Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Pénale
Internationale
International
Criminal
Court
No.: ICC-01/_______________
At The Hague
In the case of
THE PROSECUTOR
V.
Z. KARMONIC
PUBLIC DOCUMENT
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATION........……....……………………...........................................................VII
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES...................…………………………………..............…........……....XY
TREATIES, CONVENTIONS AND STATUTES.................................................................................VIII
CASES.............................................................................................................................................IX
ARTICLES, JOURNALS AND YEARBOOK.....................................................................................xvi
REPORTS........................................................................................................................................xvii
DICTIONARY..............................................................................................................................XVII
TREATIES, DIGESTS AND BOOKS...............................................................................................XIX
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION......................................................................................................02
IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES...........................................................................................................02
STATEMENT OF FACTS..................................................................................................................03
SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS.............................................................................................................04
PLEADINGS........................................................................................................................05
INDICTMENT I: THAT Z. KARMONIC BE FOUND GUILTY FOR COMMITTING THE CRIME
OF GENOCIDE U/ART. 6 (A) OF THE ROME STATUTE FOR CAUSING THE KILLING OF
2018………………………………........................................................................……...05
ii
[A.3.1] The physical element
[A.3.2] The mental element
[A.3.3] Causation and death by Media
[A.4] Element 4: Karmonic’s conduct took place in the context of a manifest pattern of similar
B. MODE OF LIABILITY....................................................................................................13
[B.1] Article 25(3)(E)............................................................................................13
INDICTMENT II: THAT MR. Z KARMONIC BE FOUND GUILTY FOR WAR
CRIMES OF ATTACK-ING CIVILIAN OBJECTS ON 15 JULY 2019 U/ART. 8 (2) (B)
(II) OF THE ROME STATUTE FOR INTENTIONALLY DIRECTING ATTACK
AGAINST NUCLEAR ENERGY PLANTS OF ROKUMBA.
.………..................................................………….................................................................17
[A.2] Element 2: The object of the attack were civilian objects, that is, objects
nature..…….....................................................................................................19
attack.....................................................................................................................20
[A.4] Element 4: Z. Karmonic’s conduct took place in the context of and was
……………............................................................................................................21
iii
[A.5] Element 5: Z. Karmonic was aware of the factual circumstances that
B. MODE OF LIABILITY.................................................................................................24
INDICTMENT III: THAT MR. Z. KARMONIC BE FOUND GUILTY FOR WAR CRIMES
U/ART. 8(2) (B) (IV) OF THE ROME STATUTE FOR INTENTIONALLY LAUNCHING
AN ATTACK AGAINST THE NUCLEAR ENERGY PLANTS OF ROKUMBA, WITH
THE KNOWLEDGE AND INTENTION OF CAUSING INCIDENTAL LOSS OF LIFE
AND INJURY TO CIVILIANS AND WIDE-SPREAD, LONG TERM AND SEVERE
DAMAGE TO THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
A. ELEMENTS OF WAR CRIME ARE SATISFIED IN THE PRESENT CASE………………
[A.1] ELEMENT 1: The conduct took place in the context of and was associated
with an international armed conflict……………………………………………..
iv
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Art. Article
¶ Paragraph
v
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Rome Statute UN General Assembly, Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
(last amended 2010), 17 July 1998, ISBN No. 92-9227-227-6
vi
GC IV International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Geneva Convention
Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (Fourth
Geneva Convention), 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 287
EoC International Criminal Court (ICC), Elements of Crimes, 2011, ISBN No.
92-9227-232-2
CASES
vii
Katanga The Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui,
Decision on the Confirmation of Charges (Pre Trial Chamber I), Case
No. ICC-01/04-01/07 OA 8, International Criminal Court (ICC), 30
September 2008; Judgment pursuant to article 74 of the Statute (Trial
Chamber II), Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07 OA 8, International Criminal
Court (ICC), 7 March 2014.
viii
INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL TRIBUNAL FOR RWANDA (ICTR)
Celbici The Prosecutor v. Zejnil Delalic, Zdravko Mucic (aka “Pavo”), Hazim
Delic and Esad Landzo (aka “Zenga”) (“Celbici case”), Judgment
(Appeals Chamber), Case No. IT-96-21-A, International Criminal
Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), 20 February 2001.
ix
Kunarac The Prosecutor v. Dragoljub Kunarac, Radomir Kovac, and Zoran
Vukovic, Judgment, (Appeals Chamber), Case No. IT-96-23-T & IT-96-
23/1-A, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia
(ICTY), 12 June 2002.
Limaj The Prosecutor v. Limaj et al., Judgment (Trial Chamber II), Case No. IT-
03-66-T, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia
(ICTY), 30 November 2005.
Tadic The Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic, Decision on the Defence Motion for
Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction (Appeals Chamber), Case No. IT-
94-1-A, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia
(ICTY), 2 October 1995.
Boskoski The Prosecutor v. Ljube Boskoski & Johan Tarculovski, Judgment (Trial
Chamber II), Case No. IT-04-82-T, International
Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), 10 July 2008.
Delic The Prosecutor v. Rasim Delic – Judgment (Trial Chamber I), Case No.
IT-04-85-T, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia
(ICTY), 15th Septemeber 2008, para 552.
x
Naletilic Prosecutor v. Mladen Naletilic aka "Tuta", Vinko Martinovic aka
"Stela" (Trial Judgement), IT-98-34-T, International Criminal Tribunal
for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), 31 March 2003
Mucic Prosecutor v. Zdravko Mucic aka "Pavo", Hazim Delic, Esad Landzo
aka "Zenga", Zejnil Delalic (Judgement on Sentence Appeal), IT-96-21-
Abis, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia
(ICTY), 8 April 2003
xi
Van der Vyyer John Van der Vyver, “The International Criminal Court and the concept
of Mens Rea in International Criminal Law”, 75 (12 Miami International
& Comparitive Law Review, 2004).
Parks W.H. Parks, “Command Responsibility for War Crimes”, 80 (62 Military
Law Review, 1973).
DICTIONARY
Black Law Dict. Black's Law Dictionary (4th Ed. Rev. 6-1971).
xii
Cassese Albin Eser, “Mental Elements, in the Rome Statute of the International
Criminal Court: A Commentary” 913 (AntonioCassese et al. eds.,
2001).
Scharf Jordan J. Pausi, Michael Scharf, Bruce Vagari et. al., “International
Criminal Law: Cases and Material” (Carolina Academic Press)
ICTR Digest Human Rights Watch, “Genocide, War Crimes and Crimes Against
Humanity: A Digest of the Case Law of the International Criminal
Tribunal for Rwanda”, 2010.
ICTY Digest Human Rights Watch, “Genocide, War Crimes and Crimes Against
Humanity: A Topical Digest of the Case Law of the International
Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia”, 2006.
xiii
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
It is hereinafter most respectfully submitted that the Office of Prosecutor of the International
Criminal Court has the jurisdiction to exercise this petition under Article 5 read with Article
13(c) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 1998. Article 5(1) states as
follows:-
“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:
1
Page 14, Moot Proposition.
1
IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES
INDICTMENT II: THAT Z. KARMONIC BE FOUND GUILTY FOR WAR CRIME FOR
INTENTIONALLY DIRECTING AN ATTACK AGAINST THE NUCLEAR ENERGY
PLANTS OF ROKUMBA, UNDER ARTICLE 8 (2)(b)(ii) OF THE ICC STATUTE.
2
SUMMARY OF FACTS
5 June, 2018 Pardon granted to Karmonic, making him head of the cyber
cell of sohulwan armed forces, for properly answering the
cyber actions by rokumba.
3
SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS
It is humbly submitted that Z. Karmonic is guilty of committing genocide u/Art. 6(a) of the
Rome Statute. All the essentials of Art. 6(a) of Rome Statute are fulfilled i.e. he intended to
destroy in whole or in part, members of the Rokum religion. His conduct resulted in the death
of around 600 persons belonging to the Rokum faith. Further, Z. Karmonic’s conduct took
place in the context of a manifest pattern of similar conduct directed against the members of
the rokum religion Therefore, Z. Karmonic is criminally responsible u/Art. 25(3) of the Rome
Statute for having committing the crime of genocide.
INDICTMENT II: THAT MR. Z KARMONIC BE FOUND GUILTY FOR WAR CRIMES OF
ATTACK-ING CIVILIAN OBJECTS ON 15 JULY 2019 U/ART. 8 (2) (B) (II) OF THE ROME
STATUTE FOR INTENTIONALLY DIRECTING ATTACK AGAINST NUCLEAR ENERGY PLANTS
OF ROKUMBA
4
INDICTMENT III: THAT MR. Z. KARMONIC BE FOUND GUILTY FOR WAR CRIMES U/ART.
8(2) (B) (IV) OF THE ROME STATUTE FOR INTENTIONALLY LAUNCHING AN ATTACK
AGAINST THE NUCLEAR ENERGY PLANTS OF ROKUMBA, WITH THE KNOWLEDGE AND
INTENTION OF CAUSING INCIDENTAL LOSS OF LIFE AND INJURY TO CIVILIANS AND
WIDE-SPREAD, LONG TERM AND SEVERE DAMAGE TO THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
THAT IS EXCESSIVE TO THE CONCRETE AND DIRECT MILITARY ADVANTAGE
ANTICIPATED.
5
PLEADINGS
OF GENOCIDE U/ART. 6 (A) OF THE ROME STATUTE FOR CAUSING THE KILLING OF THE
committing the crime of genocide u/Art. 6 (a) of the Rome Statute, the text of which has been
derived from Art. II of the Genocide Convention. G.A. resolution 96 (I) categorized genocide
as a “crime under international law” and the Genocide Convention reiterates this formulation.
The prohibition on genocide is a jus cogens norm and an obligation erga omnes.2
The Prosecutor submits that pursuant to the ICC EoC3, the following elements need to be
met:
The satisfaction of this element requires that the perpetrator of genocide intend to destroy, in
whole or in part members of a protected group.4 The Prosecution will show that Z. Karmonic
possessed the requisite special intent or dolus specialis to destroy in whole or in part the
2
Advisory Opinion Concerning Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime
of Genocide, International Court of Justice (ICJ), 28 May 1951, ¶ 23
3
International Criminal Court (ICC), Elements of Crimes, 2011, ISBN No. 92-9227-232-2.
4
The Prosecutor v. Georges Anderson Nderubumwe Rutaganda (Judgement and Sentence), ICTR-96-3-
T, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), 6 December 1999, ¶ 59
6
[A.1.1] Specific intent or dolus specialis
Specific intent requires that the perpetrator clearly intend the result charged. In the case of
genocide, the perpetrator must intend that his or her actions will result in the destruction, in
whole or in part, of a protected group.5 By its nature, intent cannot usually be shown by
direct proof. Since only the accused himself has first-hand knowledge of his own mental
The clearest evidence of Z. Karmonic’s intent was his Facebook page ‘Help Sarozula’ where
he indulged in spewing venom against Rokumba. After his jail break, he began commenting
disparagingly against Rokumba as well as the Rokum religion. His final call to genocide is
evidenced by his sharing a post on Facebook with the caption “should Rokums be taught in
Additionally, the requisite intent may be proven by overt statements of the perpetrator.8 Other
factors to be taken into account are: (a) the general context, (b) the political doctrine which
gave rise to the acts referred to (c) the scale of atrocities committed, (d) the fact that the
victims were deliberately chosen on account of their membership of a particular group, and
5
The Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu (Trial Judgement), ICTR-96-4-T, International Criminal Tribunal for
Rwanda (ICTR), 2 September 1998. ¶ 121
6
The Prosecutor v. Tharcisse Muvunyi (Judgment and Sentence), ICTR-2000-55A-T, International Criminal
Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), 12 September 2006, ¶ 81; The Prosecutor v. François Karera (Judgment and
Sentence), ICTR-01-74-T, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), 7 December 2007, ¶ 542
7
Page 11, Moot proposition.
8
The Prosecutor v. Jean Mpambara (Trial Judgement), ICTR-01-65-T, International Criminal Tribunal for
Rwanda (ICTR), 11 September 2006, ¶ 8
9
Prosecutor v. Goran Jelisic (Trial Judgement), IT-95-10-T, International Criminal Tribunal for the former
Yugoslavia (ICTY), 14 December 1999, ¶ 47. The Prosecutor v. Georges Anderson Nderubumwe Rutaganda
(Judgement and Sentence), ICTR-96-3-T, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), 6 December
1999, ¶ 525; Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic (Appeal Judgement), IT-98-33-A, International Criminal Tribunal for
the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), 19 April 2004, ¶ 27, 34
7
First, the general context in Sohulwa was one of Sohu religious superiority evidenced by the
emergence of the SoS group and the perceived tensions between Rokumba and Sohulwa.
Secondly, the political doctrine which culminated in the events of 25 May, 2018 was one of
cultural and religious superiority which threatened the very existence of Rokum minorities in
Sohulwa.10 Thirdly, the scale of the killings was considerable as in a matter of hours, nearly
600 Rokums had been killed. Fourthly, only persons belonging to the Rokum faith were
targeted and killed, clearly on account of their membership of the Rokum religion. Further, in
Sohulwa, members of other religions were also present in the Lfs and as minorities, but only
[A.1.2] To destroy
Destruction of the group means the material destruction of a group either by physical or by
biological means. 11 Further, the actus reus of genocide does not require the actual
destruction of a substantial part of the group; the commission of even a single instance
of one of the prohibited acts is sufficient.12 In the instant case, ‘killing’ was employed as a
means of destruction. After, Z. Karmonic shared a post on Facebook that Rokums have to be
taught a lesson; nearly 600 Rokums were killed, thereby, satisfying this requirement.
10
Page 7, Moot Proposition.
11
The Prosecutor v. Sylvestre Gacumbitsi (Trial Judgement), ICTR-2001-64-T, International Criminal Tribunal
for Rwanda (ICTR), 17 June 2004, ¶ 253
12
The Prosecutor v. Jean Mpambara (Trial Judgement), ICTR-01-65-T, International Criminal Tribunal for
Rwanda (ICTR), 11 September 2006, ¶ 8
8
The word ‘in part’ requires the intention to destroy a number of individuals who are part of
that group.13 In any event, jurisprudence suggests there is no numeric threshold of victims
necessary to establish genocide. 14 This requirement in the instant case is proven by the
caption to the post15 shared by Z. Karmonic in which he urged his followers to teach Rokums
a lesson all over Sohulwa and the word ‘immediately!’ at the end of his caption is evidence of
the kind of urgency he sought from his followers which he knew would result in the killings
[A.2] ELEMENT 2: THE ROKUMS ARE A PROTECTED GROUP UNDER THE ROME STATUTE
The satisfaction of this element requires that the persons against whom the crime of genocide
is directed are one of the four protected groups mentioned in the Rome Statute i.e. a national,
ethnical, racial or religious group.16 Only these four are the groups protected from crimes
against genocide. The Prosecution submits that nearly 600 persons were exclusively targeted
on the night of 25th May on account of them being part of the Rokum religion.
The burden on the Prosecution is to prove either that the victim belongs to the targeted group,
or that the perpetrator believed that the victim belonged to the group.17 The jurisprudence of
the Court indicates that although the Statute does not clearly establish the criteria for
13
The Prosecutor v. Clément Kayishema and Obed Ruzindana (Trial Judgement), ICTR-95-1-T, International
Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), 21 May 1999, ¶ 97
14
The Prosecutor v. Athanase Seromba (Trial Judgement), ICTR-2001-66-I, International Criminal Tribunal for
Rwanda (ICTR), 13 December 2006, ¶ 319
15
Page 11, Moot Proposition.
16
Article 6, Rome Statute, The Prosecutor v. Georges Anderson Nderubumwe Rutaganda (Judgement and
Sentence), ICTR-96-3-T, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), 6 December 1999, ¶ 524; B. Van
Shaack, The Crime of Political Genocide: Repairing the Genocide Convention’s Blind Spot, (1997) 106 Yale LJ
2259.
17
The Prosecutor v. Mikaeli Muhimana (Judgement and Sentence), ICTR- 95-1B-T, International Criminal
Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), 28 April 2005, ¶ 500; The Prosecutor v. Juvénal Kajelijeli (Judgment and
Sentence), ICTR-98-44A-T, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), 1 December 2003, ¶ 813
9
determining protected groups under Article 6, the Court has tended to decide the matter on
a case-by-case basis18, taking into consideration both the objective and subjective
particulars.19
Furthermore, in assessing whether a particular group may be considered as protected from the
crime of genocide, the Court must take into account both the relevant evidence proffered and
Under the Subjective criterion, the victim is perceived by the perpetrator of genocide as
belonging to a group slated for destruction. 21 Under the Objective criterion, the victim’s
The Rokum religion is one of the four major religions in the Sarozula subcontinent. Whereas
Sohu is the oldest religion in Sarozula, the Rokum religion is the most recent one. The
18
The Prosecutor v. Alfred Musema (Judgement and Sentence), ICTR-96-13-T, International Criminal Tribunal
for Rwanda (ICTR), 27 January 2000, ¶ 163; The Prosecutor v. Sylvestre Gacumbitsi (Trial Judgement), ICTR-
2001-64-T, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), 17 June 2004,¶. 254
19
The Prosecutor v. Tharcisse Muvunyi (Judgment and Sentence), ICTR-2000-55A-T, International Criminal
Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), 12 September 2006, ¶ 484:
20
The Prosecutor v. Georges Anderson Nderubumwe Rutaganda (Judgement and Sentence), ICTR-96-3-
T, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), 6 December 1999, ¶ 373:
21
The Prosecutor v. Laurent Semanza (Judgement and Sentence), ICTR-97-20-T, International Criminal
Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), 15 May 2003, ¶ 317, Cryer, Robert, Håkan Friman, Darryl Robinson, and
Elizabeth Wilmshurst. An Introduction to International Criminal Law and Procedure. 3rd ed. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2014., Page 172.
22
Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brdjanin (Judgement), IT-99-36-A, International Criminal Tribunal for the former
Yugoslavia (ICTY), 1 September 2004, ¶ 684. The Prosecutor v. Juvénal Kajelijeli (Judgment and Sentence),
ICTR-98-44 A-T, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), 1 December 2003,¶ 811.
23
The Prosecutor v. Clément Kayishema and Obed Ruzindana (Trial Judgement), ICTR-95-1-T, International
Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), 21 May 1999, ¶. 98. The Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu (Trial
Judgement), ICTR-96-4-T, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), 2 September 1998,¶ 514.
24
Shaw, Martin. Genocide and International Relations: Changing Patterns in the Transitions of the Late
Modern World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013, p. 807.
10
Rokum religion is independent as it has no ties with the Sohu religion. Moreover, the
distinctiveness of the Rokum religion is evidenced by the fact that the followers of the rokum
religion first came to Sarozula from the southern part of Continent Z around 1400 A.D.
The EoC provide that the term ‘killed’ is interchangeable with the term ‘caused death’.25 This
indicates that the death of the victim is a necessary consequence of the perpetrator’s conduct
and that a causal link needs to exist between conduct and consequence.
The actus reus of the crime of Genocide consists of any act, omission or combination
individuals.26 The Prosecution need only prove beyond reasonable doubt that the
The requirement that the death occur as a result of the perpetrator’s conduct only necessitates
that the prosecution prove that the perpetrator’s conduct was a substantial contributing factor
in the victim’s death.28 With regard to the causation requirement, the specification that death
must have occurred as a result of the physical perpetrator's act or omission need not have
25
Article 6(a), Rome Statute.
26
Prosecutor v. Zdravko Mucic aka "Pavo", Hazim Delic, Esad Landzo aka "Zenga", Zejnil Delalic (Trial
Judgement), IT-96-21-T, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), 16 November 1998
¶ 424; Prosecutor v. Dario Kordic, Mario Cerkez (Trial Judgement), IT-95-14/2-T, International Criminal
Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), 26 February 2001, ¶ 229; Prosecutor v. Kupreskic et al. (Trial
Judgement), IT-95-16-T, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), 14 January 2000, ¶
560.
27
Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic (Appeal Judgement), IT-98-33-A, International Criminal Tribunal for the
former Yugoslavia (ICTY), 19 April 2004, ¶ 49
28
Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brdjanin (Judgement), IT-99-36-A, International Criminal Tribunal for the former
Yugoslavia (ICTY), 1 September 2004, ¶ 382.
11
been the sole cause for the victim's death; it is sufficient that the "perpetrator's conduct
The Kernojelac Trial Chamber held that an accused could be convicted of ‘killing’ if he knew
that the death of the victim was a foreseeable result of his conduct30 and that, premeditation is
not a requirement.31 Further, As the Statute and the EoC do not provide a particular mental
element for murder constituting a crime against humanity, the Article 30 requirements of
Article 30 requires that (i) the perpetrator meant to cause the death of the victim and (ii) that
he was aware that deaths would occur in the ordinary course of events.33 The mens rea may
defined as awareness that a circumstance exists or a consequence will occur in the ordinary
course of events. 35 Intent refers to the intention to engage in the conduct as well as the
29
Prosecutor v. Milutinovic et al. (Judgment), IT-05-87-T, International Criminal Tribunal for the former
Yugoslavia (ICTY), 26 February 2009. Trial Judgment, 26 February 2009, ¶ para.137
30
Boas, Gideon, James L. Bischoff, and Natalie L. Reid. International Criminal Law Practitioner Library. Vol.
2. The International Criminal Law Practitioner. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009., p. 58,
31
Prosecutor v. Milomir Stakic (Trial Judgement), IT-97-24-T, International Criminal Tribunal for the former
Yugoslavia (ICTY), 31 July 2003, ¶ 515; The Prosecutor v. Clément Kayishema and Obed Ruzindana (Trial
Judgement), ICTR-95-1-T, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), 21 May 1999, ¶ 151
32
Schabas, William A. Genocide in International Law: The Crime of Crimes. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2009,Page, 122; The Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, ICC-01/04-
01/07 OA 8, International Criminal Court (ICC), 25 September 2009, ¶ 768;
33
Article 30, Rome Statute.
34
Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brdjanin (Judgement), IT-99-36-A, International Criminal Tribunal for the former
Yugoslavia (ICTY), 1 September 2004, ¶ 387.
35
Article 30(3), Rome Statute.
12
[A.3.3] Causation and death by Media
The nature of media is such that causation of killing and other acts of genocide will
itself. 36 This does not diminish the causation to be attributed to such a medium of
The Defence may contend that the war-like situation and the detention of Sohulwan students
precipitated the killing of innocent Rokum civilians. The Prosecution humbly submits that if
the detention of Sohulwan citizens, or the deaths at the border was a trigger, then the
inflammatory posts shared by Z. Karmonic urging people to teach Rokums a lesson “were the
The trigger had such a deadly impact because the gun was loaded. The Trial Chamber
therefore, should considers the killing of Rokum civilians to have resulted from the message
of religious targeting for death that was clearly and effectively disseminated through
Facebook by Mr. Z. Karmonic, before and on the night of 25th May, 2018.
The satisfaction of this element requires that the perpetrator act within a broader context in
36
The Prosecutor v. Ferdinand Nahimana, Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza, Hassan Ngeze (Judgement and Sentence),
ICTR-99-52-T, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), 3 December 20030, ¶ 952–953.
37
Id.
38
Valerie Oosterveld and Charles Garraway, The Elements of Genocide in Roy Lee et al. (eds.), Page. 44, 45
13
This element reflects a situation, where the individual accused is acting within a broader
context in which others are also committing acts of genocide against the targeted group.39
Further, this element does not suggest that organizational structure, pattern, magnitude or
other contextual elements have become a part of the concept of genocide. 40 As such it would
suffice to prove that the victim group had been a target of similar conduct at the hands of the
First, Z. Karmonic’s call to action against the Rokums occurred in the context of the
dominance of SoS in Sohulwa which was established on notions of religious superiority. This
was a direct threat to the Rokum minority inside Sohulwa. Further, Z. Karmonic as the head
of SOS’s cyber wing regularly indulged in disparaging comments against the Rokums. Thus,
his incendiary caption of 25 May, 2018 was in the context of a manifest pattern of similar
Second, SoS members along with the Sohulwa armed forces were already killing Rokums
Third, Rokums were missing in Sohulwa and they could not be traced, evidence of their
torture indicates their possible death. Thus, this establishes the “contextual element” of the
crime.
INDICTMENT II: THAT MR. Z. KARMONIC BE FOUND GUILTY FOR WAR CRIMES OF
ATTACKING CIVILIAN OBJECTS ON 15 JULY 2019 U/ART. 8 (2) (B) (II) OF THE ROME
39
Prosecutor v. Omar Al Bashir, ICC PT.Ch., Decision on the Prosecution’s Application for a Warrant of Arrest
against Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, ICC-02/05-01/09-3, 4 March 2009, ¶ 128.
40
Klaus Kress, The Crime of Genocide and Contextual Elements: A Comment on the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber's
Decision in the Al Bashir Case, Journal of International Criminal Justice, Volume 7, Issue 2, May 2009, Pages
297–306 .
41
Id.
14
STATUTE FOR INTENTIONALLY DIRECTING ATTACK AGAINST NUCLEAR ENERGY PLANTS
OF ROKUMBA
It is humbly submitted that Mr. Z Karmonic is criminally responsible u/Art. 25(3) (a) and for
committing war crime u/Art. 8(2) (b) (ii) of the Rome Statute, the text of which has been
The Prosecutor submits that pursuant to the EoC43, the following elements are to be met
The first element of the Elements of Crimes requires that “the perpetrator directed an attack”.
adversary, whether in offence or in defence. 44 There must be a causal link between the
In the instant case, to ascertain that Mr. Z Karmonic directed the attack a causal link between
his conduct and the consequences of the attack need to be established. Firstly, before the
attack Mr. Z Karmonic was assigned by the Sohulwan government to tackle the Rokumban
cyber actions. Secondly, after the end of hostilities the 10 super computers linked to each
other were found by the committee which developed the software to target nuclear plants.
The fact that Mr. Z Karmonic had a degree in Computer engineering and was the head of
42
Hague Regulations, Article 23(g).
43
International Criminal Court (ICC), Elements of Crimes, 2011, ISBN No. 92-9227-232-2.
44
ICRC Commentary, para. 4783.
45
Prosecutor v. Dario Kordic, Mario Cerkez (Appeal Judgement), IT-95-14/2-A, International Criminal
Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), 17 December 2004
15
cyber wing of Sohulwan armed forces made him efficiently able to perform any such act and
[A.2] ELEMENT 2: THE OBJECT OF THE ATTACK WAS CIVILIAN OBJECTS, THAT IS, OBJECTS
The second element of the Elements of Crimes specifies that the object of the attack was
civilian objects, that is, objects which are not military objectives.46
Civilian objects are defined in Article 8(2)(b)(ii) ex negativo as objects which are not military
objectives. Military objectives are thus “limited to those objects which by their nature,
location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or
partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a
The indictment in this case is confined to the attack on the two nuclear thermal power plants
established by Rokumba in Janauary 2018. It was held that while nuclear weapons are not
prohibited per se in the ICC Statute, their use can still constitute a war crime if they are
Rokumba claimed that the nuclear energy would be used for peaceful purposes only. This
claim supports the contention that this nuclear plant was established as a civilian object and
not to fulfill any military objectives and therefore holds the accused accountable to attack
civilian objects.
THE ATTACK.
46
Elements of Crimes, page 18
47
Article 52(2) AP I.
48
Advisory Opinion on Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (1996) 1 ICJ Rep 226 (8 July 1996),
16
The third element requires the perpetrator to have intended the attack. Additionally, the crime
must be committed with a general intention and knowledge, as indicated in Article 30 ICC
Statute. In this regard the Office of the Prosecutor has indicated that an argument could be
made that a pattern of indifference and recklessness with respect to civilian life and property
posted hateful posts on the facebook page against Rokumba. The fact that he issued a call for
bravery for the marchers shows that not only was his attitude reckless towards the Rokum
people but even the Sohulwans who he incited while sitting before of a computer screen
himself. Therefore, it is contended that his intention to damage the life and property in
Rokumba was evident and so was his intention to attack such civilian object.
[A.4] ELEMENT 4: Z. KARMONIC’S CONDUCT TOOK PLACE IN THE CONTEXT OF AND WAS
The satisfaction of this element requires that first, there must exist an armed conflict of
international character and second, there is a nexus between the ‘crime and the international
armed conflict’
An international armed conflict is one that arises between two or more of High Contracting
between two states leading to the intervention of armed forces. 51 It is indisputable that an
49
Office of the Prosecutor, Situation in the Republic of Korea. Article 5 Report, June 2014, para. 65
50
Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War art.2, 2 August 1949, 75
UNTS
287.
17
In the present case this criterion was satisfied once Rokumba launched missile attacks on five
offices of SoS in Sohulwa which led to retaliatory firing from both the countries and led to
[A.4.2] Existence of a nexus between the crime and the international armed conflict
According to the Pre-Trial Chamber in Katanga and Chui,53 a crime has taken place in the
context of, or in association with an armed conflict where the alleged crimes were closely
While determining whether or not the act in question is sufficiently related to the armed
conflict, the Appeals Chamber in Kunarac54 suggested the following factors: (a) ‘the fact that
perpetrator is a combatant and victim, a non-combatant; (b) that, the victim is a member of
the opposing party; (c) that the act may be said to serve the ultimate goal of a military
campaign; and (d) that the crime is committed as part of or in the context of the perpetrator's
official duties.
In the instant case Mr. Z Karmonic was hired by the Sohulwan government as the head of
cyber cell of Sohulwa armed forces and was tasked to handle the uncontrollable situation on
the border and answer Rokumban forces.55 This fact shows that the accused was a combatant.
The aggrieved victims of the attack, the civillians and the employees working in the nuclear
units were the non-combatants who were not directly taking part in the hostilities. The attack
on the nuclear plants in Rokumba was done with the aim of creating extensive destruction in
51
1 JEAN PICTET, COMMENTARY TO THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS OF 12 AUGUST 1949, GENEVA
CONVENTION FOR THE AMELIORATION OF THE CONDITION OF THE WOUNDED AND SICK IN
ARMED FORCES IN THE FIELD 32 (1952).
52
Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic (Appeal Judgement), IT-94-1-A, International Criminal Tribunal for the former
Yugoslavia (ICTY), 15 July 1999
53
Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui (Pre-Trial Chamber), ICC-01/04-01/07-4
International Criminal Court (ICC) 30 September 2008, ¶ 380
54
Prosecutor v. Dragoljub Kunarac, Radomir Kovac and Zoran Vukovic (Appeal Judgment), IT-96-23 & IT-96-
23/1-A, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), 12 June 2002, ¶ 59.
55
Moot proposition page 11.
18
the state, to retaliate against Rokumban armed forces. This attack by the accused served the
ultimate goal of the military campaign and the same would not have been possible without
the help of the accused. The accused was given unlimited powers and an official position
which allowed him to direct this attack without any fetters and thus there is no doubt in
saying that the crime was committed as a part of the official duty of the perpetrator.
The Naletilić and Martinović Appeals Chamber held that the perpetrator only needs to be
aware of factual circumstances on which the judge finally determines the existence of the
The accused being the head of the cyber wing of the Sohulwan armed forces and being hired
for the task of retaliating the Rokumban armed forces leaves no doubt that he was not aware
of the factual circumstances that existed and had no knowledge that an international armed
conflict was in existence. Hence, it is contended that he was well aware of the factual
circumstances that established the existence of an armed conflict. The nature of the conflict
was of such gravity that it would be within the common knowledge of all, especially those
crimes under article 8 (2)(b)(ii) for intentionally directing attack against nuclear energy plants
of Rokumba.
B. MODE OF LIABILITY
56
Naletilić and Martinović Appeal Judgement, para. 119
19
The Prosecutor contends that Mr. Z Karmonic is criminally responsible commiting war
crimes of directing attack against civilian population in Rokumba pursuant to Art. 25 (3) (a)
The trial chamber in Mucić et al. ("Čelebići") 57 observed that the Report of the Security
General stated that all persons who participate in the planning, preparation or execution of
In the present case Karmonic bears criminal responsibility as being head of the cyber wing of
the Sohulwan armed forces. He was given unfettered powers to act in order to retaliate the
actions of Rokumban forces. He attacked the nuclear energy plants set up in Rokumba which
created great sufferings and serious existential crisis in Rokumba. The principle of individual
guilt requires that an accused can only be convicted for a crime if his mens rea comprises the
Firstly, he carried out the attack when he hacked into the system of Rokumba and blasted the
nuclear plants proving that he actually carried out the actus reus of the crime. Secondly, it
was clear mens rea on the side of the accused evident from the time when he posted against
Rokumba on his facebook. He had always wanted to fulfil the goals of SoS being an ardent
supporter and head of their cyber wing as could be seen from several acts of his, be it creating
a group on facebook or hacking ICRC website or the attack on nuclear plant of Rokumba,,
which bought the ultimate end of Rokumban retaliation, being a crime of grave nature
57
Prosecutor v. Mucić et al. ("Čelebići") (Trial Chamber), ICTY, Case No. IT-96-21-T, November 16, 1998
319.
58
Prosecutor v. Mladen Naletilic aka "Tuta", Vinko Martinovic aka "Stela" (Appeal Judgement), IT-98-34-A,
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), 3 May 2006 para 114.
20
committed by him under article 8 (2) (b) (ii) and he must be held individually criminally
INDICTMENT III: THAT MR. Z. KARMONIC BE FOUND GUILTY FOR WAR CRIMES U/ART.
8(2) (B) (IV) OF THE ROME STATUTE FOR INTENTIONALLY LAUNCHING AN ATTACK
AGAINST THE NUCLEAR ENERGY PLANTS OF ROKUMBA, WITH THE KNOWLEDGE AND
ANTICIPATED.
It is humbly submitted that Mr Karmonic is criminally responsible u/Art.25 (3) (a) for
committing war crime u/Art. 8(2) (b) (iv) of the Rome Statute, the text of which has been
The Prosecutor submits that pursuant to the ICC EoC59, the following elements need to be
met:
The first element of the Elements of Crimes requires that “the perpetrator directed an attack”.
There must be a causal link between the perpetrator’s conduct and the consequence of the
attack. 60 In the instant case, Mr. Z Karmonic had a degree in computer engineering from the
59
International Criminal Court (ICC), Elements of Crimes, 2011, ISBN No. 92-9227-232-2.
21
most reputed institution.61 Also, he was directed by the Sohulwan government to take action
against Rokumban armed forces.62 After the bomb blasts in the rokumban nuclear plants, ten
super computers were found near sohulwa’s capital by one of the committees which was
[A.2] ELEMENT 2: THE ATTACK WAS SUCH THAT IT WOULD CAUSE INCIDENTAL DEATH
[A.2.1] The attack was such which would cause incidental death or injury to civilians
Article 51(5)(b) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I prohibits an attack which may be expected
to cause incidental loss of civilian life, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete
and direct military advantage anticipated. 63 In the instant case, on July 2018, after the bomb
blasts in the rokumban nuclear plants, due to electric supply failures in the hospitals, about
500 patients died and 1000 employees working in the nuclear plants lost their lives on spot.64
[A.2.2] The attack was such that it would cause wide-spread, long term and severe damages
When an attack is launched, environmental conditions must play a role in the targeting
60
Prosecutor v. Dario Kordic, Mario Cerkez (Appeal Judgement), IT-95-14/2-A, International Criminal
Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), 17 December 2004.
61
Moot proposition, page 9
62
Moot proposition, page 11
63
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 International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June
1977, 1125 UNTS 3
64
Moot proposition, page 12
22
excessive to the military advantage anticipated. 65 In the present case, there was a severe
damage to the natural environment, and its extent was so much that it was hard to be
compensated in a decade.66
[A.2.3] The attack was of such an extent as to be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete
The expression ‘concrete and direct overall military advantage’ refers to a military advantage
that is foreseeable by the perpetrator at the relevant time.67 The principle of proportionality
states that where an attack is directed against a military objective, the anticipated incidental
In the case, the extent of the attack was clearly excessive given the damage to the
environment. Also, the Sohulwa was well aware that the nuclear plants were set up for
peaceful purposes. In any event, even if it was a military object, the attack is still not
justifiable, keeping in view the overall damage and loss of life it brought with it.
[A.3] ELEMENT 3: Z. KARMONIC KNEW THAT THE ATTACK WOULD CAUSE INCIDENTAL
LONG-TERM AND SEVERE DAMAGE TO THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT AND THAT SUCH
65
International humanitarian law and the protection of the environment in time of armed conflict, int’l Rev. of
the Red Cross 32(1992),517 et. Seq. (530)
66
Moot proposition, page 12
67
ICC Elements, footnote 36
68
Art. 51(5)(b) AP I
23
A critical element is the knowledge of the perpetrator at the time of launching the attack.69
The Elements of Crimes clarify that the information available to the perpetrator at the time is
central.70 It is clear that the perpetrator of the attack must have awareness of the anticipated
In the instant case, Z. Karmonic was fully aware of the circumstances that established the
conflict between Rokumba and Sohulwa. One of the contexts of the conflict was the
pollution-related deaths that occurred due to Rokumba’s use of Nuclear energy for electricity.
The satisfaction of this element requires that first, there must exist an armed conflict of
international character [A.1.1] and second, there is a nexus between the ‘crime and the
The official commentary of Geneva Convention IV defines armed conflict as any difference
between two states leading to the intervention of armed forces.72 In the case, this criterion is
fulfilled when there was a missile attack from Rokumba on SoS offices situated in sohulwa
and in retaliation, protesters went with arms in order to cross the rokumban border.
69
ICC Elements, Art. 8(2)(b)(iv) para. 3.
70
Galic´ ICTY T. Ch. 5.12.2003 para. 387.
71
ICC Elements, footnote 37, second sentence.
72
1 JEAN PICTET, COMMENTARY TO THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS OF 12 AUGUST 1949, GENEVA CONVENTION
FOR THE AMELIORATION OF THE CONDITION OF THE WOUNDED AND SICK IN ARMED FORCES IN THE FIELD 32
(1952).
24
[A.1.2] Existence of a nexus between the crime and the international armed conflict
The armed conflict must play a substantial role in the perpetrator's decision, in his ability to
commit the crime or in the manner in which the conduct was ultimately committed.73 The
blasts in nuclear energy plants of rokumba resulted in death of one thousand employees. Mr.
Karmonic was hired by the Sohulwan armed forces to retaliate against the Rokumbans in the
Certain conduct becomes a crime under the statute only if it occurs in the context of an
international armed conflict.74 On March 18, 2018, some media houses in sohulwa released
the photographs of missing rokumbans with a story that they had adopted the sohu religion
under the spiritual influence of SOS75, which was alleged by these same media houses to
carry torture on these minority rokumbans and fellow faculty members. Thus, Mr. Karmonic
was aware of the circumstances and that the incident of the nuclear energy plant of rokumba
was associated with him as just before this happened, he was made head of the cyber cell of
declare that Z. Karmonic is criminally responsible under the Rome Statute and
73
The Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, ICC-01/04-01/07 OA 8, International
Criminal Court (ICC), 25 September 2009.
74
Prosecutor v. Mladen Naletilic aka "Tuta", Vinko Martinovic aka "Stela" (Appeal Judgement), IT-98-34-
A, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), 3 May 2006.
75
Moot proposition, page 8
76
Moot proposition, page 11
25
ii. War Crime of attacking civilian objects u/Art. 8(2)(b)(ii).
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
26