Team Identification: 015A

ICRC

International Humanitarian Law

Moot
International Criminal Court (ICC)

Memorial for Applicant

May 2018
 CONTENTS
I.
Questions Presented..................................................................................................................1
II. Statements of Relevant Facts...........................................................................................2
1. Nature of the Conflict.....................................................................................................3
[Link] Conflict between Zodiac and QUQU Fighters is Non-International Armed Conflict. .3
[Link] Organization Requirement is Satisfied......................................................................3
[Link] Intensity Requirement was Satisfied..........................................................................3
[Link] ONE..........................................................................................................................4
[Link] Sista is Individually Criminally Responsible for War Crime under Article 8(2)(e)
(i) under Article 25(3)(c)............................................................................................................4
[Link] Sista bears Superior Criminal Responsibility......................................................4
[Link] Reasonable and Necessary Measures Taken...............................................................5
[Link] Attack was Directed Against Civilians......................................................................5
[Link] Attack of Civilian cannot be Justified by Military Advantage..................................6
[Link] Displacement of People Constitutes War Crime Under Art 8(2)(e)(viii) of the
Rome Statute..............................................................................................................................6
[Link] Sista bears Individual Criminal Responsibility for Violating Art 8(2) (e)(iv) and
25(3)(c) of the Rome Statute......................................................................................................7
[Link] Destruction of a Museum is Against Protected Cultural Property.............................7
[Link] Attack on the Museum cannot be Justified by Military Necessity............................7
[Link] TWO.........................................................................................................................7
[Link] Yaya is Individually Criminal Responsible for War Crime Under Art 8 (2) (e)
(iii) and 25 (3) (b) of the Rome Statute.....................................................................................7
[Link] Yaya is Responsible as the Commander in Chief of ZDF...................................7
[Link] Yaya should have known that the Crime was Committed or is about to be
Committed..................................................................................................................................8
[Link] Reasonable and Necessary Measures Taken by President Yaya.................................8
[Link] Attack was Against Protected Personnel and Vehicle...............................................8
[Link] Use of Drones is Indiscriminate and Disproportionate.................................................9
[Link] Attack is in Violation of the Principle of Precaution.................................................9
[Link] Attack is in Violation of the Principle Distinction.....................................................9
[Link] THREE.....................................................................................................................9
[Link] Costa is Individually Responsible for War Crime under Article 8(2)(e)(xii) and
25(3) (b) of Rome Statute..........................................................................................................9
[Link] Doctrine of Command Responsibility.......................................................................9
[Link] Costa Exercises “effective control” over the KUMZ Forces............................10
[Link] Costa Knew or Should Have Known of the Attack...........................................10
[Link] Attack was on Objects Indispensable for the Survival of the Civilian Population.. 11
[Link] Perpetrators Intended for these Objects to be Attacked...........................................11
[Link] FOR RELIEF........................................................................................................12
Bibliography.............................................................................................................................13
 I. Questions Presented
1. Whether General Sista is individually responsible with respect to the attack that
claimed the life of 50 civilians and displacement of 120civilians under Article
25(3)(c) cum 8(2)(e)(i) of the Rome Statute,
2. Whether General Sista bears individual criminal responsibility with respect to the
attack on the Ginki Museum under Article 25(3)(c) cum 8(2)(e)(iv) of the Rome
Statute,
3. Whether President Yaya is individually responsible with respect to attack against
the medical unit and 12 medical personnel under Article 25(3)(b ) cum 8(2)(e)
(iii) of the Rome Statute, and
4. Whether General Costa is individually responsible with respect to the attack
against the bridge under Article 25(3) (b) cum 8(2) (e)(xii) of the Rome Statute.

1|Page
 II. Statements of Relevant Facts
The state of Zodiac is found in Kadmian continent and had about 4 million populations along
with ethnic lines. There are widespread grievances against Zodiac government composed of
ruling elite from Qento ethnicity. President Yaya is the commander in chief of the Zodiac
Defense Force (ZDF). General Sista who is the commander of DAD contingent who
hesitantly accepted the order of president Yaya to take all feasible measures after rumors of
serious actions for failure to obey Yaya’s orders, with 5000 soldiers from his contingent
defected to Fartu on 31st December 2015. They were joined by some 150 youngsters from
Dansa with some weaponry already at their disposal and gracefully received by the panda
local government in Fartu and were provided with the necessary military equipment and
training. They later identified themselves as QUQU Fighters with General Sista their
commander.
In March 2016, after months of trainings assisted by Fartu government, QUQU fighters
launched successive attacks against Zodiac. The attacks, in addition to destroying the military
unit in Dansa, included an operation by Sidra, one of the youth fighters that mingled with
QUQU. The attack by the later claimed the lives of 50 civilians and displaced 120. After
several weeks of fighting, QUQU fighters controlled a portion of Dansa. Within a few days
of their control on 30 and 31st of March, 2016, the QUQU fighters have dismantled the Ginki
Museum, registered as world heritage by UNESCO. The museum contains a wide variety of
items of historic and cultural value some of which are believed by the QUQU fighters to
depict the story of the dominance of the Qento ethnicity.
The attack resulted in a total destruction of the Museum On December 15, 2016, the Union of
Kadma being seriously concerned about what is unfolding in Kadma and after weeks of
bilateral and multilateral consultations, passed a resolution that establishes the Kadmian
Union Mission in Zodiac (KUMZ) with a view of supporting the efforts of the Zodiac
government to get rid of SISTA fighters and maintaining peace and order. The State of Casto,
Fami, and Petra each contributed 1,200 troops for the KUMZ General Costa from the state of
Fami was the Force Commander of the KUMZ On January 15, 2017, ZDF, supported with
technology and intelligence by the MSF, a defence force of a technologically advanced state
of Moti, ZDF launched an attack in Panda using drones. The attack destroyed the training
unit of QUQU fighters. It also has and had a spin-off destroying and an ambulance ran by
PNP, an NGO. 12 medical personnel were killed during the attack

2|Page
 1. Nature of the Conflict
1.1. The Conflict between Zodiac and QUQU Fighters is Non-International
Armed Conflict
As defined under common Article 3 of Geneva Convention, Non-International Armed
Conflict (NIAC hereinafter) is an armed conflict of not international character occurring on
one of the territories of high contracting parties 1. In the case at hand, Zodiac is a high
contracting party2 and QUQU fighters are an armed group having their own responsible
commander3. In addition to this, in International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia
(ICTY hereinafter), NIAC, was defined as protracted armed violence between governmental
authorities and organized armed groups or between such groups within a state. 4This shows
that two elements must be satisfied for the existence of a NIAC: the "organization" of the
parties and the “intensity” of the conflict.5
1.1.1. The Organization Requirement is Satisfied
An organization is determined by elements such as the issuance of political statements,
Military equipment availability, the group's ability to plan military operations and the level of
Military involvement.6In the case at hand, president Yaya is commander in chief of the
Zodiac Defence Force (ZDF hereinafter) and hence expected have ability plan military
operation.7 General Sista as a commander of QUQU fighters has an ability to plan a military
operation. 50 youngsters from Dansa have weapons and the group is provided with necessary
military equipment.8 Therefore the requirement of organization is met.
1.1.2. The Intensity Requirement was Satisfied
In Lubanga case, it was confirmed that "intensity" is determined by the seriousness of
attacks, spread over territory, a period of time, the extent of government forces, mobilization
and the distribution of weapons9. In this case, the armed conflict lasts from March 2016 to
January 15, 2017.10 The attack was spread over major towns and Dansa was put under control
of QUQU fighters11and ZDF launched an attack using drones.12Hence the requirements of
1
Common Art 3 to Geneva conventions of the 12 August 1949 (Geneva Convention here in after)
2
Fact Para 23
3
ibid para16
4
ICTY, Prosecutor v. Tadic, IT-94-1A,(October 2,1995)para.70.
5
ICTY, Delalic Trial Judgment, para.184
6
ICTY, Limaj Trial Judgment, para.90; Haradinaj Trial Judgment, para.60; Boskoski Trial Judgment,
Paras.199-203
7
Fact Para 5
8
ibid Para15
9
ICC, Lubanga Judgment, para.538
10
Fact Para, 16-21
11
Ibid Para,16,17 and 18
12
Ibid Para 21

3|Page
NIAC were satisfied and hence it is a NIAC. Moreover, the military equipment and training
provided by Fartu do not amount to effective control over the QUQU fighters. In Nicaragua
case, ICJ held that if effective control is to be applied in a case, the state intervention must go
beyond financing, training and equipping or providing operational support to make it
internationalized armed group.13 Hence it cannot be Non-internationalized Armed Conflict.
2. COUNT ONE
2.1. General Sista is Individually Criminally Responsible for War Crime
under Article 8(2)(e)(i) under Article 25(3)(c)
As provided under Article 25(3)(c) of the Rome Statute, a person shall be individually
criminally responsible and liable if he for the purpose of facilitating the commission of such a
crime aids, abets or assist in its commission including providing means of for its
commission.14Additionally, in its judgement in the Delali´c case in 1998, the ICTY Trial
Chamber, examining individual criminal responsibility under Article 7(3) of the ICTY
Statute, stated that: the doctrine of command responsibility is ultimately predicated upon the
power of the superior to control the acts of his subordinates and duty is placed upon the
superior to exercise this power so as to prevent and repress the crimes committed by his
subordinates, and a failure by him to do so in a diligent manner is sanctioned by the
imposition of individual criminal responsibility in accordance with the command doctrine . 15
Moreover, in Furundzija case it was decided that a person contributing either physical or in
the form of moral support intentionally to the commission of a crime by a group of persons
acting with a common purpose, shall be criminally responsible. 16 In the case at hand, being
the commander of the QUQU fighters, General Sista is individually criminally responsible
for the attack of 50 civilians and displacement of 120 people by Sidra as the later mingled
with the group and the former is a commander of the group.17
2.1.1. General Sista bears Superior Criminal Responsibility
Article 28(a) of the Rome Statute, a military commander shall be criminally responsible for
crimes committed by force under his command.18

13
Nicaragua v. United State, Judgmenton Merit, 27 June 1986, Para. (105).
14
Article 25(3)(c)of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Art 14 U.N. Doc. A/CONF.183/9
(July 171998), (hereinafter Rome Statute),
15
ICTY, Delali´c case, Judgement, 16 November 1998, Para 370–371
and 377–37
16
Prosecutor v. Furundzija (Judgment) (1998 Trial Chamber) IT-95-17/1-T, [229], [231
17
Fact para16
18
Art 28(a) of the Rome Statute

4|Page
 i. The superior knew or had reason to know that the subordinate was about to commit
such acts19. General Sista is a commander of the QUQU fighters had the reason to
know that Sidra is about to attack the civilian and displace the civilian population. A
superior-subordinate relationship exists when a person is in "formal status" or in
"effective authority and control" as a military commander. 20 General Sista is a
commander of the QUQU Fighters and hence has effective authority and control over
the act of Sidra.
ii. The superior knew or had reason to know that the subordinate was about to commit
such acts21. General Sista is a commander of the QUQU fighters had the reason to
know that Sidra is about to attack the civilian and displace the civilian population.
2.1.2. No Reasonable and Necessary Measures Taken
Pursuant to Article 28(a)(ii) of the Rome statue, if a military commander failed to take all
necessary and reasonable measures within his or her power to prevent or repress their
commission or to submit the matter to the competent authorities for investigation and
prosecution22 , he is criminally responsible for his subordinate acts. From the fact of the case,
while Sidra attacking and displacing civilian pupations, there are no necessary and reasonable
measures taken against him and his acts were not submitted to the competent authority for
investigation and prosecution by General Sista. Furthermore, in Kordic and Hadzihasanovic
cases, the court held that the superiors expected to adopt proportionate23and timely
measures24. There is a superior-subordinate relationship between General Sista and Sidra as
the later mingled with the QUQU25, for which the former is a commander and has knowledge
of killing and displacement of the civilians that indicates the existence of mensrea. 26 Hence it
is prosecution submission that General Sista is criminally responsible and liable.
2.1.3. The Attack was Directed against Civilians
Civilians are protected and cannot be the target of attack and shall enjoy general protection
against dangers arising from military operation as stated under Article 13(2) of Additional
protocol to Geneva Convention27(AP II hereinafter ), the attack on a civilian population is an
absolute prohibition.28 Moreover, According to Article 4(1) AP II, “all persons who do not
19
Ibid Article 28(a)(i)
20
Prosecutor v Delalić(Judgment) (1998 Trial Chamber) IT-96-21-T, [370]
21
Article 28(a)(i) of the Rome Statute
22
Art 28(a)(ii) of the Rome Statute
23
Prosecutor v Hadzihasanovic (judgment) ICTY 01-47-T, TCh (15 March 2006)para1777
24
Prosecutor v Kordic (judgment)ICTY-95-14/2-T, TCh (26 February 2001), Para (445)-(446)
25
Fact Para 15
26
Article 57(2)(i) and 57(2)(iii) of the Rome Statute
27
Art 13(2) of AP II to Geneva Convention
28
Prosecutor V Martic, case no. IT-95-11-R61 (March 15, 2002)

5|Page
take a direct part or who have ceased to take part in hostilities, whether or not their liberty has
been restricted, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely”. 29 Furthermore, Common
Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions also provides that “persons taking no active part in the
hostilities shall in all circumstances be treated humanely”. 30 Thus the attack of 50 civilians is
against a protected person and constitutes a war crime.
2.1.4. The Attack of Civilian cannot be Justified by Military Advantage
Military objectives are defined by their nature, location, purpose or use provides an effective
contribution; attacking them provides a definite military advantage. 31 In addition to this, in
Kordic case, ICC held that military necessity cannot be invoked and the parties to the conflict
are obliged to distinguish between military targets and the civilian population. 32 In this case,
there is no indication that the death of 50 civilians during an attack on the local government
office that was conducting weekly security meeting cannot be justified by a definite military
advantage33 .
2.1.5. The Displacement of People Constitutes War Crime Under Art 8(2)(e)(viii) of
the Rome Statute
Article 17(2) AP II provides that Civilians shall not be compelled to leave their own territory
for reasons connected with the conflict. 34Additionally, Under Article 8(2)(e)(viii) of the 1998
Rome Statute, “ordering the displacement of the civilian population for reasons related to the
conflict, unless the security of the civilians involved or imperative military reasons so
demand”, constitutes a war crime in non-international armed conflicts 35. Moreover, in
Resolution 3318 (XXIX), adopted in 1974, the UN General Assembly solemnly proclaimed
that “forcible eviction, committed by belligerents in the course of military operations or in
occupied territories shall be considered criminal”. 36 In the case at hand, there is no fact that
reveals that the displacement was conducted for security reasons of the people. Therefore, the
displacement of 120 people is a war crime.37
2.2. General Sista bears Individual Criminal Responsibility for Violating Art
8(2) (e)(iv) and 25(3)(c) of the Rome Statute

29
CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VII, CDDH/SR.50, 3 June 1977, p. 90
30
Common Article 3 to Geneva Conventions
31
Jean-Marie Henckaerts and Louise Doswald-Beck (ed.), Customary International Humanitarian Law, Vol. I
(Cambridge, 2009), Rule.8, pp.29-32
32
Prosecutor v. DarkoKordic and Mario Cerkez, case no IT-95-14,para.326 (February 26, 2001)
33
Fact Para 16
34
Art 6 of AP II to Geneva convention
35
Article 8(2)(e)(viii) of the 1998 ICC Statute
36
UN General Assembly, Res. 3318 (XXIX), 14 December 1974, Para 5
37
Fact Para 16

6|Page
The individual criminal responsibility of General Sista established above can be applied here
mutatis mutandis.
2.2.1. The Destruction of a Museum is Against Protected Cultural Property
It is provided that any acts of hostility directed against historic monuments that constitute
cultural property are prohibited.38 In addition, Article 8(2) (e) (iv) of the Rome Statute,
intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, historic
monuments is a war crime.39 Furthermore, in the Situation in the Republic of Mali,
prosecutor v. Ahmad Al Faqi Mahdi, ICC held that the war crime of attacking protected
objects pursuant to Article 8(2)(e)(iv) includes, an attack on buildings dedicated to religion,
education, art, science or charitable purposes or historic monuments is prohibited . 40 In this
case, the Museum is cultural property registered by UNESCO and contained a wide variety of
items historic and cultural value.41 It is neither a military object nor used for military
purpose.42 Hence the destruction of Ginki Museum is against a protected property.
2.2.2. The Attack on the Museum cannot be justified by Military Necessity
A civilian object should not be the target of the military unless it is justified by military
necessity.43 The purpose behind the attack of the museum that brought about its total
destruction did not give any military advantage to the QUQU Fighters. They believed that
the museum depicts the story of the dominance of the Qento ethnicity which cannot be
justified by military necessity44
3. COUNT TWO
3.1. President Yaya is Individually Criminal Responsible for War Crime
Under Art 8 (2) (e) (iii) and 25 (3) (b) of the Rome Statute
Command responsibility established above in count one that in turn entails individual
criminal responsibility can be applied here mutatis mutandis.
3.2. President Yaya is Responsible as the Commander in Chief of ZDF
According to Article 28(a) of the Rome Statute, a military commander shall be criminally
responsible for crimes committed by forces under his command. 45 Moreover, Superior-
subordinate relationship exists when a person is in "formal status" or in "effective authority

38
Art 16 of AP II to Geneva Convention
39
Art 8(2)(e)(iv) of the Rome Statute
40
The Prosecutor v Ahmad Al Faqi Mahdi, ICC-01/12-01/15
41
Fact Para 16
42
ibid
43
AP I, of 1977, art 52, Prosecutor v. Tadic case, IT-94-1-l, Decision on Defence Motion for Interlocutory
Appeal on Jurisdiction Para 111-127
44
Fact Para 16
45
Art 28(a) of the Rome Statute

7|Page
and control" as a military commander. 46. President Yaya is Commander in chief of
(ZDF)47and hence has effective authority and control over the act of ZDF. Thus he is
criminally responsible for the destruction of medical units and death of 12 medical personnel.
3.2.1. President Yaya should have known that the Crime was Committed or is
about to be Committed
Article 28(a)(i) of the Rome Statute states that, the superior bears command responsibility
where he knows or should have known that the forces were committing or about to commit
the crime48, thus President Yaya as the commander in chief of ZDF should have known the
location of the attack using drones, in order to distinguish the medical personnel and medical
transports from the combatant.
3.2.2. No Reasonable and Necessary Measures Taken by President Yaya
According to Article 28(a)(ii) of the Rome Statute, a military commander has to take all
necessary and reasonable measures within his or her power to prevent or repress their
commission or to submit the matter to the competent authorities for investigation and
prosecution49. Furthermore, in Kordic and Hadzihasanovic cases, the court held that the
superioris expected to adopt proportionate50and timely measures51. Contrary to these, there
are no reasonable and necessary measures taken by president Yaya neither to prevent the
attack of the medical unit and personnel nor to submit an act of ZDF to competent authorities
for investigations and prosecution. For this reason, he is criminally responsible and liable for
the act of ZDF.
3.2.3. The Attack was against Protected Personnel and Vehicle
According to Article 8(2)(e)(iii) of the Rome Statute, intentional attacking of Medical
vehicles and personnel is an absolute prohibition.52 In addition to this, Article 9(1) of AP II to
Geneva Convention, medical personnel shall be respected and protected. 53 Moreover, medical
transports shall be respected and protected at all times and shall not be the object of attack 54.
Furthermore, state practice establishes the rule of protecting medical personnel and medical
units, as a norm of customary international law 55. In this case, the attack of ambulances

46
Prosecutor v. Delalić (Judgment) (1998 Trial Chamber) IT-96-21-T, [370]
47
Fact Para 5
48
Art 28(a)(i), of the Rome Statute
49
Ibid Art 28(a)(ii)
50
Prosecutor v. Hadzihasanovic (judgment) ICTY 01-47-T, TCh (15 March 2006)para1777
51
Prosecutor v. Kordic (judgment) ICTY-95-14/2-T, TCh (26 February 2001), Para (445)-(446)
52
Art 8(2)(e)(iii) of the Rome Statute
53
Article 9(1) of AP II to Geneva Convention,
54
Ibid Art 11(1)
55
Customary international humanitarian law, volume I Rules, Jean-Marie Henckaerts and Louise Doswald-Beck,
vol. II, chapter 7, section A

8|Page
operated by PNP and killing of 12 medical personnel is against the protected object and
persons and hence a war crime.56
3.3. The Use of Drones is Indiscriminate and Disproportionate
Arbitrary killing is strictly prohibited in the eyes of customary international law 57, however,
in case of armed conflict, the test of whether a deprivation of life is arbitrary must be
determined by the applicable targeting rules of international humanitarian law 58 and the
accuracy of targeting is critical to the proper application of the principles of distinction,
proportionality and precaution59.
3.3.1. The Attack is in Violation of the Principle of Precaution
The ZDF did not consider taking precautionary measures when attacking Panda, their failure
resulted in the destruction of the medical unit and the death of 12 medical personnel. 60
Therefore, the act of using of drones to attack the QUQU Fighters does not apply the
targeting rule needed, in order to use drones.
3.3.2. The Attack is in Violation of the Principle Distinction
The obligation to distinguish forms parts of the customary international law of both
international non–international armed conflicts as ICTY held in the Tadic case.61
In case of armed conflict distinction of civilian from combatant is mandatory, while the
drones used by the ZDF could not effectively distinguish the combatant form the protected
personnel and vehicle, therefore the use of the drones do not apply the rule of targeting.
4. COUNT THREE
4.1. General Costa is Individually Responsible for War Crime under Article
8(2)(e)(xii) and 25(3) (b) of Rome Statute
4.1.1. The Doctrine of Command Responsibility
The doctrine of command responsibility holds military commanders liable for crimes
committed by subordinates.62 To apply command responsibility, it is necessary to establish: a
63
superior-subordinate relationship; the superior actual or constructive knowledge of crimes
committed or about to be committed by subordinates; 64 and failure on the part of superior to

56
Fact para21
57
Drones by ICRC, by Ms. Sophie Bobillier, University of Geneva, page 7, Para 60
58
Ibid, Para 61
59
Ibid, page, 11, Para, 73
60
Fact, Para 21
61
Prosecutor v. Tadic case, IT-94-1-l, Decision on Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction
Para 111-127
62
Art 28(b), Rome Statute, AP I, Article 86
63
Prosecutor v. Aleksovski, ICTY-IT-95-14/1-T, (1999), Para 78
64
Prosecutor v. Delalic, ICTY-IT-96-21-T, Para 346(1998)

9|Page
take adequate measures to prevent or repress the crime. 65 In the case at hand, he failed to take
preventive measures on the troops under his control. 66 Therefore, he holds liability for the war
crime as a commander for the attack by KUMZ forces on the bridge on 25 February 2017.
4.1.2. General Costa Exercises “effective control” over the KUMZ Forces
A military commander or person effectively acting as a military commander shall be
criminally responsible for crimes committed by the troops under his control. 67 Here, he
should take the necessary precaution to protect the civilian objects under their control against
the dangers resulting from the military operation. Furthermore, the test of "effective control"
must be applied, which as defined as "a material ability to prevent or punish criminal
conduct".68 In the case at hand, he fails to take measure to prevent or punish those troops
launched an attack on the bridge which is amount to a war crime. 69 Here, in our case general
Costa by virtue of being commander of the KUMZ, leads the command of troops upon
attack.70 Accordingly, he was criminally liable as a commander because he was exercised
effective control over KUMZ.
4.1.3. General Costa Knew or Should Have Known of the Attack
The threshold for knowledge under command responsibility is that military commanders
knew or should have known that his forces were committing crimes. 71 Command
responsibility applies to every commander at every level of command as it is “general
obligation” of every commander to maintain order and control of his own troops. 72 However,
he remained silent since the attack was directed upon the bridge in violation of the law of
war,73 while he presumed to know as to the existence of an attack. Hence, he is liable for his
failure to know or taking measures to avoid attacks by his troops against a bridge.
4.1.4. The Attack was on Objects Indispensable for the Survival of the Civilian
Population.
It is prohibited to attack objects indispensable for the survival of the civilian population as
stated under Article 14 of the AP II to the Geneva Convention. 74 In addition, Article 57/3 of

65
Prosecutor v. Krnojelac, ICTY-97-25-T, Para 95(2002)
66
Fact, Para 20
67
Art 28(a) of Rome Statute, Prosecutor v. Keyshima, ICTY-IT-87-25-T, Para 95(2002)
68
Prosecutor v. Zejmil Delalic, ZdravkoMucic, HazimDelic and EsadLandzo, Judgment, 20 February 2001,
Case No. IT-96-21-A, Para 256; Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gambo, Judgment 20, April 2009, PTC
[Link]-01/05-01/08, Para 415-416
69
Art 28(a)(ii)of the Rome Statute
70
Fact Para 19
71
Art 28(a)(i) of the Rome Statute
72
Prosecutor V. Sefer Halilovic, ICTY, Judgment, 16 October 2007, case [Link]-01-48-A, Para 63
73
Fact, Para 20
74
AP II to Geneva Convention

10 | P a g e
Additional Protocol I provides that, the mere fact that adverse party use civilian objects for
the military purpose does not give the other party the right to direct attack at such object
when a choice is possible between several military objectives for obtaining a similar military
advantage, the objective to be selected shall be that the attack on which may be expected to
cause the least danger to civilian lives and to civilian objects. 75 Furthermore, it is customary
that distinction should be made between civilian and military objectives even in the NIAC
before launching an attack and if it does; it amounts to a war crime. 76 In this case, the bridge
should not be "targeted", because it is indispensable for the survival of the pastoralist
community of Dansa who were civilian since they use the bridge as a route to access pasture
and drinking water for their cattle during drought season.77
4.1.5. The Perpetrators Intended for these Objects to be Attacked
The threshold for the mental element is that the civilian character of the objects damaged was
known or should have been known to the perpetrators. 78 Such a standard is met when the
attack has been conducted intentionally with the knowledge, or when it is impossible to not
know that civilian property was being targeted. 79 Here, KUMZ troops demonstrated
"recklessness" by directing the attack on the bridge while they know that attack produces
excessive consequences on the civilian object. 80 Therefore, there was an intention to direct
attack at civilian objects.

5. Prayer for Relief

75
Customary International Humanitarian, Volume 1: Rules, Jean-Marie Henckarts and Louis Doswald-Beck.
Volume II, Chapter 2, section B;
76
Art 8(2)(b)(xxv) of Rome statute, Ibid, volume II, Section A, Rule 7, Memorandum of Understanding on the
Application of IHL between Croatia and the SFRY, Para. 6
77
Fact Para 20
78
Prosecutor v. Dario Kodic and Mario Cerkez, Prosecutor`s Pre-Trial Brief, ICTY, IT-95-14/2-PT, 49;
Prosecutor v. Radovan Karadzic, Prosecutor`s Pre-Trial, ICTY, IT-95-05/18, PT, P.4.
79
Prosecutor v. Blasckic, Para, 180
80
Fact, Para, 20

11 | P a g e
 6. General Sista is individually responsible with respect to attack that claimed the
life 50 civilians and displacement of 120 under Article 25(3)(c) and 8(2)(e)(i)
of the Rome Statute
7. General Sista bears individual criminal responsibility with respect to attack the
Ginki Museum under Article 25(3)(c) and 8(2)(e)(iv) of the Rome Statute
8. President Yaya is individually responsible with respect to the attack of medical
unit and 12 medical personnel under Article25(3)(b ) and 8(2)(e)(iii) of the
Rome Statute
9. General Costa is individually responsible with respect to the attack bridge under
Article 25(3) (b) and 8(2)(e)(xii) of the Rome Statute
Respectfully submitted,
Counsel for the Applicant.

Bibliography
A TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS
1 The Four Geneva Conventions of 1949
2 Additional Protocols I and II to the Geneva Conventions of 1977
3 Hague Convention on the Protection of Cultural Property, 1954 and its additional
Protocols I and II

12 | P a g e
 4 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 1998
B CASES
1 ICTY, The Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic, 1995, 1999
2 ICTY, Prosecutor v. Delalic, et al
3 ICJ, Case concerning military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua
(Nicaragua v. the United States of America )
4 ICTY, Prosecutor v. Fatmir Vimaj, ICTY, Prosecutor v. Galic
5 ICTY, Prosecutor v. Kunarac, et al, ICTY, Prosecutor v Tiomasir Blaskik, judgment
6 ICTY, Prosecutor [Link]ˇzihasanovi´c and Others case
7 Prosecutor v. Furundzija (Judgement) (1998 Trial Chamber
8 Prosecutor V. Martic, ICTY, Prosecutor v. Keyshima.
9 ICTY, Mario CerkezPre-trial brief.
10 ICTY, Prosecutor v Kordic case (judgment), ICTY, Prosecutor v. Krnojelac.
11 ICTY, Prosecutor V. SeferHalilovic, ICTY, Prosecutor v. Aleksovski
C OTHER MATERIALS
1 Jean-Marie Henckaerts and Louise Doswald –Beck, Customary international
humanitarian law, Vol. 1, 2009.
2 UN General Assembly, Res. 3318 (XXIX).
3 [Link]ïsMaroonian, Master student at the Faculty of Law of the University of
Geneva.
4 Memorandum of Understanding on the Application of IHL between Croatia and the
SFRY
5 Military manuals of Australia.
6 CDDH, Official Records,Vol. VII, CDDH/SR.50.
7 Drones by ICRC, by Ms. Sophie Bobillier, University of Geneva.

13 | P a g e