resolution / adopted by the GeneralAssembly, 21 March 2006, A/RES/60/147
BOOKS
1. WILLIAM A. SCHABAS , NADIA BERNAZ, ROUTLEDGE HANDBOOK OF

INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW 145 (Feb. 2010)
2. ICRC Commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention
3. JEAN-MARIE HENCKAERTS & LOUISE DOSWALD-BECK, CUSTOMARY
INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW, Vol. I, Rule 89, p. 311, (Cambridge
University Press, 2005)
4. MICHAEL BOTHE, KARL JOSEPH PARTSCH, WALDEMAR A. SOLF (eds.),
NEW RULES FOR VICTIMS OF ARMED CONFLICTS, MARTINUS NIJHOFF,
The Hague, 1982
5. Stephan Meseke, Der Tatbestand Der VerbrechenGegen Die MenschlichkeitNach
Dem RömischenStatut Des Internationalen Strafgerichtshofes: Eine
VölkerstrafrechtlicheAnalyse
6. A. VAN VERSEVELD, MISTAKE OF LAW – EXCUSING PERPETRATORS OF
INTERNATIONAL CRIMES, 2012
7. R. Cryer, D. Robinson and S. Vasiliev, AN INTRODUCTION TO
INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE, 2nd ed., CUP, 2007
8. DOUGLAS GUILFOYLE, International Criminal Law, Oxford University Press,
2016
JOURNALS AND ARTICLES
1. Luke Moffet, Accountability for Forced Displacement in Democratic

Republic of Congo and Uganda before the International Criminal Court,
Vol. 1, No. 2, ¶ 130, (2015).
2. A. Cullen and M.D. Oberg, ‘Prosecutor v. RamushHaradinaj et al.:
Page | vii Submission by State

The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the
Threshold of Non-International Armed Conflict in International
Humanitarian Law’ ASIL, vol. 12, issue 7, (2008)
3. W. A. Schabas, The UN International Criminal Tribunals: The Former
Yugoslavia, Rwanda and Sierra Leone 229 (Cambridge University
Press, (2007)
4. Sarah Finnin, Mental Elements Under Article 30 of the Rome Statute of
the International Criminal Court: A Comparative Analysis, The
International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Cambridge University
Press, Vol. 61, No. 2 (April 2012)
5. Leila Nadya Sadat, Crimes Against Humanity in the Modern Age, The
American Journal of International Law, vol. 107, no. 2, pp. 334–77
(2013)
6. Herman von Hebel & Darryl Robinson, Crimes Within the Jurisdiction
of the Court, in THE MAKING OF THE ROME STATUTE 97 (1999)
7. Margaret McAuliffe deGuzman, The Road from Rome: The Developing
Law of Crimes against Humanity, Human Rights Quarterly, vol. 22, no.
2, pp. 335–403 (2000)
8. David M Crane, Russia’s snub of Geneva Convention Protocol sets
dangerous precedent, The Hill, October 20, 2019
Page | viii Submission by State

STATEMENT OF FACTS
A republic called Amberland is located in the southernmost point of the Arabian Peninsula.
In 1990, the northern and southern parts of the former empires united to form a political
entity and designated Red Stone as their political and financial center, creating the unified
Amberland. The historical, cultural, and religious divide between the warrior population of
the North, who adhered to Kobol, another sect of Cylonism, and the tribal population of the
South, who were primarily followers of the Xander sect of Cylonism, a wider religious
concept that was gaining popularity in the area, were the main causes of this split.The Kobols
make up the vast majority of Amberland's population, with the Xander community facing an
increasingly steep demographic split. It was divided 60:40 as of 2007. This division, which
dates back hundreds of years in the region's history, has been the cause of multiple conflicts
as well as the disintegration of the ancient communities that once called the area home.
The ancient religious legal system of the Kingdom of Wonderland, or "Wonderland," was
established based on interpretations of Cylonism. Wonderland is directly under the
jurisdiction of the federal government. Additionally, the nation has developed military
alliances of vital importance with the US, France, and England. The socioeconomic structure
of the nation takes pride in its relatively homogeneous population, with ninety percent (90%)
of the people living there adhering to the Kobol sect. The remaining ten percent (10%) of the
population is made up of local indigenous tribes that are spread out over the most rural areas
of the region. Wonderland has historically taken an interest in Amberland's political matters.
Thus, according to a widely held belief, Wonderland has been inciting and manipulating
Amberland's Kobolians against their fellow citizens who belong to the Xander sect, including
the nation's elected lawmakers led by President Ms. W. Adams. Wonderland has done this by
utilising the state apparatus.
One of the promoters of Thanos Group from the company's founding in 1990 has been Mr.
Ryan Howard. Along with three additional partners who all had a passion for aeronautical
engineering—Mr. Ankur Singh, Mr. Abel Gray, and Ms. Wong Lee—the accused founded
the business in the British Virgin Islands. Even when his co-investors left the company in
1998, Mr. Howard kept it growing because of his extraordinary insight into business, industry
trends, and the related political environment. He formally announced his departure from the
company on October 21, 2015, but he kept his word to the stockholders that he would still
lead and mentor the business and his affiliates—albeit in a different capacity. Mr. Howard
has been putting in a lot of effort since 2002 to build relationships with the nation's military
leadership. Wonderland was a trademark for his personal brand when he was designated a
special advisor to the Ministry of Defence in 2007. This was the first time a non-citizen has
been permitted to formulate the nation's defence policy.
Page | ix Submission by State

Mr. Brian Garner, an ultraconservative supporter of Xander, was declared the winner of the
general elections for the presidency held in Amberland in 2015 by a very narrow margin. A
short time after Mr. Garner was elected to the position of premier of the nation, he appointed
members of his advisory council and the nation's lawmaking secretariat. The Xander faction's
homogenous majority of legislators was heavily favored in these nominations as well. The
local leaders of the Kobol communities' geographic terrains mobilized support organizations
to launch a negative campaign against Brian Garner's policies in response to these drastic
changes.On a comparable basis, hostilities between Kobolians and Xanderians peaked in
September 2016. The Kobolian Resistance Army, sometimes known as the "KRA," is a
militia made up of Kobolians that was responsible for these tensions, which eventually
became violent.
Concurrently, Wonderland's state-run media launched a vigorous disinformation and

propaganda campaign, claiming that the western understanding of globalization had damaged
the region's "purity" to the point of damaging policies and if it was appropriate for the
Wonderland Kobolians to encourage their brothers in Amberland in their uprising against the
Xanderian government's persecution.Public discontent in Wonderland against Amberland's
elected government was inflamed by media efforts. Seeing that these emotions were growing,
Thanos Group employed its own public relations apparatus to pressure the government into
approving its arms sales to the Kobolian groups that were battling the government in
Amberland. By the end of 2016, the Wonderland monarchy had granted the license that
allowed Thanos to sell their goods directly to the KRA in Amberland the royal seal of
approval.
In the middle of 2017, the KRA initiated a calculated attack on the Xanderian community
residing in the southern areas of the nation, which were mostly cut off from Amberland, the
country's center of power. It is estimated that approximately six hundred (600) males who
were either Xanderian citizens or sympathizers with the victims of the KRA attack were slain
by the militia between 2015 and 2022. Around one hundred and twenty (120) homes left the
area as a result of the violence that occurred there at that time, according to local news
sources. Two types of equipment that the Thanos Group provides. KRA personnel employed
advanced reconnaissance drones provided by Thanos Group in the first phase of these
operations. In the second phase, KRA factions used firepower to attack unsuspecting civilians
at designated locations in the dead of night using precision guns and grenades.The monarchy
made Mr. Howard resign from his public post in response to the unfavorable publicity.
In a rare display of accountability, a Wonderland-based local court found the Thanos Group
chief technology officer guilty in May 2023 of conspiring with the KRA leadership and
increasing the group's access to weapons through credit-based facilities while Amberland's
defense forces were attempting to secure a safe passage for some villagers who were stranded
in the southern Amberland desert.
Page | x Submission by State

PROCEDURAL HISTORY
December 2022: The ICC Prosecutor, with due authorization from the Pre-Trial Chamber,
opened an investigation into the situation in the Republic of Amberland for the period
stretching between 2014 and 2021.
May 2023: In a rare display of accountability, a Wonderland-based local court found the
Thanos Group chief technology officer guilty of conspiring with the KRA leadership and
increasing the group's access to weapons through credit-based facilities while Amberland's
defense forces were attempting to secure a safe haven for some villagers who were stuck in
the southern Amberland desert.
May 2023: As a result of the International Criminal Court's arrest warrant being issued
against him, Mr. Howard was detained and taken into custody by South African authorities
while travelling through the country. The ICC Prosecutor was able to obtain Mr. Howard's
formal arrest so that he could face trial before the International Criminal Court.
CHARGES CONFIRMED
Based on the submissions made by the Office of the ICC Prosecutor and the Defense
Counsel, as well as the evidence, testimonies, and amicus briefs iminal Court confirmed the
following charges against the Accused.
1. Article 7(1)(a) crime against humanity of murder
2. Article 7(1)(d) crime against humanity of deportation or forcible transfer
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE TRIAL CHAMBER
· Wonderland requested permission from the court to attend Mr. Ryan Howard's trial in an
application that was submitted to the ICC.
Wonderland contended that it ought to be permitted to take part in the accused's trial and
present evidence to demonstrate that: (a) in accordance with the Rome Statute's framework,
specifically the framework established under Article 19(2)(b) in conjunction with other
pertinent provisions of the Rome Statute and the rules and regulations enacted thereunder, it
would be fitting for the ICC to permit Wonderland for 7(1) (d) of Rome statute, as a state
willing and able to prosecute the accused, to do so.
· Trial Chamber II, the relevant trial chamber, granted Wonderland permission to present
both written and oral arguments after giving it careful thought and adhering to the legal
process.
Page | xi Submission by State

ISSUES PRESENTED
ISSUE 1-
Whether the ICC has jurisdiction to prosecute Ryan Howard for commission of crime
against humanity of murder under Article 7(1)(a) of the Rome Statute?
ISSUE 2-
Whether the ICC has jurisdiction to prosecute Ryan Howard for commission of crime
against humanity of deportation or forcible transfer of population under Article 7(1)(d)
of the Rome Statute?
Page | xii Submission by State

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ISSUE 1 - Whether the ICC has jurisdiction to prosecute Ryan Howard for commission
of crime against humanity of murder under Article 7(1)(a) of the Rome Statute?
The argument presented before the Court asserts that the International Criminal Court (ICC)
has jurisdiction to prosecute Ryan Howard for the crime against humanity of murder under
Article 7(1)(a) of the Rome Statute. The submission outlines that the provisions related to the
jurisdiction of the Rome Statute have been satisfied, and the elements of Article 7(1)(a)
regarding crimes against humanity have been met.
The argument emphasizes the gravity of crimes against humanity, stating that they are among
the most serious offenses in the international community and involve conduct prohibited
under generally applicable international law. Murder, as a crime against humanity, is
considered inherently one of the most serious crimes.
The argument supports jurisdiction through the fulfillment of Article 5 of the Rome Statute,
which specifies the crimes falling under the ICC's jurisdiction, including crimes against
humanity.
ISSUE 2- Whether the ICC has jurisdiction to prosecute Ryan Howard for commission
of crime against humanity of deportation or forcible transfer of population under
Article 7(1)(d) of the Rome Statute?
The presented argument challenges the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC)
to prosecute Ryan Howard for the crime against humanity of deportation or forcible transfer
of population under Article 7(1)(d) of the Rome Statute. The defense argues that the ICC
lacks jurisdiction due to the actions being attributed to the State of Wonderland. The
Elements of Article 7(1)(d) are outlined, emphasizing the necessity for a widespread or
systematic attack against a civilian population, knowledge of the attack, and the actual
deportation or forcible transfer.
The State further invokes provisions related to challenges to the ICC's jurisdiction or the
admissibility of a case under Article 19 of the Rome Statute. The argument explores the role
of Article 19(2)(b), which allows a State Party to challenge admissibility if it is actively
investigating or prosecuting the same crimes
Page | 1 Submission by State

WRITTEN ARGUMENTS
ISSUE 1 - Whether the ICC has jurisdiction to prosecute Ryan Howard for commission
of crime against humanity of murder under Article 7(1)(a) of the Rome Statute?
1. It is humbly submitted before the Court that the ICC has the jurisdiction to prosecute Ryan
Howard for commission of crime against humanity of murder under Article 7(1)(a) of the
Rome Statute1. This can be attributed by the Provisions related to the Jurisdiction of the
Rome Statute have been satisfied. [1.1], Element of Article 7(1)(a) Crime against humanity
have been satisfied for the jurisdiction2. [1.2].
2. Crimes against humanity are among the most serious crimes in the international
community3. These crimes are an international responsibility and require conduct which is
outlawed under generally applicable international law. Crimes against humanity include
violations of “jus cogens4” norms at an extreme level. Turning to the crime against humanity
of murder the Chamber observes at the outset that the value protected by the incrimination is
human life, which is a strong factor of gravity. In this regard, the Chamber agrees that
‘murder is inherently one of the most serious crimes’ 5
[1.1] Provisions related to the jurisdiction of the Rome Statute have been satisfied.
3. It is humbly contended before the Hon’ble Court that the ICC has jurisdiction to prosecute
Ryan Howard for commission of crime against humanity of murder under Article 7(1)(a) of
the Rome Statute6. This can be attributed by the Elements of the Article 5 7[1.1.1], Elements
of the Article 13 8 and 15 of the Rome Statute9[1.1.2].
[1.1.1] Elements of the Article 5 of the Rome Statute -
4. 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;
1
Rome Statute, Art. 7(1)(a).
2
Id.
3
Official Records of the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
(ICC-ASP/1/3 and Corr.1), 2002
4
mandatory or peremptory norm of general international law accepted and recognized by
the international community as a norm from which no derogation is permitted. Jus cogens,
BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY Fir(101h ed. 2014)
5
https://www.legal-tools.org/clddoc/63c04658887b027eeab673ce/
6
Id.
7
Rome Statute, Art.5
8
Rome Statute, Art.13
9

(b) Crimes against humanity;
(c) War crimes;
(d) The crime of aggression10
5. As per the above mentioned elements of the article 5 of the Rome Statute it is clear that the
jurisdiction of the court will be determined by the specific crimes that falls under the
jurisdiction of the ICC and in the Pre-Trial Chamber of the International Criminal Court,
based on the submissions made before it by the Office of the ICC Prosecutor, and the
Defence Counsel11, and in appreciation of the evidence, testimonies and amicus briefs
submitted before it by the relevant parties, confirmed the charges against the Accused in
connection with the Situation under investigation that are Article 7(1)(a)12 and 7(1)(d)13
which states that, there is a crime against humanity under Article 5 and the court has the
jurisdiction to prosecute against the Ryan Howard under Article 7(1)(a) of the Rome
Statute14.
[1.1.2] Element of the Article 13 and 15 of the Rome Statute -
6. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that as per the Article 13(c) 15 of the Rome
Statute that states about the exercise of the jurisdiction as per this article there are conditions
given that outlines the ways about how an investigation can start in the court of ICC and in
the situation of Amberland, the Prosecutor has initiated an investigation16 in respect of such a
crime in accordance with article 15 17 which is stated in the Article 13(c)18.
7. Exercise of jurisdiction (Article 13)
The Court may exercise its jurisdiction with respect to a crime referred to in article 5 19 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 20;
(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
10
Id. at 7
11
Compromis, ¶ 5.1
12
Id. at 1
13
Rome Statute, Art.7(1)(d)
14
Id. at 1
15
Rome Statute, Art.13(c)
16
Compromis, ¶ 4.3
17
Id. at 9
18
Id. at 15
19
Id. at 7
20

(c) The Prosecutor has initiated an investigation in respect of such a crime in accordance with
article 1521.
According to The Prosecutor v. Laurent Gbagbo and Charles Blé Goudé
In 2011, the Prosecutor initiated an investigation into crimes committed in Côte d'Ivoire,
including crimes against humanity and war crimes. The Prosecutor concluded that there was a
reasonable basis to believe that these crimes had been committed, and that national
authorities were unwilling or unable to genuinely carry out the investigation or prosecution.
The ICC has since issued arrest warrants for several individuals, including former Ivorian
President Laurent Gbagbo 22.
- This case law is substantiating the situation in Amberland 23 and Article 13(c) that states the
court can exercise his jurisdiction through Article 13(c) which outlines that prosecution can
initiate an investigation in respect to that crime on the basis of information on that crime.
8. It is humbly contented before the Hon’ble Court that as per the Article 15 of the Rome
Statute outlines the process by which the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court
(ICC) can initiate investigations 24. In the situation of the Amberland the prosecutor initiated
the investigation and here we can see the prosecutor exercised his power of jurisdiction under
the article 15 of the Rome Statute25.
9. Prosecutor (Article 15)
1. The Prosecutor may initiate investigations proprio motu on the basis of information on
crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court.
2. The Prosecutor shall analyse the seriousness of the information received. For this purpose,
he or she may seek additional information from States, organs of the United Nations,
intergovernmental or non-governmental organizations, or other reliable sources that he or she
deems appropriate, and may receive written or oral testimony at the seat of the Court.
3. If the Prosecutor concludes that there is a reasonable basis to proceed with an

investigation, he or she shall submit to the Pre-Trial Chamber a request for authorization of
an investigation, together with any supporting material collected. Victims may make
representations to the Pre-Trial Chamber, in accordance with the Rules of Procedure and
Evidence.
4. If the Pre-Trial Chamber, upon examination of the request and the supporting material,
considers that there is a reasonable basis to proceed with an investigation, and that the case
appears to fall within the jurisdiction of the Court, it shall authorize the commencement of the
21
Id. at 8
22
The Prosecutor v. Laurent Gbagbo and Charles Blé Goudé, Case No. ICC-02/11-01/15-369(OA7), 18 Dec
2015
23
Compromis, ¶ 5.1
24
Id. at 9
25
Id

investigation, without prejudice to subsequent determinations by the Court with regard to the
jurisdiction and admissibility of a case.
5. The refusal of the Pre-Trial Chamber to authorize the investigation shall not preclude the
presentation of a subsequent request by the Prosecutor based on new facts or evidence
regarding the same situation.
6. If, after the preliminary examination referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2, the Prosecutor
concludes that the information provided does not constitute a reasonable basis for an
investigation, he or she shall inform those who provided the information. This shall not
preclude the Prosecutor from considering further information submitted to him or her
regarding the same situation in the light of new facts or evidence 26.
According to THE PROSECUTOR v. THOMAS LUBANGA DYILO
In 2004, the Prosecutor initiated an investigation into crimes committed in the DRC,
The ICC has since issued arrest warrants for several individuals, including former DRC
President Laurent Kabila27.
 This case law substantiate the situation in Amberland where the ICC prosecutor
initiated the investigation.
 In the above case also there is a crime against the humanity.
According to The Prosecutor v. Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir
In 2009, the Prosecutor initiated an investigation into crimes committed in Darfur, Sudan,
The ICC has since issued arrest warrants for several individuals, including Sudanese
President Omar al-Bashir28.
- On the basis of the above mentioned case laws these case laws substantiate the
situation in Amberland and Article 15 of the Rome Statute which states about the
prosecutor’s way of exercising of investigation power and how it can initiate the
investigation without the case referred by the State party29.
26
Id
27
THE PROSECUTOR v. THOMAS LUBANGA DYILO, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06, 14 March, 2012
28
The Prosecutor v. Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, Case No. ICC-02/05-01/09, 12 July, 2010
29
Compromis, ¶ 5.1

[1.2] Element of Article 7(1)(a) Crime against humanity have been satisfied for the
jurisdiction.
Crimes against humanity are among the most serious crimes in the international
‘murder is inherently one of the most serious crimes’32.
Crimes against humanity pursuant to the ICC Statute are any of the enumerated acts in
Article 7 “when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any
civilian population, with knowledge of the attack33”
[1.1.1] Contextual elements of Article 7(1)(a) have been satisfied
The contextual element of crimes against humanity is an essential feature, distinguishing it

from ordinary crimes under municipal law and other international crimes such as war
crimes34. The chapeau of Article 7, paragraph 1 of the ICC statute confirms that, " 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."
The contextual elements of crimes against humanity require:
(i) an attack directed against any civilian population;
(ii) a State or organizational policy;
(iii) the widespread or systematic nature of the attack;
(iv) a nexus between the individual act and the attack; and
(v) knowledge of the attack35
Hereby, we can say that the Article 5(b) Crime within the jurisdiction of the court is
substantiated by the Article 7(1)(a) of the Rome Statute as we can see that the situation in the
30
First Sess., U.N. Doc. ICC-ASP/1/3/Add.1, (New York, Sept. 3-10,2002)
31
32
33
Rome Statute, Art.7
34
Akhavan, Payam. “Contributions of the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and
Rwanda to Development of Definitions of Crimes against Humanity and Genocide.” Proceedings of the Annual
Meeting (American Society of International Law) 94 (2000): 279–84. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25659412.
35
Id. at 1

Amberland there are evidences of the crime against humanity and allegations are also there
by the ICC prosecutor in the Pre-Trial Chamber which are confirmed 36.
ISSUE 2- Whether the ICC has jurisdiction to prosecute Ryan Howard for commission
of crime against humanity of deportation or forcible transfer of population under
Article 7(1)(d) of the Rome Statute?
It is humbly submitted before the court that the ICC doesn’t have the jurisdiction to prosecute
Ryan Howard for commission of crime against humanity of deportation or forcible transfer of
population under Article 7(1)(d)37 of the Rome Statute as State of Wonderland . This can be
attributed by the Elements of the 7(1)(d) of the Rome Statute38, Provisions related to the
Challenges to the jurisdiction of the Court or the admissibility of a case of the Rome Statute.
Crimes against humanity are among the most serious crimes in the international
‘murder is inherently one of the most serious crimes’ 41.
Crimes against humanity pursuant to the ICC Statute are any of the enumerated acts in
Article 7 “when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any
civilian population, with knowledge of the attack.42”
[2.1] Elements of the 7(1)(d) crime against humanity of deportation or forcible transfer of
population of the Rome Statute
Crime against humanity of deportation or forcible transfer of population under article 7(1)(d)
comprises of the following essential elements:
1. The conduct was committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack against any
civilian population.
36
Compromis, ¶ 5.1
37
Id. at 13
38
Id
39
Official Records of the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
(ICC-ASP/1/3 and Corr.1), 2002
40
41
42
Id. at 33

2. The perpetrator knew that the conduct was part of or intended the conduct to be part of a
widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.
3. The perpetrator deported or forcibly transferred, without grounds permitted under

international law, one or more persons to another State or location, by expulsion or other
coercive acts.
4. Such person or persons were lawfully present in the area from which they were so deported
or transferred.
5.a [Conduct of deportation or forcible transfer]: The perpetrator meant to engage in the
deportation or forcible transfer, without grounds permitted under international law, of one or
more persons to another State or location.
5.b.i [Consequence of deportation or forcible transfer]: The perpetrator meant to cause one or
more persons to be deported or forcibly transferred, without grounds permitted under
international law, to another State or location.
5. b. ii [Consequence of deportation or forcible transfer]: The perpetrator was aware that

deportation or forcible transfer of one or more persons, without grounds permitted under
international law, to another State or location.
5.c [Circumstance of deportation or forcible transfer without grounds permitted under

international law]: The perpetrator was aware that the deportation or forcible transfer was
without grounds permitted under international law 43.
- In the case of The Prosecutor v. Radovan Karadžić:
The Prosecutor v. Radovan Karadžić was a landmark case for a number of reasons. It was the
first time that a head of state had been convicted of genocide by an international tribunal. The
case also set important precedents in the areas of war crimes and international criminal law 44.
“To establish deportation and forcible transfer, there must be a forced displacement of
persons carried out by expulsion or other forms of coercion. The term "forced" may include
physical force, as well as the threat of force or coercion, such as that caused by fear of
violence, duress, detention, psychological oppression, or abuse of power, or the act of taking
advantage of a coercive environment. The forced character of the displacement is determined
by the absence of genuine choice by the victim in his or her displacement. As such, while
persons may consent to, or even request, their removal, any consent or request to be displaced
must be given voluntarily and as a result of the individual’s free will, assessed in light of the
surrounding circumstances of the particular case.”45
43
Id. at 13
44
Prosecutor v. Rodovan Karadzic, Case No.IT- 95-5/18-AR73.4
45
https://www.casematrixnetwork.org/cmn-knowledge-hub/elements-digest/art-7/7-1-d/3/

[2.2] Provisions related to the Challenges to the jurisdiction of the Court or the
admissibility of a case of the Rome Statute
Whenever two legal systems or regimes can each exercise jurisdiction over the same issues,
some mechanism will usually have to be developed in order to determine which one precedes
first. In the case of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, the International
Criminal Court operates parallel to the national justice systems, which are also positioned to
prosecute the offences in question. The underlying premise of the Rome Statute is that, when
national justice systems fail, the International Criminal Court steps in the preamble to the
Rome Statute recalls that ‘it is the duty of every State to exercise its criminal jurisdiction over
those responsible for international crimes'. Consequently, Article 1946 plays a crucial role in
ensuring that the ICC exercises its jurisdiction and prosecutes cases in a fair and legitimate
manner. It provides mechanisms for ensuring that the Court's intervention is warranted,
appropriate, and in compliance with international law. It also safeguards the rights of States,
the accused, and victims, ensuring that due process is followed and that challenges to
jurisdiction or admissibility are heard and considered impartially and article 1747 of the
statute prescribes that the court may take on a prosecution only when national justice systems
are 'unwilling or unable genuinely' to proceed. The statute addresses the issue under the
rubric of 'admissibility'.
This can be attributed by the Article 19(2)(b) that Challenges to the jurisdiction of the Court
or the admissibility of a case of the Rome Statute[2.2.1]48, Elements of the Article 17 of the
Rome Statute [2.2.2]49, and Scope of gravity in Article 17(1)(d) of the Rome Statute [2.2.2]50.
[2.2.1] Article 19(2)(b) that Challenges to the jurisdiction of the Court or the admissibility of
a case of the Rome Statute.
Article 19 of the Rome Statute establishes the procedures for challenging the jurisdiction of
the International Criminal Court (ICC) or the admissibility of a case brought before the
Court. It outlines the rights of States Parties, the accused, and victims to challenge these
aspects and defines the powers of the Court in addressing such challenges 51.
Challenges to the jurisdiction of the Court or the admissibility of a case- (Article 19(2)(b):
1. The Court shall satisfy itself that it has jurisdiction in any case brought before it. The
Court may, on its own motion, determine the admissibility of a case in accordance with
article 17.
2. Challenges to the admissibility of a case on the grounds referred to in article 17 or

challenges to the jurisdiction of the Court may be made by:
46
47
Id. at 33
48
Rome Statute, Art.19(2)(b)
49
Id. at 33
50
51
Id. at 46

(a) An accused or a person for whom a warrant of arrest or a summons to appear has been
issued under article 58;
(b) A State which has jurisdiction over a case, on the ground that it is investigating or
prosecuting the case or has investigated or prosecuted; or
(c) A State from which acceptance of jurisdiction is required under article 1 52.
Here we are mainly focusing on the Article 19(2)(b) 53 of the part of this article which outlines
and demonstrates about the circumstances in which a State Party to the Rome Statute may
challenge the admissibility of a case brought before the ICC. Specifically, a State Party may
challenge the admissibility of a case if it is currently investigating or prosecuting the same
crimes and if its national proceedings are "genuine" and "substantially underway."
This provision is intended to ensure that the ICC does not intervene in cases where national
authorities are already genuinely and effectively addressing the crimes within their
jurisdiction. It promotes complementarity between the ICC and national justice systems,
encouraging national authorities to take primary responsibility for prosecuting serious crimes.
To determine whether national proceedings are genuine and substantially underway,

the ICC will consider various factors, including:
1. The nature and extent of the national investigation or prosecution: The ICC will assess
whether the national authorities have taken concrete steps to investigate and prosecute the
crimes, including issuing indictments, conducting investigations, and initiating trials.
2. The progress and effectiveness of the national proceedings: The ICC will evaluate whether
the national proceedings are progressing at a reasonable pace and whether they are
demonstrating a genuine effort to bring the perpetrators to justice.
3. The capacity and willingness of national authorities: The ICC will consider whether the
national authorities have the necessary resources and expertise to effectively investigate and
prosecute the crimes.
4. The overall context of the situation: The ICC will consider the political, social, and security
conditions in the country to assess whether national authorities are able to operate
independently and impartially.
And to prove all these various factors regarding the genuineness and substantially underway
we have the witness testimony of the Mr. William Morrison, who is the citizen of the
Wonderland and has been a former judicial officer in the justice delivery system of
Wonderland and has been a judge in the crime and justice branch of the judiciary April 11,
52
Id. at 48
53
Id

2019, to November 2, 2019. The Witness’s testimony relates to the criminal justice system of
Wonderland54.
In this testimony he states that “However, I stand behind the neutrality of the criminal courts
in Wonderland. Our judges are perfectly capable of appreciating evidence submitted by the
investigators from the military of defence in any matter before them. Such judicial assessment
of evidence does not face any interference from either the government or the royal family.
Further, the courts in Wonderland have had historic track record in upholding our
commitments under international law framework. Accordingly, complex matters dealing with
cross-border impact of the actions of individuals or entities operating from Wonderland have
also been handled by our courts with adept precision and efficiency. The legal system of the
country, a dualist system, thus prepares local tools to address infraction of international law
by relevant individuals. To understand our country’s capabilities in serving justice, we must
appreciate the holistic network of feedback received by the judiciary. The judicial branch is
dependent on the investigation carried out by municipal investigators. In case of infractions
relating to personnals connected with the defence forces, this task is assumed by the Ministry
of Defence. Once submitted, the material placed on record is used by the prosecuting military
officials to argue a case before the tribunal of judges. This tribunal is at liberty to analyse the
material submitted before it”55. Thus this testimony of the Mr. William Morrison makes
things very clear and transparent about the judicial system of the State of Wonderland.
In case law of The Prosecutor v. Dominic Ongwen (2016):

The Pre-Trial Chamber considered a challenge to the admissibility of the case under Article
19(2)(b) raised by Uganda. The Chamber determined that Uganda's national proceedings
were not genuine or substantially underway, allowing the ICC to proceed with its own
investigation and prosecution56.
In case law of The Prosecutor v. Ali Al-Kuwaiti and Al-Amuli (2020):

The Pre-Trial Chamber considered a challenge to the admissibility of the case under Article
19(2)(b) raised by Libya. The Chamber determined that Libya's national proceedings were
not genuine or substantially underway, allowing the ICC to proceed with its own
investigation and prosecution57.
[2.2.2] Elements of the Article 17 of the Rome
Article 17 of the Rome Statute lists three scenarios in which a case is inadmissible before the
ICC due to the existence of national proceedings. The article reads thus:
Article 17: Issues of admissibility
1. Having regard to paragraph 10 of the Preamble and article 1, the Court shall determine that
a case is inadmissible where:
(a) The case is being investigated or prosecuted by a State which has jurisdiction over it,
unless the State is unwilling or unable genuinely to carry out the investigation or prosecution;
54
Compromis, ¶ Wonderland’s witness 1
55
Compromis, ¶ Wonderland’s witness 1
56
The Prosecutor v. Dominic Ongwen, Case No. ICC-02/04-01/15, 1 July 2002
57
The Prosecutor v. Ali Al-Kuwaiti and Al-Amuli, Case No. ICC-02/13-01/09, 6 Dec,2016

(b) The case has been investigated by a State which has jurisdiction over it and the State has
decided not to prosecute the person concerned, unless the decision resulted from the
unwillingness or inability of the State genuinely to prosecute;
(c) The person concerned has already been tried for conduct which is the subject of the
complaint, and a trial by the Court is not permitted under article 20, paragraph 3;
(d) The case is not of sufficient gravity to justify further action by the Court.
2. In order to determine unwillingness in a particular case, the Court shall consider, having
regard to the principles of due process recognized by international law, whether one or more
of the following exist, as applicable:
(a) The proceedings were or are being undertaken or the national decision was made for the
purpose of shielding the person concerned from criminal responsibility for crimes within the
jurisdiction of the Court referred to in article 558;
(b) There has been an unjustified delay in the proceedings which in the circumstances is
inconsistent with an intent to bring the person concerned to justice;
(c) The proceedings were not or are not being conducted independently or impartially, and
they were or are being conducted in a manner which, in the circumstances, is inconsistent
with an intent to bring the person concerned to justice.
3. In order to determine inability in a particular case, the Court shall consider whether, due to
a total or substantial collapse or unavailability of its national judicial system, the State is
unable to obtain the accused or the necessary evidence and testimony or otherwise unable to
carry out its proceedings59.
From this, the following can be concluded (assuming that the ICC has jurisdiction and the
case is of sufficient gravity):
1) a case which is not being and has not been investigated or prosecuted by a state with
jurisdiction is always admissible;
2) a case that is being or has been investigated or prosecuted by a state with jurisdiction is
inadmissible unless one or more of the exceptions apply; and
3) when such proceeding exists, the case is presumed inadmissible but is admissible if the
state is or has been unwilling or unable to proceed genuinely 60.
- In case law of The Prosecutor v. Laurent Gbagbo (2014):
58
Id. at 7
59
60
Iyasu, M., & Aston, Journal of the Indian Law Institute, Vol. 53(4), No. 4, ¶ 626–651, 2011

In this case, the Pre-Trial Chamber considered a challenge to the admissibility of the case
under Article 17(a)61. The Chamber determined that the case was admissible because the
national authorities in Côte d'Ivoire were not genuinely carrying out an investigation or
prosecution of the same crimes. And the Pre-Trial Chamber considered a challenge to the
admissibility of the case under Article 17(1)(c)62. The Chamber determined that the case was
inadmissible because the national authorities were genuinely carrying out an investigation or
prosecution of the same crimes. However, the Chamber later reversed its decision and
declared the case admissible after the national authorities failed to take substantial steps to
advance their investigations63.
- In case law of The Prosecutor v. Omar Hassan Ahmed Al-Bashir (2015):
under Article 17(a)64. The Chamber determined that the case was admissible because the UN
Security Council had not referred the situation in Sudan to the ICC under Article 13(b)65. And
the Pre-Trial Chamber considered a challenge to the admissibility of the case under Article
17(1)(a) and (b). The Chamber determined that the case was inadmissible because the UN
Security Council had not referred the situation to the ICC under Article 13(b) 66.
[2.2.3] Scope of gravity in Article 17(1)(d) of the Rome Statute
Due to insufficient gravity, the case is inadmissible pursuant to Article 17(1)(d) 67 of the
Rome Statute. The gravity assessment of a case considers the person and conduct constituting
the subject of the proceedings. The gravity threshold is a key tool for ensuring the Court’s
effectiveness in maximising crime prevention.
Both, quantitative and qualitative elements, are relevant for the Court’s gravity assessment.
While the quantitative dimension deals with the scale of the crimes, the qualitative dimension
considers factors such as nature and manner of commission of the alleged crimes, their
impact and the role and degree of participation of the accused. All relevant factors considered
as a whole, not individually, have to meet the gravity threshold 68.
The case neither meets the quantitative [(i)] nor the qualitative criteria [(ii)].
61
Rome Statute, Art.17(a)
62
Rome Statute, Art.17(1)(c)
63
The Prosecutor v. Laurent Gbagbo and Charles Blé Goudé, Case No. ICC-02/11-01/15-1400, 16 Dec, 2010
64
Id. at 61
65
Rome Statute, Art.13(b)
66
Id.
67
68
Iyasu, Muzit, and Joshua N. Aston. “ADMISSIBILITY OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT.”
Journal of the Indian Law Institute, vol. 53, no. 4, 2011, ¶ 626–51. JSTOR, 27 Nov. 2023.

(i) The Quantitative Criterion is Not Fulfilled
The scale of the drone attacks is insufficient to meet the quantitative criterion. Factors for
assessing the scale are the number of victims , the extent of damage caused, and the
geographical or temporal spread.
Pursuant to Rule 85(a) RPE, ‘victims’ are natural persons who have suffered harm due to the
commission of any crime within the Court’s jurisdiction. This includes direct victims, whose
harm results from the commission of a crime, and indirect victims, suffering harm due to
their relationship with a direct victim. If there was a crime, it would not be committed against
the 700 lawfully attacked pirates. Thus, they cannot count as direct victims and their relatives
cannot qualify as indirect victims. If the Court disagrees that the 300 civilian causalities are
lawful collateral damage, solely these could be counted towards the scale 69.
Nevertheless, 300 victims would not satisfy the quantitative criterion. In

Bangladesh/Myanmar with up to 10,000 deaths, the Court additionally considered 600,000
forced displacements for concluding that the scale is of sufficient gravity. In Kenya with up to
200 deaths, displacements of over 10,000 people, several hundred brutal injuries and sexual
violence were additionally considered 70.
It is believed that between the period of 2015 to 2022, some six hundred (600) men either
belonging to the Xanderian population or those extending sympathy towards the victims of
the KRA aggression have been killed by the militia. As per local news outlets, the violence in
the region during the given period resulted in the migration of some one hundred and twenty
(120) households from the region. Therefore, only 600 men killed and migration of some 120
households from the region over a period of 6 years doesn’t satisfy the quantitative
criterion71.
(ii) The Qualitative Criteria are Not Fulfilled
The nature, manner of commission and impact of the crimes as well as the Defendant’s role
in their commission are not sufficiently grave.
Firstly, the alleged crimes are not sufficiently grave in nature. As all cases within the Court’s
jurisdiction are inherently serious, the relevant conduct must present additional features
rendering it especially grave128. The Court considered killings to be particularly grave when
they entailed torture or inhumane treatment. Thanos provided drones to KRA. This does not
imply elements of particular gravity. Considering this sufficiently grave would undermine the
intended function of the gravity threshold as an additional safeguard130. Therefore, the
provision of drones is not sufficiently grave in nature72.
Secondly, the impact of the alleged acts is not sufficiently grave. The impact considers inter
alia the sufferings endured by victims, the terror subsequently instilled, and the damage
inflicted on affected communities. The southern regions of the country which remained
largely isolated from the seat of power in Amberland. These southern regions were historic
bastions of the Kobolian population and were marked with little to no development in terms
69
Muzit, supra note 10, at 627
70
Muzit, supra note 10, at 627
71
Compromis, ¶ 3.6
72
Compromis, ¶ 3.8

of infrastructure or assessability. The Xanderian population in these regions, albeit few

hundred in natureThe attack by the KRA caused the death of 600 of the Xanderian population
or those extending sympathy towards the victims of the KRA aggression 73. Considering the
overall population, Only a region of the state was affected. Thus, the impact of the alleged
crimes is not sufficiently grave74.
Thirdly, the Defendant’s role in the commission of the alleged crimes is insufficient. The
Court focuses on those who bear the greatest responsibility for the crimes committed. The
conduct of secondary perpetrators may meet the gravity threshold, given they played a key
role. After the alleged handover of the drones, Thanos lost control over the weapons.
However, this must not be the reason for prosecuting the Defendant, who did not play a key
role in the commission of the alleged attacks. Ryan Howard, on October 21, 2015, announced
his formal resignation from the company Thanos and has long retired from actively managing
the affairs of Thanos and just continues to steer and guide the company and his affiliates,
albeit in a revised role. He has been sitting behind a desk and working as an advisor to
Wonderland75.
Overall, the alleged acts were neither quantitatively nor qualitatively of sufficient gravity to
meet the threshold of Article 17(1)(d)76 RS. While the Defence regrets the fatalities, the case
needs to be declared inadmissible.
In case law of The Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui (2009):
under Article 17(d). The Chamber determined that the case was admissible because the
crimes committed, including widespread and systematic attacks on civilians, were of
sufficient gravity to warrant the Court's intervention 77.
In case law of The Prosecutor v. Dominic Ongwen (2016):

The Pre-Trial Chamber determined that the case was admissible under Article 17(d) despite
the accused's claim that the crimes were not sufficiently grave. The Chamber emphasized the
systematic nature of the crimes and the significant harm inflicted on victims78.
In case law of The Prosecutor v. Ali Al-Kuwaiti and Al-Amuli (2020):

The Pre-Trial Chamber determined that the case was admissible under Article 17(d), finding
that the alleged crimes of torture and other inhumane acts committed against detainees in
Libya were of sufficient gravity79.
73
Compromis, ¶ 3.6
74
Id. at 67
75
Compromis, ¶ 2.5
76
Id. at 67
77
The Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-3436-tENG, 24
March, 2014
78
The Prosecutor v. Dominic Ongwen, Case no. ICC-02/04-01/15-422-Red, ICL 1681 (ICC 2016)
79
The Prosecutor v. Ali Al-Kuwaiti and Al-Amuli, Case No. ICC-02/13-01/09, Judgment (Trial Chamber), ¶
287-292

PRAYER
Wherefore, in the light of the issues raised, arguments on merits, evidences supplied and
authorities relied on, it is humbly prayed that:
I. The ICC may retain the power if jurisdiction to prosecute the Ryan Howard
under Art 7(1)(a) of the Rome Statute.
II. The ICC may grant relief to the State for the power of jurisdiction to
prosecute the Ryan Howard under Art 7(1)(d) of the Statute.
All of which is respectfully submitted,
ON BEHALF OF THE STATE
STATE COUNSEL

State - HPNLU

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

State - HPNLU

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

State - HPNLU

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

VII S.K.

PURI MEMORIAL INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION JUSTIFIED 2023

VII S.K. PURI MEMORIAL INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL TRIALADVOCACY COMPETITION

TRIAL CHAMBER II, INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT

The Hague, The Netherlands

THE PROSECUTOR PROSECUTION

RYAN HOWARD DEFENSE

DEFENDANT CHARGED WITH

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE

Page | i Submission by State

Original: English Date: [1st December, 2023]

Before: Judge__________________, the Presiding Judge

SITUATION IN THE STATE OF AMBERLAND IN THE CASE OF

THE PROSECUTOR V. RYAN HOWARD

Source: Office of the Prosecutor

Page | ii Submission by State

Page | iii Submission by State

IHL International Humanitarian Law

EOC Elements of Crimes

ICC International Criminal Court

Rome Statute International Criminal Court Statute

ICTR International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda

ICTY International Criminal Tribunal for the Former

Page | iv Submission by State

TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS

1. International Committee Of The Red Cross (ICRC), Geneva Convention

Page | v Submission by State

4. ICRC and UNIVERSITE LAVAL, The Principle of Proportionality in

INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT

 Elements of Crime, Rome Statute

 Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of

Page | vi Submission by State

: resolution / adopted by the GeneralAssembly, 21 March 2006, A/RES/60/147

1. WILLIAM A. SCHABAS , NADIA BERNAZ, ROUTLEDGE HANDBOOK OF

JOURNALS AND ARTICLES

1. Luke Moffet, Accountability for Forced Displacement in Democratic

Page | vii Submission by State

Page | viii Submission by State

Page | ix Submission by State

Concurrently, Wonderland's state-run media launched a vigorous disinformation and

Page | x Submission by State

1. Article 7(1)(a) crime against humanity of murder

2. Article 7(1)(d) crime against humanity of deportation or forcible transfer

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE TRIAL CHAMBER

Page | xi Submission by State

Page | xii Submission by State

Page | 1 Submission by State

[1.1.1] Elements of the Article 5 of the Rome Statute -

4. Crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court

(a) The crime of genocide;

Page | 2 Submission by State

(b) Crimes against humanity;

(c) War crimes;

(d) The crime of aggression10

[1.1.2] Element of the Article 13 and 15 of the Rome Statute -

7. Exercise of jurisdiction (Article 13)

Page | 3 Submission by State

According to The Prosecutor v. Laurent Gbagbo and Charles Blé Goudé

9. Prosecutor (Article 15)