Defendant Memorial

Download Defendant Memorial

Post on 09-Mar-2015

762 views

Category:

Documents

6 download

Embed Size (px)

TRANSCRIPT

<p>Team 8 Defense Memorial International Criminal Court Intra Moot Competition March 2011</p> <p>Original: English</p> <p>No: ICC</p> <p>Before:</p> <p>International Criminal Court Moot Competition Panel</p> <p>SITUATION IN THE STATE OF BANCHU IN THE CASE OF THE PROSECUTOR v. BANCHA</p> <p>Team No. 8</p> <p>TABLE OF CONTENTS</p> <p>LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ..................................................................................................................... i INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ....................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ....................................................................................................... iiv STATEMENT OF FACTS ......................................................................................................................... v ISSUES RAISED........................................................................................................................................ vi SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS .............................................................................................................. vii BODY OF PLEADINGS ............................................................................................................................ 1 A. ICC cannot exercise its jurisdiction over the case. .......................................................................... 1 B. In light of the protest made by the state of Bancha, the case is not admissible before the ICC. . 4 C. The conflict has not been internationalized owing to the participation of volunteers from Gogolistan. ............................................................................................................................................... 7 D. The arrest and subsequent transfer of Mr. Bancha to ICC is illegal. ........................................... 9 E. The accused is not guilty of following crimes: ............................................................................... 12 PRAYER .................................................................................................................................................... xii</p> <p>LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS Art. Article (unless otherwise noted, Art. Designates articles of the Rome Statue) Chamber Facts Genocide Convection Pre-Trial Chamber Facts and Procedural History International Convection on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Dec 9, 1948, 78 U.N.T.S. 277, 280. ICC ICJ ICRC ICTR International Criminal Court International Court of Justice International Committee of Red Cross International Criminal Tribunal of Rwanda ICTY International Criminal Tribunal of Former Yugoslavia ILC No. The Statue The Rules UDHR International Law Commission Number The Rome Statue Rules of Procedures and Evidence Universal Declaration of Human Rights UN United Nations</p> <p>i</p> <p>INDEX OF AUTHORITIES CasesArrest Warrant of 1 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2002, Para.51 .......................................................................................................................................... 11</p> <p>ICTY, Prosecutor v. Haradinaj, Case No. IT-04-84-T, Judgement (Trial Chamber), 3 April 2008, para 49. ............................................................................................................................................................. 8</p> <p>ICTY, Prosecutor v. Limaj, Case No. IT-03-66-T, Judgement (Trial Chamber), 30 November 2005, para 85. ............................................................................................................................................................. 7</p> <p>ICTY, Prosecutor v. Tadic, Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, 2 October 1995, para 70. .............................................................................................................................. 7</p> <p>International Court of Justice, SS Lotus (France v. Turkey), PCIJ 1927 Series A, No. 10, 7 September 1927, [Cited as Lotus Case] ...................................................................................................................... 5</p> <p>Israel, Eichman, Supreme Court, judgement of 29 May 1962, English translation in 36 ILR. .................... 5</p> <p>Lubanga, Judgement on the Appeal against the decision on the Defence Challenge to the Jurisdiction of the Court pursuant to Article 19 (2) (a), Case No: ICC-01/04-01/06, 14 December 2006. ...................... 9</p> <p>Prosecutor v. Blaskic, IT-95-14 Judgement, 3 March 2000 (hereinafter The Blaskic Judgement) Declaration of Judge Shahabuddeen. ........................................................................................................ 9</p> <p>Prosecutor v. Nahimana et al., (Case No. ICTR-99-52-T) 3 December 2003 ............................................. 2</p> <p>Prosecutor v. Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, Decision on the Prosecutors Application for a Warrant of Arrest against Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, Public Redacted Version, Case No: ICC-02/05-01/09, 4 March 2009. .............................................................................................................................................. 9</p> <p>Rivard v. United States, US Court of Appeal judgment of 375 F ed 882 (5th Cir. 1967) ............................ 5</p> <p>ii</p> <p>The Lands of Palmas Arbitration, (Netherlands v. United States), 1928, 2, RIAA 829. .............................. 5</p> <p>Other AuthoritiesAntonio Cassese, The international criminal Court: the making of the Rome statute issues, negotiations, results, edited by Roy S. Lee; in cooperation with The Project on International Courts and Tribunals, published by The Hague: Kluwer Law International, c1999. at 606 (hereafter Antonio Cassese). ...... 3</p> <p>I.C.J. Reports 1957, p. 53/ WIPO, Case No. D2004-0535, 2004.................................................................. 6</p> <p>ICJ Reports, 1955, pp.4, 23; 22 ILR, pp. 349,360. at 725 ............................................................................ 3</p> <p>ICRC, How is the term Armed Conflict defined in international humanitarian law? , Opinion Paper, March 2008, p.3.. ...................................................................................................................................... 7</p> <p>ICRC, Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts, Document presented at the Conference of government experts on the reaffirmation and development of international humanitarian law applicable in armed conflicts, Vol. V, Geneva, 24 May-12June 1971, p.79..8</p> <p>ICTY, Order granting leave for withdrawal of charges against Govedarica, Gruban, Janjic, Kostic,Paspalj, Pavlic, Popovic, Predojevic, Savic, Babic and Spaonja issued by Judge Riad on 8 May 1998. ................................................................................................................................................. 6</p> <p>J. Delbruck &amp; R. Wolfrum, Volkerrecht, Part I/3, 1145,( 2nd edition, 2002) ................................................ 1</p> <p>Rome StatuteArt. 12. ....................................................................................................................................................... 1,3 Art 12 (2). ..................................................................................................................................................... 4 Article 12 (2) (b) ........................................................................................................................................... 1 Art.12 (3) ................................................................................................................................................... 1,2 Art. 58 (1)(a) ................................................................................................................................................. 9 article 89(1) ................................................................................................................................................... 1 article 93 ....................................................................................................................................................... 1 article 109 (1) ................................................................................................................................................ 1 article 117...................................................................................................................................................... 1</p> <p>iii</p> <p>STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION The Prosecutor has approached the Honorable International Criminal Court under Article 5 read with Article 13 (b) of the Rome Statue. The Defendant respectfully objects the jurisdiction of the Court as it does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the instant case.</p> <p>iv</p> <p>STATEMENT OF FACTS 1. Copeegua was an ancient country inhabiting three chief tribes namely, Gogo, Bancha and Zawal. There has been occasional violence between Banchas and Zawals as there relations have been apathetic. When the Imperial Autarchy of Xanadu was in power, Copeegua was made subject to all treaties by requisite constitutional procedure including the Rome Treaty in 2004. Bancha especially opposed signature to the treaty and signified that Banchu would never have signed the treaty. Massive violence broke out and Copeegua was partitioned into Gogolistan and Bancha in May 2008, with the two states housing their etymological tribes. Both the states agreed to give Zawals the same rights as the majority tribes in these countries. 2. Bancha became the head of the state in Banchu and faced much opposition from certain people. Mr. Bancha addressed the nation and revealed that his secret service had come to know of deadly conspiracy aimed against him by certain anti nationals belonging to Zawalis tribe. The police rounded up many Zawals on the basis of suspicion. Keechu Zawal, the leader of Zawals, under the banner of Zawal National Party, launched guerilla warfare to strike against the officials. Mr. Bancha emphatically declared that he had no mercy for those who betray the cause of their great nation. The army offensive was laden with brutalities, a fact that has never been officially accepted. The Bancha Herald reported that the Bancha soldiers have caused terrible bloodshed in all the Zawal villages they have searched while hunting for the members of ZNP. 3. Meanwhile, the rebels started receiving liberal aid from Zawals in Gogolistan. Many volunteers enrolled themselves with ZNP after crossing over into Banchu. The PM of Gogolistan advocated the cause their cause but never gave any official support to them. Bancha stated that the situation brooks no further delay and extreme steps need to be taken immediately. The Army conducted a raid against the ZNP and during it the ancient Calypso temple, a world heritage site was badly damaged by bombing. The worsening situation caught the attention of Security Council. So, it passed a resolution and referred the situation to ICC. Meanwhile, Bancha was abducted from Banchu and was found unconscious in Gogolistan where the accused was taken into custody by the police. The pre-trial chamber issued an arrest warrant against Mr. Bancha as requested by the prosecutor under Article 58 of the Rome Statute. The new government dismissed arguments of Bancha being guilty but ensured lawful investigation if any complaint comes up.v</p> <p>ISSUES RAISED</p> <p>1. Whether the ICC has the jurisdiction to try the case against Bancha? 2. Whether in light of the protest made by the state of Bancha, the case is admissible before the ICC? 3. Whether the conflict has been internationalized owing to the participation of volunteers from Gogolistan? 4. Whether the arrest and subsequent transfer of Mr. Bancha to ICC is legal? 5. Whether the Accused is guilty of following crimes: (i) Crime of Genocide under Article 6 (a) of the Rome Statue. (ii) Crime against Humanity under Article 7(1) (g) (Rape, Sexual Slavery, Enforced Prostitution, Forced Pregnancy or any other form of Sexual Violence of comparable gravity) enlisted in the Rome Statue. (iii) War Crimes under Article 8(2) (b) (ix) (Intentionally Directing Attacks against Buildings Dedicated to Religion) and Article 8(2) (b) (xxiii) (Utilizing Presence of Civilians or other Protected Persons to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations) enlisted in the Rome Statue.</p> <p>vi</p> <p>SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 1. ICC cannot exercise its jurisdiction over the case. The Court cannot exercise its jurisdiction over the case. The jurisdiction ratio temporis has not been established since Bancha have opposed the treaty and also not accepted the jurisdiction by not making any declaration lodged with Registrar as to accept the exercise of jurisdiction by the Court to the Crime in the question. There was no intention for full destruction of Zawals population and the act has not reached the standard of genocide as prescribed in Article 6. The Prosecutor failed to meet the requirements of the preconditions to enable the ICC to exercise its jurisdiction referred to Art. 12 (2), since: (i) the territorial State of the crime committed here is not a State Party to the Statute; (ii) the state of nationality of the accused is not a State Party to the Statute either. 2. In light of the protest made by the state of Bancha, the case is not admissible before the ICC. The ICC is impeded to analyze the merits of the case due to the principle of complementarity, and second, the gravity of the acts perpetrated does not justify the resource to the Court. The ICC is barred from exercising its jurisdiction over a crime, whenever a national Court asserts its jurisdiction over the same crime and under its national law the Banchu has jurisdiction; and it never showed its unwillingness and its inability of adjudging. Banchu has shown interest in prosecuting the Bancha. The burden of proof of demonstrating that Banchu has not conducted an investigation or is unwilling or unable of conducting a fair trial is upon those alleging it. Banchu state claimed that it is the violation of their sovereignty when Gogolistan surrender Banchu to the ICC as the state itself wanted to carry out the investigation against Bancha. The Court should, therefore, dismiss the case on the grounds of admissibility, and return Bancha to Banchu state so that domestic courts can trial him. There was no sufficient gravity to justify further action by the Court.</p> <p>vii</p> <p>3. The conflict has not been internationalized owing to the participation of volunteers from Gogolistan. The participation of volunteers from Gogolistan is not governmental in nature. They were not authorized by the government of Gogolistan to do so. The participants in this internal armed conflict did not act on the behalf of Gogolistan state. The threshold of intensity of violence in this case is such...</p>