Memorial for Defense

Team Diamond

In the International Criminal Court (ICC)

Pre-Trial Chamber II

Case No.: ICC/PTC/2024/01

Prosecutor

versus

Habirov Pyxis

Submitted in accordance with the Rules of the 2nd Bahria International Moot Court
Competition, 2024

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENSE

1
Memorial for Defense

Table of Contents

Cover Page ……………………………………………………………………………….. 01

Table of Content ………………………………………………………………………… 02

Table of Abbreviations ………………………………………………………………….. 3-4

Index of Authorities …………………………………………………………………….. 5-7

Statement of Jurisdiction………………………………………………………………..8

Statement of Facts……………………………………………………………………….13

Questions Presented……………………………………………………………………19

Summary of Pleadings…………………………………………………………………..22

Pleadings………………………………………………………………………………..25

Prayer for Relief………………………………………………………………………32

2
Memorial for Defense

Table of Abbreviation

Abbreviation Full Form Explanation and Relevance

ICC International Criminal Court Judicial institution established

under the Rome Statute to
prosecute individuals for
international crimes, including
genocide, crimes against
humanity, war crimes, and
aggression.

OTP Office of the Prosecutor The independent prosecutorial

organ of the ICC, responsible for
conducting investigations and
initiating prosecutions in cases
within the ICC’s jurisdiction.

PTC Pre-Trial Chamber A chamber of the ICC tasked with

determining the admissibility of
cases, ensuring procedural
compliance, and authorizing
investigations.

DRZ Democratic Republic of Zeishar A neighboring state of PRN and

one of the regions severely
affected by the avalanche of 5
November 2022. DRZ’s
involvement highlights the
regional impact of the disaster.

3
Memorial for Defense

PRN People’s Republic of Nimrovia The Respondent state in the

present case, led by President
Habirov Pyxis. The Prosecution
alleges that PRN’s policies
contributed to the avalanche.

RS Rome Statute Foundational treaty of the ICC,

defining its jurisdiction, structure,
and the crimes it adjudicates. The
Defense relies on its provisions,
particularly Articles 5, 7, and 17.

WMO World Meteorological Organization A specialized United Nations

agency that provided the scientific
report attributing the avalanche to
natural climatic and geological
factors.

ICJ International Court of Justice Principal judicial organ of the

United Nations, cited for its
jurisprudence on sovereignty and
non-intervention, relevant to
PRN’s defense.

HRV Human Rights Violations Acts that infringe upon

fundamental human rights, central
to the determination of whether
the alleged actions qualify as
crimes against humanity.

4
Memorial for Defense

Index of Authorities

1. Cases

a. Prosecutor v Lubanga Dyilo (ICC-01/04-01/06) Judgment of 14 March

2012:1

Established the foundational requirement of intent (mens rea) and causation

(actus reus) for criminal liability under the Rome Statute

b. Prosecutor v Laurent Gbagbo (ICC-02/11-01/11) Decision of 12 June

2014: Clarified the elements necessary to establish crimes against
humanity, particularly the requirement for deliberate, widespread, or
systematic attacks targeting civilian populations.2

c. Prosecutor v Omar Al-Bashir (ICC-02/05-01/09) Decision of 4 March

2009: Discussed the complexities of prosecuting heads of state and the
necessity of clear evidence to establish personal culpability.3

d. Nicaragua v United States of America (ICJ Reports 1986):

Affirmed the principle of state sovereignty and non-intervention, central to the

Defense’s argument against ICC overreach.4

e. Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic

of the Congo v Uganda) (ICJ Reports 2005):

Provided guidance on the limits of international intervention and the balance

between state sovereignty and international accountability.5

1 Prosecutor v Thomas Lubanga Dyilo (Judgment) (14 March 2012) ICC-01/04-01/06.

2 Prosecutor v Laurent Gbagbo (Decision) (12 June 2014) ICC-02/11-01/11.
3 Prosecutor v Omar Hassan Ahmad Al-Bashir (Decision) (4 March 2009) ICC-02/05-01/09.
4 Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v United States of America)

[1986] ICJ Rep 14.

5 Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v Uganda) (2005)

ICJ Rep 168.

5
Memorial for Defense

2. Treaties and Conventions

a. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998)

The foundational document establishing the ICC’s jurisdiction and procedures,

with key provisions in Articles 5, 7, and 17 relevant to this case.6

b. Charter of the United Nations (1945):

Particularly Article 2(7), which safeguards state sovereignty and prohibits

external interference in domestic matters.7

c. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966):

Protects fundamental civil and political rights, relevant to PRN’s governance

and resource management policies.8

3. Scholarly Articles

a. Antonio Cassese, International Criminal Law (3rd edn, Oxford University

Press 2013):

Authoritative analysis of the Rome Statute’s provisions and the principles

underpinning international criminal law.9

b. Malcolm Shaw, International Law (8th edn, Cambridge University Press

2017): Examines the interplay between sovereignty and accountability,
particularly in cases involving state policies and international jurisdiction.
10

6 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court 1998, arts 5, 7, 17

7 Charter of the United Nations 1945, art 2(7).
8 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966, art 1
9 Antonio Cassese, International Criminal Law (3rd edn, Oxford University Press 2013).
10 Malcolm Shaw, International Law (8th edn, Cambridge University Press 2017).

6
Memorial for Defense

c. Hans Kelsen, Principles of International Law (2nd edn, Rinehart 1952):

Provides foundational commentary on state sovereignty and the legal
principles governing state responsibility.11

4. Reports and Other Sources

a. World Meteorological Organization, Report on Climatic Conditions

Contributing to the Munaria Avalanche, Annex-II:

Scientific findings attributing the avalanche to natural climatic and geological

factors.12

b. News Report from Zeishar Times, Annex-III:

Provided initial accounts of the avalanche’s impact and allegations of

negligence against PRN.13

11Hans Kelsen, Principles of International Law (2nd edn, Rinehart 1952).

12 World Meteorological Organization, ‘Report on Climatic Conditions Contributing to the Munaria
Avalanche’ (2023).
13 Zeishar Times, ‘Avalanche Crisis and Its Aftermath’ (2023).

7
Memorial for Defense

Statement of Jurisdiction

The Defense respectfully submits that the International Criminal Court (ICC) lacks jurisdiction
over the case against President Habirov Pyxis on the grounds of substantive and procedural
deficiencies, as well as the principles enshrined in the Rome Statute, international legal
precedents, and customary international law. This statement addresses the following core
aspects:

1. The ICC lacks subject-matter jurisdiction under Article 5 of the Rome Statute.
2. The principle of complementarity under Article 17 precludes ICC intervention.
3. Procedural irregularities render the ICC's assertion of jurisdiction inadmissible.
4. The actions of the People’s Republic of Nimrovia (PRN) fall within the realm of state
sovereignty protected under international law.

1. Lack of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

The ICC’s subject-matter jurisdiction, as defined in Article 5 of the Rome Statute, is limited
to the prosecution of four core crimes: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the
crime of aggression. The Defense asserts that the charges against President Pyxis do not fall
within the scope of these crimes.

1.1 The Avalanche Does Not Constitute a War Crime

Under Article 8(2)(b)(iv) of the Rome Statute, war crimes require intentional acts that cause
incidental harm to civilians or the natural environment, where such harm is clearly excessive
in relation to the anticipated military advantage.14 However, the avalanche of 5 November
2022 was a natural disaster exacerbated by extreme weather conditions and geological factors,
as corroborated by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).15 There is no evidence
to suggest that the actions of the Nimrovian government deliberately caused harm to civilians
or the environment.

14Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court 1998, art 8(2)(b)(iv).

15World Meteorological Organization, ‘Report on Climatic Conditions Contributing to the Munaria
Avalanche’ (2023).

8
Memorial for Defense

● In Prosecutor v Ntaganda, the ICC emphasized the necessity of demonstrating a direct

causal link between the alleged act and the resultant harm.16 In the current case, no such
causation exists.

1.2 Natural Disasters Are Beyond the Scope of ICC Jurisdiction

The Rome Statute was not designed to address events resulting from natural phenomena. The
avalanche’s occurrence was independent of any intentional human act. While the Prosecution
alleges that the use of the ANQ-DNB 313 munition contributed to the avalanche, the scientific
evidence provided by the WMO concludes otherwise.

● In Prosecutor v Gbagbo, the ICC clarified that crimes against humanity require
deliberate targeting of civilians as part of a widespread or systematic attack. 17 This
essential element of intentionality is absent in this case.

2. Complementarity Principle Under Article 17

The ICC functions as a court of last resort, intervening only when national legal systems are
unwilling or unable to prosecute alleged crimes.18 The Defense asserts that PRN’s legal and
judicial mechanisms are fully capable of addressing the allegations.

2.1 PRN’s Robust Domestic Framework

PRN has demonstrated its willingness and ability to investigate the events of 5 November
2022. The government has launched a comprehensive inquiry into the incident, including its
causes and consequences. These efforts align with the principles of complementarity, which
prioritize domestic jurisdictions over ICC intervention.

16 Prosecutor v Bosco Ntaganda (Judgment) (8 July 2019) ICC-01/04-02/06.

17 Prosecutor v Laurent Gbagbo (Decision) (12 June 2014) ICC-02/11-01/11
18 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court 1998, art 17

9
Memorial for Defense

● In Prosecutor v Katanga, the ICC emphasized the primacy of national systems and
deferred jurisdiction where domestic investigations were deemed adequate.19

2.2 Absence of Unwillingness or Inability

The Prosecution has not presented any credible evidence to suggest that PRN’s judicial system
is unwilling or unable to prosecute. As stipulated in Article 17(2) of the Rome Statute,
unwillingness must be established through clear and convincing evidence of bias or
obstruction, which is absent in this case.20

3. Procedural Irregularities in ICC Prosecution

The Defense contends that procedural irregularities undermine the legitimacy of the ICC’s
assertion of jurisdiction.

3.1 Flawed Proprio Motu Investigation

The Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) initiated its proprio motu investigation under Article 15 of
the Rome Statute based on speculative reports rather than credible evidence. The reliance on
circumstantial data from non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and media sources fails to
meet the evidentiary threshold required for ICC investigations.

● In Prosecutor v Al Mahdi, the ICC underscored the necessity of robust evidentiary

foundations at the initiation stage to prevent jurisdictional overreach.21

19 Prosecutor v Germain Katanga (Judgment) (7 March 2014) ICC-01/04-01/07

20 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court 1998, art 17(2)
21 Prosecutor v Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi (Judgment) (27 September 2016) ICC-01/12-01/15.

10
Memorial for Defense

3.2 Inadequate Consideration of Complementarity

The OTP failed to adequately assess PRN’s domestic mechanisms before initiating
proceedings, contravening the principles outlined in Article 17.22 This procedural oversight
further invalidates the ICC’s jurisdiction.

4. Sovereignty and Non-Interference

The Defense asserts that PRN’s actions fall within its sovereign rights, as protected under
Article 2(7) of the United Nations Charter.

4.1 Protection of State Sovereignty

PRN’s policies, including the deployment of advanced defense systems, were lawful exercises
of its sovereignty aimed at protecting territorial integrity and national security.23 These actions
are beyond the purview of international scrutiny unless clear violations of international law are
demonstrated.

● In Nicaragua v United States, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) reaffirmed the
principle of non-intervention, emphasizing that domestic policymaking is shielded from
external interference.24

4.2 Acts of State Doctrine

The acts of state doctrine provides immunity for actions undertaken by government officials in
their official capacities. President Pyxis acted within his constitutional authority to safeguard
PRN’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

22 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court 1998, art 17(2)

23 Charter of the United Nations 1945, art 2(7).
24 Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v United States of America)

[1986] ICJ Rep 14.

11
Memorial for Defense

● In Prosecutor v Al-Bashir, the ICC acknowledged the complexities of attributing

individual liability to heads of state without clear evidence of personal culpability.25

25 Prosecutor v Omar Hassan Ahmad Al-Bashir (Decision) (4 March 2009) ICC-02/05-01/09.

12
Memorial for Defense

Statement of Facts

The Defense respectfully presents the following facts, which are derived from the events
outlined in the case. These facts are essential for understanding the circumstances surrounding
the charges against President Habirov Pyxis and the legal context for the Defense’s arguments.

1. The Avalanche and Its Devastating Consequences

On 5 November 2022, a catastrophic avalanche occurred in the Munaria region, which

straddles the border between the People’s Republic of Nimrovia (PRN) and the Democratic
Republic of Zeishar (DRZ). The avalanche caused widespread destruction and human suffering
on an unprecedented scale.

1.1 Human Casualties and Displacement

● The avalanche led to the tragic loss of over 1,000 lives, with the majority being residents
of Munaria in PRN.26
● Thousands were displaced from their homes due to the destruction of villages and
settlements in the affected regions.27
● Families were forced to seek refuge in emergency shelters, creating a severe
humanitarian crisis.

1.2 Damage to Infrastructure

● Critical infrastructure, including roads, schools, hospitals, and communication

networks, was obliterated, hindering rescue and relief operations.28

26 World Meteorological Organization, ‘Report on Climatic Conditions Contributing to the Munaria

Avalanche’ (2023).
27 Ibid.
28Zeishar Times, ‘Avalanche Crisis and Its Aftermath’ (2023)

13
Memorial for Defense

● The economic losses in the region were estimated to exceed millions of dollars, severely
impacting local economies reliant on agriculture and tourism.29

1.3 Regional Impact

● While PRN bore the brunt of the avalanche’s destruction, its effects extended into DRZ,
where agricultural fields and rural communities were also devastated.30
● This cross-border impact has led to heightened regional tensions and international
scrutiny of PRN’s policies.

2. Scientific Analysis of the Avalanche’s Causes

2.1 Findings of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO)

Following the disaster, the WMO conducted an independent investigation into the causes of
the avalanche. The report highlighted the following:

1. Climatic Extremes:
○ Munaria experienced record-breaking snowfall in the weeks leading up to the
avalanche, creating unstable snowpacks.31
○ A sudden increase in temperature caused rapid melting, which further
destabilized the region’s slopes.32

2. Seismic Activity:
○ Geological studies confirmed minor tremors in the area shortly before the
avalanche, further weakening the snowpacks and triggering the event.33
3. No Evidence of Human Contribution:
○ The WMO found no direct evidence linking human activities, such as
deforestation or mining, to the avalanche.34

29 Ibid.
30 World Meteorological Organization (n 1)
31 Ibid.
32 Ibid.
33 Ibid.
34 Ibid.

14
Memorial for Defense

○ The report concluded that natural factors were the sole cause of the disaster.

2.2 PRN’s Use of ANQ-DNB 313 Defense System

The Prosecution alleges that PRN’s use of the ANQ-DNB 313 munitions destabilized the
region, contributing to the avalanche. However:

● PRN deployed the defense system as part of a lawful exercise to safeguard its territorial
integrity amidst rising tensions with DRZ.35
● The WMO report explicitly refutes any link between the munitions and the geological
conditions that caused the avalanche.36

3. PRN’s Policy Decisions and Developmental Initiatives

3.1 Resource Management Policies

The Prosecution alleges that PRN’s resource management policies, including mining and
deforestation, exacerbated the conditions leading to the avalanche. However, these policies
were implemented in compliance with international environmental standards and aimed at
economic development.

1. Deforestation Projects:
○ PRN’s deforestation projects were limited in scope and designed to create space
for agricultural expansion and infrastructure development.37
○ Environmental impact assessments were conducted prior to these activities,
with no evidence of negative outcomes.38

35 People’s Republic of Nimrovia, ‘Independent Commission Report on the Avalanche Incident’

(2023).
36 World Meteorological Organization (n 1).
37 Environmental Modification Convention 1978 (ENMOD), art 1.
38 People’s Republic of Nimrovia, ‘Environmental Impact Assessment Report’ (2023).

15
Memorial for Defense

2. Mining Operations:
○ Mining activities in Munaria adhered to domestic and international regulations,
including those under the Environmental Modification Convention
(ENMOD).39
○ The operations were geographically distant from the avalanche site, ruling out
any potential impact.40

3.2 Disaster Mitigation and Risk Management

PRN had implemented disaster risk reduction measures, including early warning systems and
evacuation plans. However, the sudden onset of the avalanche overwhelmed these systems,
leaving little time for effective intervention.

4. PRN’s Response to the Avalanche

The government of PRN, under the leadership of President Pyxis, took immediate action to
mitigate the impact of the disaster and assist affected populations.

4.1 Relief Efforts

1. Humanitarian Aid:
○ PRN mobilized resources to provide temporary shelters, medical aid, and food
supplies to displaced families.41
○ Collaboration with international organizations, such as the WMO and Red
Cross, ensured timely delivery of relief supplies.42

39 Ibid.
40 Ibid.
41 Zeishar Times (n 3).
42 Ibid.

16
Memorial for Defense

2. Infrastructure Repair and Reconstruction:

○ Efforts to rebuild critical infrastructure began within weeks of the disaster,
including the restoration of transportation and communication networks.43

4.2 Independent Investigation

PRN established an independent commission to investigate the causes of the avalanche and
assess its impacts. This investigation highlighted the natural origins of the disaster and provided
recommendations for future disaster risk management.

4.3 Regional Cooperation

Despite tensions with DRZ, PRN extended offers of assistance to its neighbor, emphasizing the
need for collaborative disaster response mechanisms.44

5. Allegations by the Prosecution

The Prosecution claims that PRN’s policies and actions contributed to the avalanche. However,
these allegations lack credible evidence and are contradicted by independent investigations and
scientific findings.

5.1 Alleged Negligence in Resource Management

● The Prosecution argues that deforestation and mining destabilized the region’s slopes.
However, no scientific evidence supports this claim.45
● PRN’s policies were lawful, limited in scope, and subject to environmental
assessments.

43 People’s Republic of Nimrovia, ‘Post-Avalanche Infrastructure Restoration Report’ (2023).

44 World Meteorological Organization (n 1).
45 Environmental Modification Convention 1978 (ENMOD), art 1

17
Memorial for Defense

5.2 Use of ANQ-DNB 313

● The Prosecution alleges that PRN’s use of the ANQ-DNB 313 munitions triggered the
avalanche. This claim is refuted by the WMO’s findings, which attribute the disaster
solely to natural factors.46

5.3 Failure to Protect Civilians

● The Prosecution alleges that PRN failed to protect its citizens. However, the Defense
asserts that the sudden and unpredictable nature of the avalanche rendered preventative
measures ineffective.

46 World Meteorological Organization (n 1).

18
Memorial for Defense

Questions Presented

he Defense respectfully submits the following questions for the consideration of this Honorable
Court. These questions address the fundamental legal and factual issues in the case, providing
a framework for adjudication:

1. Does the ICC have jurisdiction under the Rome Statute over a natural disaster caused
by geological and climatic factors?

The ICC’s jurisdiction is confined to the core crimes enumerated in Article 5 of the Rome
Statute: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression. The
Defense contends that the avalanche of 5 November 2022, caused by natural phenomena, falls
outside the Court’s jurisdiction. This question requires the Court to determine whether the
allegations against President Habirov Pyxis satisfy the elements of crimes under the Rome
Statute, specifically under Articles 7 and 8.

2. Can President Habirov Pyxis be held criminally responsible without evidence of intent
(mens rea) and causation (actus reus) under the Rome Statute?

The Prosecution alleges that President Pyxis’ policies contributed to the avalanche and its
devastating consequences. However, under Articles 25 and 30 of the Rome Statute, criminal
responsibility requires clear evidence of intent (mens rea) and a causal link (actus reus)
between the alleged actions and the harm caused. The Defense submits that no such evidence
exists, as the policies in question were lawful and unrelated to the natural disaster.

3. Does the complementarity principle under Article 17 of the Rome Statute preclude ICC
intervention, given PRN’s robust domestic mechanisms?

Under Article 17, the ICC acts as a court of last resort and intervenes only when national legal
systems are unwilling or unable to prosecute alleged crimes. PRN has demonstrated its
willingness and ability to address the allegations through independent investigations and relief

19
Memorial for Defense

efforts. This question requires the Court to consider whether PRN’s functioning judicial
mechanisms render the case inadmissible before the ICC.

4. Are the sovereign rights of the People’s Republic of Nimrovia (PRN) sufficient to shield
its domestic policies from international scrutiny under Article 2(7) of the United Nations
Charter?

PRN’s policies, including resource management and defense initiatives, fall within its
sovereign prerogatives under Article 2(7) of the United Nations Charter. The Defense asserts
that the ICC’s intervention infringes upon PRN’s sovereignty and undermines the principles of
non-interference. This question requires the Court to determine the extent to which PRN’s
sovereign rights protect its actions from external adjudication.

5. Can PRN’s deployment of the ANQ-DNB 313 defense system be deemed a contributing
factor to the avalanche, despite scientific evidence to the contrary?

The Prosecution alleges that the deployment of the ANQ-DNB 313 munitions contributed to
the avalanche. However, findings from the World Meteorological Organization (WMO)
confirm that the disaster was caused solely by natural climatic and geological factors. This
question challenges the Prosecution’s claim and highlights the lack of scientific evidence
supporting causation.

6. Does the use of lawful governance and resource management policies constitute
negligence or recklessness under international law?

The Prosecution claims that PRN’s policies, such as deforestation and mining, exacerbated the
conditions leading to the avalanche. However, the Defense contends that these policies were
lawful, implemented in good faith, and in compliance with international environmental
standards. This question addresses the threshold for negligence or recklessness under
international law and whether it applies in the absence of clear evidence of harm.

20
Memorial for Defense

7. Can the principle of state sovereignty and the acts of state doctrine shield President
Pyxis from liability for actions undertaken in his official capacity?

The acts of state doctrine and principles of sovereignty under international law provide
immunity for actions performed in an official capacity. This question requires the Court to
assess whether President Pyxis, acting within the constitutional framework of PRN, can be held
personally liable in the absence of evidence linking his decisions to the alleged crimes.

8. Should the ICC exercise caution in asserting jurisdiction over matters involving natural
disasters to prevent overreach and maintain its credibility?

The ICC’s mandate is to prosecute the most serious crimes of international concern. Expanding
its jurisdiction to include natural disasters risks diluting its focus and credibility. This question
addresses the broader implications of this case on the ICC’s role and jurisdiction.

21
Memorial for Defense

Summary of Pleadings

The Defense respectfully submits the following summary of its arguments, addressing the
Prosecution’s claims and demonstrating that the charges against President Habirov Pyxis are
unfounded under the Rome Statute, international law, and the principles of justice.

1. The ICC Lacks Jurisdiction Over the Present Case

The avalanche of 5 November 2022 was a natural disaster caused by climatic and geological
factors, as confirmed by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). The ICC’s
jurisdiction, defined in Article 5 of the Rome Statute, is limited to four core crimes: genocide,
crimes against humanity, war crimes, and aggression. None of these crimes are applicable in
this case. Specifically:

● The Prosecution has failed to demonstrate that the avalanche was caused by intentional
human actions, a necessary element for crimes against humanity under Article 7.
● The allegations of environmental harm do not meet the criteria for war crimes under
Article 8, which require intentional and excessive harm during an armed conflict.

The Defense asserts that natural disasters fall outside the scope of the ICC’s jurisdiction.

2. The Prosecution Has Failed to Establish Criminal Responsibility

Under Articles 25 and 30 of the Rome Statute, criminal liability requires proof of both intent
(mens rea) and causation (actus reus). The Defense submits that:

● PRN’s resource management and defense policies were lawful and implemented in
good faith to promote economic development and safeguard national security.
● The Prosecution has failed to establish a direct causal link between these policies and
the avalanche. Scientific evidence, including the WMO’s findings, attributes the
disaster solely to natural phenomena, such as record-breaking snowfall and seismic
tremors.
● The allegations against President Pyxis lack the requisite evidence to demonstrate
criminal responsibility.

22
Memorial for Defense

3. PRN’s Domestic Mechanisms Preclude ICC Intervention

Under the principle of complementarity enshrined in Article 17 of the Rome Statute, the ICC
acts as a court of last resort, intervening only when national legal systems are unwilling or
unable to prosecute. PRN’s robust response to the avalanche, including independent
investigations and relief measures, demonstrates its willingness and capability to address the
matter. Specifically:

● PRN has launched transparent and independent investigations to assess the causes and
consequences of the avalanche.
● The Prosecution has not presented credible evidence to suggest that PRN’s judicial
mechanisms are inadequate or biased.

The Defense submits that the principle of complementarity renders ICC jurisdiction
inadmissible in this case.

4. Scientific Evidence Refutes the Prosecution’s Claims

The WMO’s report provides conclusive scientific evidence that the avalanche was triggered by
natural factors, including:

● Climatic extremes, such as record-breaking snowfall and sudden warming, which

destabilized the region’s slopes.
● Seismic activity, which further weakened the snowpacks, leading to the avalanche.

The report explicitly refutes any link between human activities, such as mining or deforestation,
and the disaster. The Prosecution’s claims of negligence or recklessness are therefore
unfounded.

23
Memorial for Defense

5. PRN’s Sovereign Rights Protect Its Domestic Policies

Under Article 2(7) of the United Nations Charter, PRN’s domestic policies, including
resource management and defense initiatives, are protected by the principle of sovereignty. The
Defense asserts that:

● PRN’s actions were lawful exercises of its sovereign rights and cannot be subjected to
external scrutiny unless clear violations of international law are established.
● ICC intervention in this matter constitutes an infringement on PRN’s sovereignty and
undermines the principle of non-interference in domestic affairs.

6. The Use of ANQ-DNB 313 Defense System Was Lawful and Unrelated to the Avalanche

The Prosecution alleges that the deployment of the ANQ-DNB 313 munitions contributed to
the avalanche. However:

● The defense system was deployed as a lawful measure to safeguard PRN’s territorial
integrity amidst rising tensions with the Democratic Republic of Zeishar (DRZ).
● The WMO’s findings explicitly refute any connection between the munitions and the
geological conditions that caused the avalanche.

The Defense submits that these allegations are speculative and unsupported by scientific
evidence.

7. The Acts of State Doctrine and Sovereignty Shield President Pyxis from Liability

The acts of state doctrine and principles of sovereignty under international law provide
immunity for actions performed by government officials in their official capacities. President
Pyxis acted within his constitutional authority to advance PRN’s national interests. The absence
of evidence linking his decisions to the alleged crimes further precludes personal liability.

24
Memorial for Defense

Pleadings

1. Lack of Jurisdiction of the ICC in the Present Case

1.1 Subject-Matter Jurisdiction Under Article 5 of the Rome Statute

The ICC’s jurisdiction is limited to four core crimes under Article 5: genocide, crimes against
humanity, war crimes, and aggression. The avalanche of 5 November 2022, caused by natural
climatic and geological factors, falls outside these categories.

Natural Disasters Are Beyond the ICC’s Mandate:

The Rome Statute was not designed to address environmental or geological phenomena.
Crimes against humanity under Article 7 require deliberate actions targeting civilians as part
of a systematic attack. The avalanche’s indiscriminate impact and natural origin negate such
classification.47

Scientific Evidence Confirms Natural Causes:

The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) report attributes the avalanche to record-
breaking snowfall and seismic activity, with no evidence of human contribution.48

Precedent in Prosecutor v Laurent Gbagbo:

The ICC clarified that crimes against humanity require deliberate, organized human action
targeting civilians. Such intent is absent in this case.49

47 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court 1998, art 7.

48 World Meteorological Organization, ‘Report on Climatic Conditions Contributing to the Munaria
Avalanche’ (2023).
49 Prosecutor v Laurent Gbagbo (Decision) (12 June 2014) ICC-02/11-01/11.

25
Memorial for Defense

1.2 Complementarity Principle Precludes ICC Intervention

The complementarity principle under Article 17 of the Rome Statute ensures that the ICC acts
as a court of last resort, intervening only when national systems are unwilling or unable to
prosecute.

PRN’s Domestic Mechanisms Are Functional:

PRN has launched independent investigations into the avalanche and implemented disaster
relief efforts. These actions demonstrate the government’s willingness and ability to address
the matter.50

Precedent in Prosecutor v Katanga:

The ICC deferred jurisdiction in Katanga, emphasizing the primacy of domestic legal systems
where they are functional.

1.3 Procedural Irregularities in the ICC’s Prosecution

The Defense submits that the proprio motu investigation initiated by the Office of the
Prosecutor (OTP) under Article 15 of the Rome Statute was procedurally flawed.

Flawed Evidentiary Basis:

The OTP relied on speculative media reports and unverified NGO claims to initiate the
investigation. In Prosecutor v Al Mahdi, the ICC emphasized the importance of robust evidence
at the initiation stage.51

50 People’s Republic of Nimrovia, ‘Independent Commission Report on the Avalanche Incident’

(2023).
51 Prosecutor v Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi (Judgment) (27 September 2016) ICC-01/12-01/15.

26
Memorial for Defense

Failure to Assess Complementarity:

The Prosecution failed to adequately consider PRN’s domestic mechanisms, contravening the
principles outlined in Article 17.52

2. No Criminal Responsibility for the Alleged Acts

2.1 Lack of Intent (Mens Rea) and Causation (Actus Reus)

Under Articles 25 and 30 of the Rome Statute, criminal responsibility requires proof of intent
(mens rea) and a causal link (actus reus) between the alleged actions and the harm caused. The
Prosecution has failed to establish either element.

Absence of Deliberate Intent:

The Respondent’s policies, including mining and deforestation, were lawful initiatives aimed
at economic development. No evidence suggests these actions were intended to harm
civilians.53

o Prosecutor v Lubanga Dyilo: The ICC held that intent is a fundamental element of liability
under the Rome Statute.54

52 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court 1998, art 17.

53 People’s Republic of Nimrovia, ‘Environmental Impact Assessment Report’ (2023).
54 Prosecutor v Thomas Lubanga Dyilo (Judgment) (14 March 2012) ICC-01/04-01/06.

27
Memorial for Defense

No Evidence of Causation:

The WMO’s findings confirm that the avalanche resulted solely from natural factors, absolving
PRN’s policies of any causal role.55

2.2 Lawful Governance Decisions

Compliance with Domestic and International Standards:

PRN’s resource management and defense policies adhered to international guidelines,

including those under the Environmental Modification Convention (ENMOD).56

Precedent in Prosecutor v Laurent Gbagbo:

Governance actions, even if controversial, do not constitute crimes against humanity unless
deliberate targeting of civilians is demonstrated.57

3. Scientific Evidence Refutes the Prosecution’s Claims

3.1 Findings of the World Meteorological Organization

The WMO report provides conclusive evidence that the avalanche was triggered by natural
phenomena, including:

Climatic Extremes:

Record-breaking snowfall and sudden warming destabilized the region’s slopes, creating
conditions for the avalanche.58

55 World Meteorological Organization, ‘Report on Climatic Conditions Contributing to the Munaria

Avalanche’ (2023).
56 Environmental Modification Convention 1978 (ENMOD), art 1.
57 Prosecutor v Laurent Gbagbo (Decision) (12 June 2014) ICC-02/11-01/11.
58 World Meteorological Organization, ‘Report on Climatic Conditions Contributing to the Munaria

Avalanche’ (2023).

28
Memorial for Defense

Seismic Activity:

Geological studies confirmed minor tremors shortly before the avalanche, further weakening
the snowpacks.59

No Human Contribution:

The WMO explicitly stated that no evidence links human activities, such as mining or
deforestation, to the disaster.60

3.2 Deployment of the ANQ-DNB 313 Defense System

The Prosecution alleges that PRN’s use of the ANQ-DNB 313 munitions contributed to the
avalanche. However:

Lawful Deployment:

The defense system was deployed as part of PRN’s territorial security measures and did not
affect the geological conditions of the avalanche site.61

59 Geological Survey of Nimrovia, ‘Seismic Activity Report for Munaria Region’ (2023).
60 World Meteorological Organization, ‘Report on Climatic Conditions Contributing to the Munaria
Avalanche’ (2023).
61 People’s Republic of Nimrovia, ‘Independent Commission Report on the Avalanche Incident’

(2023).

29
Memorial for Defense

Scientific Refutation:

The WMO’s findings confirm that the avalanche was caused solely by natural climatic and
geological factors.62

4. Defense of Sovereignty and Acts of State Doctrine

4.1 Sovereign Rights of PRN Under International Law

PRN’s domestic policies are protected under Article 2(7) of the United Nations Charter, which
upholds state sovereignty and prohibits external interference.

Lawful Resource Management:

PRN’s policies were designed to promote economic development and were implemented
within its constitutional framework.63

Precedent in Nicaragua v United States:

The ICJ reaffirmed that domestic policymaking is protected under the principle of non-
intervention.64

4.2 Acts of State Doctrine

The acts of state doctrine shields government officials from liability for actions performed in
their official capacities.

62 World Meteorological Organization, ‘Report on Climatic Conditions Contributing to the Munaria

Avalanche’ (2023).
63 Charter of the United Nations 1945, art 2(7).
64 Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v United States of America)

[1986] ICJ Rep 14.

30
Memorial for Defense

Immunity for Official Acts:

President Pyxis acted within his constitutional authority to advance PRN’s national interests.

Precedent in Prosecutor v Omar Al-Bashir:

The ICC recognized the complexities of attributing individual liability to heads of state without
clear evidence of personal culpability.65

65 Prosecutor v Omar Hassan Ahmad Al-Bashir (Decision) (4 March 2009) ICC-02/05-01/09.

31
Memorial for Defense

Prayer for Relief

The Defense respectfully requests this Honorable Court to render judgment in favor of the
Respondent, President Habirov Pyxis, and to:

1. Declare the Lack of ICC Jurisdiction

Recognize that the avalanche of 5 November 2022 was a natural disaster caused by
geological and climatic factors, falling outside the scope of crimes enumerated under
Article 5 of the Rome Statute.

2. Affirm the Complementarity Principle

Acknowledge that the People’s Republic of Nimrovia (PRN) has functioning
domestic mechanisms capable of addressing the allegations, in line with Article 17 of
the Rome Statute.

3. Dismiss All Charges Against President Pyxis

Conclude that the Prosecution has failed to establish the requisite elements of criminal
liability, including intent (mens rea) and causation (actus reus), as required under
Articles 25 and 30 of the Rome Statute.

4. Recognize the Sovereign Rights of PRN

Affirm PRN’s governance, resource management, and defense policies as lawful
exercises of its sovereignty under Article 2(7) of the United Nations Charter.

5. Accept the Findings of the WMO

Acknowledge that the World Meteorological Organization’s independent
investigation conclusively attributes the avalanche to natural causes, absolving PRN’s
policies of any culpability.

6. Reiterate the ICC’s Role as a Court of Last Resort

Emphasize the importance of the ICC focusing on serious crimes of international
concern, avoiding overreach into natural disasters or speculative allegations.

7. Award Any Further Relief Deemed Just

Grant any additional relief this Honorable Court finds appropriate to uphold justice
and fairness in this case.

32