applicant memorial 3a

3A

2001 NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

ON INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW

PROSECUTOR VS. DAVID DABAR

27–30 September 2011

of 25

1. TABLE OF CONTENTS

Index of Authorities 3

Statement of Facts 5

Parties

5

Facts 6

Summary of the Pleadings 13

Pleadings Proper 15

Claims 15

Claim 1 – Crime Against Humanity of Deportation or

Forcible Transfer of Population 15

Claim 2 – War Crime of Hostage Taking 18

Claim 3 – War Crime of Willful Killing 22

Relief Requested 25

of 25

2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

TREATIES

1. Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the

Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field. Geneva, 12

August 1949

2. Convention (II) for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded,

Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea. Geneva,

12 August 1949

3. Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War.

Geneva, 12 August 1949

4. Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in

Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949

5. Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949,

and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International

Armed Conflicts (Protocol II), 8 June 1977

6. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

STATUTES

1. Statute of the International Criminal Court

of 25

ARTICLES

1. Qualifications of Armed Conflicts (http://www.adh-

geneva.ch/RULAC/qualification_of_armed_conflict.php)

2. United Nations Doc. PCNICC/2000/1/Add.2 [2000]

CASES

1. Decision on the Defense Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on

Jurisdiction, IT-94-1-AR72, 2 October 1995 (Tadic}Appeal I).

2. Situation in the democratic republic of the Congo in the case of the

prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui

3. Tadić case, No. IT-94-1-AR72, § 70.

OTHERS

1. Concise Oxford Dictionary 2004 11e

of 25

http://www.adh-geneva.ch/RULAC/qualification_of_armed_conflict.php

http://www.adh-geneva.ch/RULAC/qualification_of_armed_conflict.php

3. STATEMENT OF FACTS

A. PARTIES

3.1. The prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), by virtue of the

reported violations of international humanitarian laws to wit, killings, torture,

displacement of civilians, attacks on civilians, and destruction of civilian

property, applied for and initiated proceedings against David Dabar.

3.2. The prosecutor, applicant herein, brought the following charges

against David Dabar:

3.1.1 Crime Against Humanity of Deportation or Forcible

Transfer of Population

3.1.2 War Crime of Taking Hostages

3.1.3 War Crime of Killing

3.3. David Dabar, respondent herein, was elected to the Losovo

Provincial Assembly on behalf of the FDP and in-charge of the law and

order affairs in the Losovo Executive Council. David Dabar was seen as

the figurehead of the Nomag Democratic Resistance Alliance (NDRA).

3.4. David Dabar was subsequently proclaimed as the chief of the

NDRA as established by the FDP to bring about the independence of

Losovo.

3.5. David Dabar was primarily charged by the Prosecutor of the ICC

for the alleged crimes:

3.5.1. Crime Against Humanity of Deportation or Forcible

Transfer of Population

3.5.2. War Crime of Taking Hostages

of 25

3.5.3. War Crime of Killing

B. FACTS

3.6. This case has been instituted by the Prosecutor of the ICC against

the alleged crimes committed by David Dabar against the State and the

People of Vanilia.

3.7. Vanilia obtained its independence in 1959. It is bordered by the

Maxicum Sea on the east with a coastline of more than 500 kilometres, by

the Republic of Berryland to the south and west and the Republic of

Mingolia to the north. Vanilia is federal state divided into three provinces

and has a population of around 20 million people. It is populated by the

Lemi people who are mostly Protestant and Swarohi speaking (56% of

population) and by the Nomag people who are Catholic and Nomagi

speaking (32% of population). The Nomag people, though spread across

the country, are in the majority in the province of Losovo, which borders

Berryland. Many believe that the Nomags came to Vanilia from Berryland

during the colonial period as indentured labourers. Others think that

Losovo is in fact the original land of the Nomags, and that they later

spread from Losovo into Berryland. It was made part of Vanilia only

because of the existing colonial administrative divisions at the time of

independence. Owing to the circumstances of the independence of the

three countries which left many issues unresolved, Vanilia continues to

have border disputes with its neighbours Mingolia and Berryland. There

have been sporadic border incidents with exchange of fire across the

borders.

3.8. After the independence, Vanilia adopted a political system of

representative democracy with a multiparty system. The President

appoints the leader of the party which wins the majority in the legislative

of 25

elections as Prime Minister, who then chooses the members of his cabinet

among elected deputies. The People's United Democratic Party (PUDP)

has formed the successive governments since independence. Though the

PUDP claims to be secular and have countrywide support, it is mainly

supported by the Lemis. Its main political agenda is said to be the

protection and promotion of Lemi rights and well-being (which feel that

they were discriminated against as a minority during the colonial era). The

Federal Democratic Party (FDP) has been the main opposition party and

openly claims to protect the interests of the Nomags.

3.9. A general resentment among Nomags is that they have been

neglected by the successive governments and are not proportionately

represented in the political decision making which has resulted to the

neglect of the welfare and economic development of the Nomag people.

Some organizations also claim that the Nomags are under-represented in

the main sectors of the economy and discriminated against in the public

service.

3.10. Ever since the independence, some Nomag groups have been

spearheading the idea of an independent Losovo state.

3.11. In the provincial elections, the Federal Democratic Party (FDP)

won an overwhelming majority in the Losovo Provincial Assembly and

formed the executive council.

3.12. The FDP established the National Democratic Resistance Alliance

(NDRA) with the avowed objective to obtain the independence of Losovo.

3.13. David Dabar was elected to the Losovo Provincial Assembly on

behalf of the FDP and in-charge of law and order affairs in the Losovo

Executive Council.

of 25

3.14. On October 15, 2008 Vanilia’s independence day was marred by a

demonstration of around 500 people from the NDRA hoisting a “Losovo

National Flag”.

3.15. On November 30, 2008, the NDRA, while fast in recruitment,

declared its separation from the FDP. David Dabar was proclaimed chief

of the NDRA and will spearhead the campaign for Losovo’s

independence. Dabar remained a member of the Losovo Executive

Council.

3.16. On December 5, 2008, students from Rizoba University formed the

Nomag Student Alliance (NSA) which aims to co-fight for Nomag’s rights

in co-ordination with other groups. The NSA issued a call for boycott of

classes to be enforced in “military forms” if necessary.

3.17. On February 3, 2009, Pro-Losovo independence associations were

also formed. Said associations agreed to coordinate their works and to see

necessary national and international support. The final declaration

indicated that all associations would take guidance from the NDRA and its

leader David Dabar.

3.18. On February 3, 2009, several attacks on the Lemis of Losovo in 5

towns lead to a death toll of 126 and 239 injuries. The government is of

strong belief that the NSA was behind said attacks.

3.19. Several newspapers published a report based on a NDRA internal

document purporting to eliminate the influence of the Lemis in Losovo.

The government of Vanilia confirmed the expulsion of the Lemis and their

displacement in temporary camps. The NDRA and the NSA did not deny

such forced expulsion but in turn posed in their press releases that Lemis

of 25

that had left the province would be welcomed back in only after Losovo

had achieved independence and on the condition that they would swear

allegiance to the new state of Losovo.

3.20. On February 10, 2009, as reported that increasing attacks on Lemi

residences in Rizoba by NSA members were to be expected. The same

evening, David Dabar went around the Pleasant Gardens area along with

NDRA members and erected roadblocks to control the movement of the

residents.

3.21. On February 10, 2009, the NSA members went to the residences

and forcibly brought out more than 400 Lemi residents into the area’s

main square. The NSA members divided the residents into two groups:

men, and women and children. They were taken across the border, on the

territory of Berryland, though such territory remained a contentious one as

Vanilia also claimed it despite an arbitral award in favour of Berryland

which was disputed by Vanilia.

3.22. An occasion was reported where several attacks had taken place on

the property of the Vanilian government as well as on private property

where 39 people were killed. Lemis were again forced to flee to other

provinces.

3.23. On 22 May 2009 at around midnight, a camp of the security forces

on the outskirts of Rizoba was attacked by armed men and in the pitched

battle that ensued between the armed men and security forces, the camp

site was in ashes by the next morning. 156 bodies of the security forces

and 53 unidentified bodies were recovered from the site. It was reported

by local officials that armed men were continuing their attacks on

government property, mainly offices and vehicles, as well as on Lemi

of 25

people and their property. Three highways connecting Losovo with other

cities in Vanilia were blocked by armed youths at Losovo borders.

3.24. On 28 May 2009, David Dabar convened a press conference and

declared that the NDRA would organize a rally the next day and declare

the independence of Losovo. On 29 May 2009, thousands of people

gathered on the Rizoba University grounds. Dabar greeted the crowds and

thanked them for being supportive of the cause of the liberation of

Losovo. He announced that the FDP government had issued a declaration

of independence. Losovo was now an independent sovereign country. The

NDRA was soon to be in control of the entire province. He said that from

now on, the Losovo administration was going to be in the hands of Nomag

and for the interests of the Nomags. All Nomags in other parts of Vanilia

were welcome to settle in Losovo to participate in the development of the

new country. Adopting a warning tone, he said that non-Nomag people

could remain in Losovo. However, he added, all, including Lemi people,

should respect the law of the country. At the end of the meeting, he

introduced Wilson Mula, leader of the FDP, and announced that he would

be leading the interim government for the next one year, until a new

constitution was drafted and a constitutionally-elected government took

over.

3.25. On 2 June 2009, Berryland recognized Losovo, followed by

Mingolia on 4 June. In an extension of solidarity to a fellow people, the

Berryland government waived the visa requirement for Losovo citizens for

one year, which it said would help stabilizing Losovo. The Berryland

Prime Minister also promised to extend the necessary support to the newly

formed Losovo government. With regard to international relations, in his

first press conference, Mula announced that Losovo wished to maintain

friendly relations with all countries and that it would succeed to all

multilateral international treaties to which Vanilia was a party that dealt

of 25

with human rights and international humanitarian law. With regard to

other treaties, including bilateral treaties, they would be reviewed within

the next two years. The first official act of the new government was to

grant by decree Losovo citizenship to all Lemis residing in the province.

Other residents were to be granted citizenship at their request if they

undertook to live in Losovo and swore allegiance to the new State. A new

law on citizenship was soon to be adopted.

3.26. In the night of 9 June 2009, more than 500 Vanilian forces were

attacked when they moved into Losovo, but nonetheless managed to come

within 100 kilometers of Rizoba. Fierce fighting continued through the

night resulting in heavy casualties on both sides.

3.27. During the night of 10 June, NDRA fighters patrolling Rizoba and

reinforcing their control over the city took control of the VPF secretariat

office. They found around 150 people, including women and children,

having taken their quarters in the building. Interrogated by the NDRA,

they replied that because of the continuing fear of attacks against them,

they had taken refuge in the secretariat's premises to spend the night. After

searching the premises, 16 Vanilia-manufactured weapons were found in

one of the rooms located at the back of the building. When questioned

about the weapons, the occupants said they knew nothing about them. The

NDRA fighters then separated the women and children, and took the men

along with them. The next morning, David Dabar declared that they had

successfully thwarted an attempt of Vanilian forces, wearing civilian

clothing, taking shelter in the VPF secretariat to imminently attack, in co-

ordination with other forces entering Losovo, the new government of

Losovo.

3.28. In the last week of June 2009, it was reported by the media that the

camps, in which Lemis were kept since the 10 February 2009, were

of 25

evacuated and the people were allowed to go. It was further reported that

most had not returned to Rizoba. It was unclear whether they had been

prevented to return or did not wish to return because of the security

situation.

3.29. As the situation worsened, on 6 July 2009, the Minota Economic

Forum (MEF), a regional organization working for economic co-operation

in the region, appealed to all parties to restrain themselves and to declare a

ceasefire, and requested the United Nations Security Council to intervene

in the matter. It further invited the Vanilian government and the FDP to

Geneva to negotiate a solution to the conflict. The Vanilian government

expressed its willingness and nominated a ten-member delegation. The

FDP also expressed its willingness to send a delegation provided that the

issue of secession remained non-negotiable. The FDP nominated its

delegation headed by Mr. William Tanatia, the Minister for Foreign

Affairs of the interim government of Losovo.

3.30. Based on the warrant issued by the ICC Prosecutor, and confirmed

by a pre-trial chamber of the ICC, plain-clothed Vanilian security forces

took David Dabar into custody from his residence in Rizoba on 5 August

2009 and surrendered him to the ICC for trial.

of 25

4. SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS

4.1. CLAIM 1 – Crime against humanity of deportation or forcible

transfer of population.

Applicant submits that the respondent has committed the crime against

humanity of deportation or forcible transfer of population in relation to the

acts committed during the incidents that took place in Rizoba city on or

about the 3rd and 12th of February 2009 amounting to a violation of Article

7(1)(d) of the Statute of International Criminal Court. Applicant also

submits that, Vanilia being signatories of the Four Geneva Conventions

and the Additional Protocols, respondent has violated the provisions of

such treaties so signed.

4.2. CLAIM 2 – War Crime of Taking Hostages

Applicant submits that the respondent has committed the war crime of

taking hostages in relation to the acts committed during the incidents that

took place in Rizoba city on or about the 12th of February 2009 and

thereafter amounting to a violation of Article 8(3)(c)(iii) of the Statute of

International Criminal Court. Applicant also submits that, Vanilia being

signatories of the Four Geneva Conventions and the Additional Protocols,

respondent has violated the provisions of such treaties so signed.

4.1 CLAIM 3 – War Crime of Willful Killing

of 25

Applicant submits that the respondent has committed the war crime of

wilful killing in relation to the acts committed during the incidents that

took place in Rizoba city on or about the 10th of June 2009 and thereafter

amounting to a violation of Article 8(2)(a)(i) of the Statute of International

Criminal Court. Applicant also submits that, Vanilia being signatories of

the Four Geneva Conventions and the Additional Protocols, respondent

has violated the provisions of such treaties so signed.

of 25

5. PLEADINGS PROPER

5.1 CLAIMS

5.1.1 CLAIM 1

Applicant submits that the respondent has violated Article 7

(1) (d) of the Statute of ICC.

Applicant submits that the acts committed by respondent

characterized the existence of the elements of the crime.

1. 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.

Under the Statute of the ICC, "Deportation or forcible

transfer of population" means forced displacement of the

persons concerned by expulsion or other coercive acts from

the area in which they are lawfully present, without

grounds permitted under international law.

The term “forcibly” is not restricted to physical force, but

may include threat of force or coercion, such as that caused

by fear of violence, duress, detention, psychological

oppression or abuse of power, against such person or

of 25

persons or another person, or by taking advantage of a

coercive environment.1

In this context, the positive confirmation of Vanilia’s

authorities of the expulsion of the Lemis out of Losovo and

the fact that their return is predicated on Losovo’s

achievement of independence and on the condition that

they would swear allegiance to its new state bear out the

existence of the first element.

2. Such person or persons were lawfully present in the

area from which they were so deported or transferred.

The fact that the Lemis had inhabited Vanilia even prior to

its independence establishes the lawful presence of the

Lemis in Losovo.

3. The perpetrator was aware of the factual

circumstances that established the lawfulness of such

presence.

The fact that the perpetrator is part of the FDP, who openly

claims to protect the interests of the Nomags, as against the

Lemis, shows his awareness of the factual circumstances

that established the lawfulness of the Lemis’ presence.

4. The conduct was committed as part of a widespread

or systematic attack directed against a civilian

population.

1 United Nations Doc. PCNICC/2000/1/Add.2 n.5, 12 [2000]

of 25

“Attack directed against a civilian population” in these

context is understood to mean a course of conduct

involving the multiple commission of acts referred to in

article 7, paragraph 1, of the Statute against any civilian

population, pursuant to or in furtherance of a State or

organizational policy to commit such attack. The acts need

not constitute a military attack. It is understood that “policy

to commit such attack” requires that the State or

organization actively promote or encourage such an attack

against a civilian population.2

Also, Article 13 (2) of the Protocol II of 1977 provides that

the civilian population as such, as well as individual

civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of

violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror

among the civilian population are prohibited.3

5. 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.

The acquiescence of the perpetrator and his subsequent

statement evince his knowledge of the end-goal of the

conduct.

The last two elements for each crime against humanity

describe the context in which the conduct must take place.

These elements clarify the requisite participation in and

knowledge of a widespread or systematic attack against a

2 United Nations Doc. PCNICC/2000/1/Add.2, Introduction to Article 7 [3], [2000]3 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II), 8 June 1977.

of 25

civilian population. However, the last element should not

be interpreted as requiring proof that the perpetrator had

knowledge of all characteristics of the attack or the precise

details of the plan or policy of the State or organization. In

the case of an emerging widespread or systematic attack

against a civilian population, the intent clause of the last

element indicates that this mental element is satisfied if the

perpetrator intended to further such an attack.4

Further, Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention and

Article 17 of Protocol II allow total or partial evacuation of

the population “if the security of the population or

imperative military reasons so demand”. Article 49,

however, specifies that “persons thus evacuated shall be

transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the

area in question have ceased”.

Dabar, as the head of the NDRA and a figurehead of the

NSA, however, failed to meet the requirement provided for

under the aforementioned. Thus violating Article 13 of the

Universal Declaration of Human Rights5 and Article 7 (1)

(d) of the Rome Statute.

5.1.2 CLAIM 2


(2)(c)(iii) of the Statute of ICC.

4 United Nations Doc. PCNICC/2000/1/Add.2, Introduction to Article 7 [2], [2000]5 Article 13 “Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state”UN General Assembly Resolution 217(III) A (A/RES/217(III) A) of December 10, 1948: “Universal Declaration of Human Rights “

of 25

http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?Open&DS=A/RES/217(III)&Lang=E&Area=RESOLUTION



Elements:

1. The perpetrator seized, detained or otherwise held

hostage one or more persons.

The purpose of the occupation of Pleasant Gardens was

unfounded. Whatever the reasons of the NDRA, be it

patriotic or not, it is unlawful as an aggregate of the

Vanilian government and, moreover, forcible abduction of

persons qualifies as taking of hostages. The NDRA’s

assertions are all but baseless conjectures cloaked in the

form of a “peaceful revolution”

A hostage is defined as “A person seized or held as security

for the fulfilment of a condition”6 and as the same source

defines, a perpetrator is a person “who carries out or

commits a harmful, illegal or an immoral action”7

As evinced in several instances, the NSA, a faction of

NDRA, divided the groups of the Lemis to men and

women, the purpose of which is not for a “utopia” for

Nomads and Lemis alike, but a devious and ruthless way to

attain sovereignty.

2. The perpetrator threatened to kill, injure or continue

to detain such person or persons.

6 Concise Oxford Dictionary 2004 11e7 Concise Oxford Dictionary 2004 11e

of 25

As aforementioned, NDRA’s constituent, NSA executed

the taking of hostages. In the February 12 incident, the only

evidence available was derived from the Media, ergo not

direct evidence per se. However, it can be reasonably

inferred from the acts subsequent to February 12 that the

real purpose was to secure the secessionist stand of the

NDRA, and that is through force, i.e. infliction of physical

harm to ferret out submission.

3. The perpetrator intended to compel a State, an

international organization, a natural or legal person or

a group of persons to act or refrain from acting as an

explicit or implicit condition for the safety or the release

of such person or persons.

There already exist armed hostilities between the opposing

parties. The NDRA purposely disobeyed the mandate of its

government by waging a civil war for its vie of

independence. By securing Pleasant Gardens, the NDRA is

making it absolutely certain that no foreign power may

obstruct their propaganda.

4. Such person or persons were either hors de combat,

or were civilians, medical personnel or religious

personnel taking no active part in the hostilities.

The people involved are men, women and children, all of

which are inhabitants and residents of Rizoba. There was

no evidence supporting that they are in fact part of the anti-

secessionist stand of the government of Vanilia.

of 25

5. The perpetrator was aware of the factual

circumstances that established this status.

While it is true that mere existence in an occasion does not

necessarily follow knowledge of the status, as ascertained

in the incident on February 12, what is more reasonably

possible and in fact ascertainable is the June 10 incident

wherein Dabar, himself, affirmed the taking of hostages

himself through declaration. It then intertwines the two

incidents, February 12 and June 10 in tune with each other

as Dabar being the facilitator, and hence follows

knowledge.

6. The conduct took place in the context of and was

associated with an armed conflict not of an

international character.

The conflict was within Vanilia itself and not International

entities. The aggression between the Vanilian government

and the NDRA was precedent, and the ratification of

foreign entities is an offspring of the violent usurpation of

the NDRA of Losovo.

7. The perpetrator was aware of factual circumstances

that established the existence of an armed conflict.

The goal was liberation and what was given by Dabar in his

speech in Rizoba was an admission of past acts, and as

such, contemplates awareness of armed conflict. The cause

of liberation spoken of can be informed by considering the

of 25

events that transpired. Finally, announcing the declaration

of independence signifies knowledge of this fact.

5.1.3 CLAIM 3


(2)(a)(i) of the Statute of ICC.



Elements of Crimes

1. The perpetrator killed one or more persons.

In view of the fact that neither a sign of life nor remains of

the rest of the people held captive by Dabar, we

respectfully conclude that the captives were killed by Dabar

and submit for the conviction of him for the crime of

Willful Killing under the Rome Statute.

The term “killed” is interchangeable with the term “caused

death”.8 Thus, we need not establish the existence of an

active killing within the purview of the term “killed”;

rather, the death of the remaining people fall under the term

“caused death” which is more encompassing of the

circumstances present.

2. Such person or persons were protected under one or more

of the Geneva Conventions of 1949.

8 United Nations Doc. PCNICC/2000/1/Add.2 n. 31 (2000)

of 25

3. The perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances

that established that protected status.

Further, these people are protected under the Fourth

Geneva Convention9 for being mere civilians who were just

seeking refuge in the secretariat’s premises, much worse

are the facts that women and children are among these

people; the assertion of Dabar that they are Vanilian forces

in civilian clothing is, at best, a wooden-iron, and the

Vanilia-manufactured weapons allegedly found with them

were never shown by Dabar, these facts only militate

against the veracity of Dabar’s assertion and must thus fail.

4. The conduct took place in the context of and was

associated with an international armed conflict and;

5. The perpetrator was aware of factual circumstances that

established the existence of an armed conflict.

With respect to nationality, it is understood that the

perpetrator needs only to know that the victim belonged to

an adverse party to the conflict.10 The underlying fact is that

Dabar well knew of the fact that the people are civilians of

Vanilia yet still persisted with his iniquitous desire to

eliminate them in the armed conflict.

An “armed conflict” exists whenever there is a resort to

armed force between States or protracted armed violence

9 Art. 4. Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals. 10 United Nations Doc. PCNICC/2000/1/Add.2 n. 33 (2000)

of 25

between governmental authorities and organized armed

groups or between such groups within a State.11

It is not disputed that an armed conflict exists between

Dabar’s group and the VPF. There is no doubt that the

killing occurred not only within the frame of, but in close

relation to, that conflict.

Lastly, there is no requirement for a legal evaluation by the

perpetrator as to the existence of an armed conflict or its

character as international or non-international12; In that

context there is no requirement for awareness by the

perpetrator of the facts that established the character of the

conflict as international or non-international13, there is only

a requirement for the awareness of the factual

circumstances that established the existence of an armed

conflict that is implicit in the terms “took place in the

context of and was associated with”.14

11 Decision on the Defense Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, IT-94-1-AR72, 2 October 1995 (Tadi}Appeal I).12 United Nations Doc. PCNICC/2000/1/Add.2 Introduction to Article 8 (a) (2000)13 United Nations Doc. PCNICC/2000/1/Add.2 Intorduction to Article 8 (b) (2000)14 United Nations Doc. PCNICC/2000/1/Add.2 Intorduction to Article 8 (c) (2000)

of 25

6. RELIEF REQUESTED

Wherefore, applicant submits that David Dabar has violated the provisions of

the Statute of the ICC

Wherefore the applicant prays that this court adjudge and declare;

7.1 that David Dabar is guilty of committing the crime against humanity

of deportation or forcible transfer of population under Article 7 (1) (d)

of the Statute of the ICC.

7.2 that David Dabar is guilty of committing the war crime of taking

hostages under Article 8 (3) (c) (iii) of the Statute of the ICC.

7.3 that David Dabar is guilty of committing the war crime of willful

killing under Article 8 (2) (a) (i) of the Statute of the ICC.

of 25

applicant memorial 3a

Documents