Defense-ALS 2 _ M 17

8/12/2019 Defense-ALS 2 _ M 17

1/24

Team Number:-ALS 2 / M 17

Defense Counsel

The International Criminal Law Moot Court

Competition, 2014

Organized by

Amity Law School, Centre-II

Amity University

Uttar PradeshIndia

1. The Prosecutor vs. Jingo Crackle

2. The Prosecutor vs. Lama Suki

8/12/2019 Defense-ALS 2 _ M 17

2/24

P a g e | 1

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The accused persons challenge the jurisdiction of this Honble Court by virtue of article

19(2)(a) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

8/12/2019 Defense-ALS 2 _ M 17

3/24

P a g e | 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1) LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS..3

2) INDEX OF AUTHORITIES.4

3) STATEMENT OF FACTS.6

4) ISSUES.11

5) SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS12

6) WRITTEN ARGUMENTS.14

7) PRAYER..23

8/12/2019 Defense-ALS 2 _ M 17

4/24

P a g e | 3

1) LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

1) ICC- The International Criminal Court under the Rome Statute

8/12/2019 Defense-ALS 2 _ M 17

5/24

P a g e | 4

2) INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

1) Prosecutor v. Akayesu, ICTR-96-4-T, 02/09/1998,

2) Mugesera v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 93AJIL (1999) 529.

3) Prosecutor v. Sikiricaet al., (Case No. IT-95-8-T), para. 89

4) Prosecutor v. Kayishema and Ruzindana, (Case No. ICTR-95-1-T), Judgment,21/05/1999, para. 94

5) Prosecutor v. Tadic (Case No. IT-94-1-T), Opinion and Judgment, 07/05/1997

6) Arrest Warrant case, supra note 9, at para. 54

7) Djibouti v. France), ICJ judgment of 4 June 2008, at para. 170 )8) Ghaddafi case, Arrt no. 1414 (2001), 125 ILR 456

9) R. v. Bow Street Stipendiary Magistrate and others

Reports and Articles

1) Bruno Simma, The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary (Oxford University

Press , Oxford 2nded. 2002) Randelzhoffer on Article 2(4) MN 29

2) U.S. Secretary of State, Report to the President on the Results of the San FranciscoConference (1945), at 90-91

3) Berld Martenczuk, The Security Council, the International Court and JudicialReview: What Lessons from Lockerbie, 10 No. 3EJIL (1999) 517, 534.)

4) Berld Martenczuk, The Security Council, the International Court and Judicial

Review: What Lessons from Lockerbie, 10 No. 3EJIL (1999) 517, 534.)

5) D.M. Walker, Oxford Companion to Law (Oxford, ed. 1980) 1246.

6) The doctrine of Immunity from prosecution International law

7) S.D. Murphy Contemporary Practice of the US Relating to International Law, 96

AJIL (2002)237, 247.)

8) W.J. Fenrick The Law Applicable to Targeting and Proportionality after OperationAllied Force: A View from the outside, 3 YIHL (2000) 53, 77. )

9) A The Scope of Immunity Ratione Personae: Immunity from Criminal Process for

International Crimes - Taken from the The European Journal of International Law

Vol. 21 no. 4

8/12/2019 Defense-ALS 2 _ M 17

6/24

P a g e | 5

Statutes

1) Geneva Convention

2) International Criminal Court, Roman Statute

3) United Nations Charter

8/12/2019 Defense-ALS 2 _ M 17

7/24

P a g e | 6

3) STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Nooba gained independence in 1950s from a 200 years long colonial rule. The country

was portioned on the basis of religious demographics. This partition led to a short but bloody

civil war between two religious groups, i.e. Dij and Hist. The country that seceded from

Nooba was Kimatan, bordering the northwest part of Nooba. After the huge migration during

and after the partition, Nooba had 81% Dij, 14% Hist and 5% others, and Kimatan had 98%

Hist and 1% Dij and 1% others.

2. A substantial minority of Hists lived in Sutasat, the northwest of Nooba. After the

partition, Kimatan laid its claims on Sutas, as majority of people in the area were Hists.

Nooba and Kimatan fought four wars over Sutas, i.e. in years 1957, 1965, 1971 and 1999.

3. Some Hists of Sutas, favoured accession of Sutas to Kimataan, and some favoured

complete independence. The dispute between the Government of Nooba and local Hists over

greater autonomy gained momentum in 1988.

CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS:

1998:

In 1998, an internal conflict arose between Hists in Sutas and the Government of Nooba over

local elections. They complained about systematic discrimination and mistreatment by

Noobian authorities. In 1999, a series of demonstrations, strikes and attacks on the

Government of Nooba began.

2000:

Under the leadership of Luke Skittle, the Hists in Sutas organized a rebel group, which

favouredSutas accession to Kimatan, which called itself the Hist Liberation Front (HLF).

HLF launched a series of coordinated attacks against several major Noobian cities.

2003:

The conflict escalated. Nooba accused the Kimatan Government and Army of supporting and

training HLF to fight in Sutas.

8/12/2019 Defense-ALS 2 _ M 17

8/24

P a g e | 7

2009:

In October 2009, a general election took place in Nooba, in which the Dij Peoples

Party ousted the Noobian Nationalist Party. On 24 October 2009, the new Prime

Minister of Nooba, Lama Suki of Dij Peoples Party, in his victory speech to the

nation called upon the Dij people to join hands to get rid of Hists from the country.

As a result, the tension between the two countries, Nooba and Kimatan increased.

The Kimatan Government and Hist religious groups in Kamatan condemned Lama

Sukis victory speech. The Kimatan army increased its activities around the border

under the command of Colonel Jingo Crackle, protector of Luke Skittle.

2010:

On 25 February 2010, a series of explosions took place throughout Sutas, each of

which targeted a police station, security installations manned by Noobian officers and

Dij residential areas. HLF claimed responsibility for the bombings. Hundreds of Dij

women were raped by HLF rebels. Tens of thousands of SutasDijs emigrated as a

result of violence.

The Prime Minister and Minister of Defence of Nooba, Lama Suki, deployed 600,000

army personnel in Sutas equipped with emergency powers. According to Hist people,

this led to constant harassment of the civilian population. The army personnel arrested

ten young civilians of the Hist religion under the suspicion of their involvement in

exploding bombs at one of the security posts in Sutas. The detainees were humiliated,

their hands and legs were tied, and they were kept in solitary confinement for endless

hours without food and water. The Amnesty International reported that the detainees

were choked to death using Chlorine and Chloropicrin.

A coalition of international human rights organisations including Human Rights

Watch, the International Federation for Human Rights, and the Amnesty International

reported the use of heavy arms, explosive and chemical weapons in populated areas

with no discrimination between civilians and army. The rebels are engaged in ethnic

cleansing by exterminating Sutas Dijs. Various reports claim that the Nooba troops

have been engaged in widespread humanitarian abuses and have engaged in

extrajudicial killings. The International Commission of Jurist reported that a Nooba

8/12/2019 Defense-ALS 2 _ M 17

9/24

P a g e | 8

Army Unit is alleged to have forcefully entered in the houses of Hists people and

raped 30 to 100 women aged between 13 and 70. The Government's inability to

protect the people from both its own troops and the rebel forces led to the erosion of

support for the Government.

(Note : Nooba and Kimatan both are members of the United Nations. Both are parties

to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, the Convention on the Prevention and

Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 1948, the International Convention on Civil

and Political Rights, 1966 and other International Humanitarian Law Conventions

which prohibit the use of certain weapons during the hostilities. Nooba is not a

signatory to and thus also not a state party to the Rome Statute of International

Criminal Court, 1998; Kimatan has been a state party to the ICC Statute since August

2000.)

2013:

On 29 November 2013 the United Nations Security Council convened an emergency

meeting. Acting under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter and Article 13 (b) of Rome

Statute, the Council vide Resolution 2019 referred the situation since 24 October 2009 to the

International Criminal Court (ICC) and urged all states to co-operate with the Court, whether

or not it was party to the Rome Statute. Nooba refused to recognise the courts jurisdiction.

2014:

On 15 January 2014, the Prosecutor submitted to the Pre-Trial Chamber two

applications for an arrest warrant for Colonel Jingo Crackle and Lama Suki pursuant

to Article 58 of the Statute. The Prosecutors application was based on the following

charges:

Charges against Colonel Jingo Crackle

Since 25 February 2010 in Sutas, Colonel Jingo Crackle with HLF jointly committed, as a

joint criminal enterprise, within the meaning of Article 25(3) (a) of the Statute:

1. Crimes against Humanity under Article 7(2) of the International Criminal Court Statute

(the Statute);

2. war crimes by intentionally directing an attack against a civilian population as such or

against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities under Article 8(2)(b)(i) of the

8/12/2019 Defense-ALS 2 _ M 17

10/24

P a g e | 9

Statute; wilful killings under Article 8(2)(a)(i); destruction of property under Article

8(2)(b)(xiii) and committing rape under Article 8 (2)(b)(xxii) of the Statute;

3. Responsibility of the Commander and other superiors of HLF and their actions in Sutas

under Article 28 of the Statute.

Charges against Lama Suki

Lama Suki was charged with the following crimes:

1. On 24 October 2009 and on subsequent dates Lama Suki committed incitement to

genocide under Article 6 and Article 25 (3) (e) of the Statute;

2. war crime of inhuman treatment and unlawful confinement of ten young civilian of Hist

religion in Sutas under Article 8 (2) (a) (ii)& (vii) of the Statute;

International Criminal Law Moot Court Competition, 2014

3. Responsibility of the Commander and the actions of the Noobian army in Sutas against

civilian population under Article 28 of the Statute; directing use of prohibited weapons under

Article 8 (2) (b)(xx) of the International Criminal Court.

On 22 January 2014 the Pre-Trial Chamber issued arrest warrants for Colonel Jingo

Crackle and Lama Suki. It requested all other State parties to the Rome Statute to

cooperate within their jurisdiction in the arrest and surrender of Colonel Jingo Crackle

and Lama Suki.

On 1 February 2014, Lama Suki travelled to Zydan to participate in an annual summit

of group seven regional states. Although Zydan is a state party to the Rome Statute

since 2008, it did not arrest Lama Suki, taking the position that doing so would violate

his Head of State Immunity.

On 2 February 2014, Colonel Jingo Crackle visited Meran, a Hist majority country

and a non-state party to attend a multi religious conference. The conference venue

was on the border with Astram, a state party to Roman Statute. Colonel Jingo Crackle

remained in Meran territory, when he was approached by private security staff for a

security check. Understanding it to take place in Astram, he refused, and was thereby

forcibly removed, his name discovered on the ICC warrant when he was identified,

8/12/2019 Defense-ALS 2 _ M 17

11/24

P a g e | 10

and taken into custody at Astram on 3 February 2014.

On 4 February 2014, the accused claimed unlawful arrest and abduction to Astram in

a surrender hearing which the National Court and responsible Minister of Astram

rejected in light of Article 59 (4) of the Rome Statute.

The two cases have been brought by the Prosecutor before the Pre-Trial Chamber for

the confirmation of charges set out in the arrest warrant:

(i) The Prosecutor v. Colonel Jingo Crackle;

(ii) The Prosecutor vs. Lama Suki.

Prior to the confirmation hearing the Pre-Trial Chamber received 84 applications from

the residents of Sutas, nationals of Nooba claiming excessive atrocities from HLF. All

victims have been granted the right to participate in the confirmation hearing. The

victims under protection are referred to as nos. W01-W84.

8/12/2019 Defense-ALS 2 _ M 17

12/24

P a g e | 11

4) ISSUES

The Prosecutor vs Colonel Jingo Crackle

1) PROPOSED CHARGES ARE BASELESS AND THE COURT HAS NO

JURISDICTION

2) RESOLUTION 2019 IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH A PRINCIPLE OF THE

UNITED NATIONS

3) COLONEL JINGO CRACKLE NOT LIABLE FOR PROSECUTION IN ANY CASE

The Prosecutor vs Lama Suki

1) CHARGES AGAINST LAMA SUKI DO NOT CONSTITUTE A COGNIZABLE CASE

AGAINST HUMANITY UNDER THE STATUTE

2) HEAD OF STATE IMMUNITY

8/12/2019 Defense-ALS 2 _ M 17

13/24

P a g e | 12

5) SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS



JURISDICTION

There is no proof about any kind of connection between Colonel Jingo Crackle

and Luke Skittle. There are baseless allegations made about the same. The crimes

that have taken place are committed by the HLF and it takes total responsibility

for the same. And as there is absence of any connection, Colonel Jingo Crackle

cannot be charged.


UNITED NATIONS

The resolution itself cannot stand as per the article in the Roman ICC statute

and also the articles in the Geneva convention. Therefore the case does not

stand in the first place.

3) COLONEL JINGO CRACKLE NOT LIABLE FOR PROSECUTION IN ANY CASE

Liability being totally based on establishment of a relation between ColonelJingo Crackle and Luke Skittle. Also Colonel Jingo Crackle cannot be

prosecuted for acts that are authorized by the state.


1) CHARGES AGAINST LAMA SUKI DO NOT CONSTITUTE A COGNIZABLE

CASE AGAINST HUMANITY UNDER THE STATUTE

The various charges do not stand as, the circumstances of the events

when taken into consideration show us that Lama Suki cannot be made

criminally liable for the atrocities. And Lama Suki has done reasonably

8/12/2019 Defense-ALS 2 _ M 17

14/24

P a g e | 13

everything in his power to prevent such atrocities from happening in the

first place.


Lama Suki enjoys Head of State Immunity and therefore he cannot be

forced to submit in front of the ICC.

8/12/2019 Defense-ALS 2 _ M 17

15/24

P a g e | 14

6) WRITTEN ARGUMENTS



JURISDICTION

(a) Colonel Jingo Crackle is prosecuted as a joint criminal enterprise, within the

meaning of Article 25(3)(a) of the Roman Statute of the International Criminal Court

(ICC) which states that crimes are punishable if a person -

Commits such a crime, whether as an individual, jointly with another or through

another person, regardless of whether that other person is criminally responsible;

In the present scenario, the only link between Colonel Jingo Crackle and Luke Skittle

is and allegation that the Hist Liberation Front(HLF) is getting help from the Kimatan

government and army. Furthermore Jingo Crackle is referred to as the protector of

Luke Skittle. These are mere allegations upon Colonel Jingo Crackle.

The crimes that have been committed were due to the internal rebellions and were

also committed by the citizens of Nooba and Colonel Jingo Crackle had no role in it.

He did not directly or indirectly support the movement.

The total responsibility of the bombings and the atrocities have been taken by the

HLF. Therefore as there being no link between Colonel Jingo Crackle and the HLF,

and also the allegations are baseless and are without a shred of conclusive evidence,

the arrest of Colonel Jingo Crackle is without a just cause.

(b) It should be taken into account that as Article 5 of the Roman ICC Statute state the

crimes that come under the jurisdiction of the ICC. We see that as per our previous

argument, there has not been any direct involvement of Colonel Jingo Crackle with

respect of the atrocities that took place throughout Sutas as on 25th February 2010 and

8/12/2019 Defense-ALS 2 _ M 17

16/24

P a g e | 15

also post that date. The charges were framed on the basis of indirect involvement.

And these charges are without any conclusive proof.

It should be noted that the HLF that is the rebellion group in Nooba, which took the

responsibility of the attacks were citizens of Nooba and were in no way related to

Colonel Jingo Crackle, and therefore this was the internal matter of Nooba. As nosuch crime did take place in Kimatan or by involvement of Colonel Jingo Crackle, the

court has no jurisdiction to conduct a trial against Colonel Jingo Crackle and accuse

him of the charges.


UNITED NATIONS

THEarticle 2(4) of the UN Charter, prohibits the use of force to the international relations of

states, i.e.,not with regard to their internal situations, which, according to article 2(7), belong

to States domestic jurisdiction. As stated in Bruno Simma, The Charter of the United

Nations: A Commentary (Oxford University Press , Oxford 2nd ed. 2002) Randelzhoffer on

Article 2(4) MN 29.

A civil war is not in itself a breach of international peace. As we see in the present

scenario, the atrocities were going on in Sutas that is a part of Nooba and the

responsibility of the same was taken up by HLF which was also a rebellious organization

which contained Nooba citizens. Therefore this was an internal situation for Nooba and

this should be tried in its National court. Colonel Jango Crackle is a third party and he

should not be involved in the same.

The Councils authority exclusively depends on its acceptance by the member States.

This acceptance will not be enhanced if the Council claims for itself a place above the

Charter. On the contrary, an authority that negates its legal foundations negates itself.

In view of the aforesaid legal reasoning, Resolution 2019 is not in accordance with a cardinalprinciple of the UN.

RESOLUTION 2019 IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 39 OF THE UN

CHARTER.

8/12/2019 Defense-ALS 2 _ M 17

17/24

P a g e | 16

Article 39 is the single most important provision of the Charter, ( U.S. Secretary of State,

Report to the President on the Results of the San Francisco Conference (1945), at 90-

91.)

it is the key to the broad powers of the Security Council under Chapter VII of the Charter.

(Berld Martenczuk, The Security Council, the International Court and Judicial Review:

What Lessons from Lockerbie, 10 No. 3EJIL (1999) 517, 534.)

Without a determination that a given situation poses either a threat to the peace or constitutes

a breach of the peace or act of aggression, the Council cannot take enforcement measures

under Chapter VII of the Charter, as it has done in the instant case. This is borne out by both

the authoritative commentaries on the Charter and the practice of the Security Council itself.

( Berld Martenczuk, The Security Council, the International Court and Judicial Review:

What Lessons from Lockerbie, 10 No. 3EJIL (1999) 517, 534.)

There is no investigation done on part of the Security Council

1. In view of the war crimes and crimes against humanity that had occurred in Nooba, the

Security Council has enacted provisions under Chapter VII of the UN Charter without

prior investigation and totally based this decision on various reporting agencies.

2. Therefore, Resolution 2019 is not in accordance with article 39 of the UN Charter.RESOLUTION 2019 IS VOID AND WITHOUT ANY LEGAL EFFECT UPON THE

MEMBER STATES.

When the Security Council reaches a decision which is ultra vires,in the sense that a

procedural requirement contained in the Charter is clearly violated or ignored, then the

normal legal consequence would be that such a decision would be void and without legal

effect upon the Member States. ( D.M. Walker, Oxford Companion to Law (Oxford, ed.

1980) 1246. The doctrine of ultra vires and the consequences of such acts as being void is

widely recognized in numerous legal systems and can be considered to be a general principle

of law. V.Gowlland Debbas, The International Court and the Security Council, 88 AJIL

(1994) 643, 672.)

3. In the instant case, the Security Council has not conducted any investigations under

article 34 of the UN Charter to determine whether there existed any threat to the peace,

8/12/2019 Defense-ALS 2 _ M 17

18/24

P a g e | 17

breach of peace, or act of aggression in Nooba. Thus, Resolution 2019 is ultra vires;in the

sense that a procedural requirement contained in the Charter has been clearly ignored.

4. Therefore, the legal consequence is that Resolution 2019 is void and without legal effect

upon the Member States.

3) COLONEL JINGO CRACKLE NOT LIABLE FOR PROSECUTION IN ANY

CASE

Assuming involvement of Colonel Jingo Crackle in helping the HLF , he cannot be

prosecuted as it was through the orders of the Kimatan army the activities at the border were

increased. These orders were the after effects of the victory speech given by Lama Suki. The

actions that colonel Jingo Crackle would have taken would be authorized by the state and

therefore they are lawful as they have been carried out under due authorization by the law of

the land. By the doctrine of Immunity from prosecution.

Thus the acts of indirect influence over the HLF as per the charges that are put under Article

25(3)(a) of the Roman ICC statute would fall under the acts that are authorized by the state

and thus Colonel Jingo Crackle would be immune from prosecution.

As we see Colonel Jingo Crackle has no direct command over the HLF, he cannot be held

responsible for each and every act as he did not have control of the rebels.

2) The charges of war crimes do not hold against colonel Jingo Crackle as the

Colonel has no leadership over the rebels. He was not their commander. The HLF

functioned under the Ledership of Lama Suki and therefore it is Lama Suki who is

responsible for the actions of the HLF.

3) Colonel Jingo Crackle is not the superior or the commander of HLF and therefore

cannot be held responsible for the attacks under Section 28 of the Statute.

8/12/2019 Defense-ALS 2 _ M 17

19/24

P a g e | 18


1) CHARGES AGAINST LAMA SUKI DO NOT CONSTITUTE A COGNIZABLE

CASE AGAINST HUMANITY UNDER THE STATUTE.

Charge for incitement to commit genocide

Lama suki has not committed any offence. He did not incite anyone as given under articl

25(3)(e) of the Roman ICC statute. His speech was misinterpreted. He did say to get rid of

the Hists but this statement was in context to discussion of the unfruitful governance, of the

previous government especially when it came to deal with the problems caused by the HLF.

When he said to get rid of the Hists it was those Hists who were a part of the HLF. As here

we can see that the HLF actions have given rise to various cause of actions. It should be duly

noted that in the current scenario, the hists werent intentionally targeted; they were the ones

who initiated the atrocities. Lama Suki did his best to preserve law and order in the Sutas.

For incitement leading to genocide, the mens rea required for this crime lies in the intent to

directly prompt or provoke another to commit genocide. The person who is inciting to

commit genocide must have himself the specific intent to commit genocide. Held in

Prosecutor v. Akayesu, ICTR-96-4-T, 02/09/1998, para 560; William Schabas,

Mugesera v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 93AJIL (1999) 529.

We know that Lama Suki never had such an intent and as per our arguments made above his

reference to the HLF was misunderstood as a reference to all Hists in common. He totally

lacked intent to incite genocide.

Charge for commiting genocide

Similarly genocide did not take place. The most important element of the crime of genocide

is that of intention. The act must be committed by the offender with the intention of

specifically harming or causing hurt to the members of a religion, community or a gene pool.

Here there is no question of intention or specific targeting of a religion or a group as here we

can clearly see that the action taken by the armed forces was not an action but was a reaction

8/12/2019 Defense-ALS 2 _ M 17

20/24

P a g e | 19

to the atrocities committed by the HLF. It was an effort to preserve law and order in the

country and also to preserve life and property.

As held inProsecutor v. Sikiricaet al., (Case No. IT-95-8-T), para. 89 A Trial Chamber of

the ICTY in Sikirica observed that the group must be targeted, and not merely individuals

within it. The court added that this is the meaning to be ascribed to the words as such in the

definition of genocide.

As held in Prosecutor v. Kayishema and Ruzindana, (Case No. ICTR-95-1-T),

Judgment, 21/05/1999, para. 94. And According to the Trial Chamber of the ICTY, a

policy must exist to commit these acts: Prosecutor v. Tadic (Case No. IT-94-1-T),

Opinion and Judgment, 07/05/1997, para. 655.

Genocide is an organised and not a spontaneous crime. A Trial Chamber of the ICTR in

Kayishema and Ruzindana observed that it is not easy to carry out genocide without a plan or

organization. Thus in the given scenario, there was lack of systematic plan as well as in

intention, the military troops acted with a view to reestablish government control in the Sutas.

Charge for committing war crimes

Lama Suki should not be charged under Article 8(2)(a)(ii)&(vii) of the Roman ICC statute.

These sections relate to torture, inhuman treatment, unlawful deportation and unlawful

confinement.

We know about the scenario in Nooba when Lama Suki was forced to deploy the military to

establish peace. There was no law and order therefore emergency orders were given to the

military in order to restore the peace. Due to the flow of weapons to the HLF, this led to

greater damage and therefore the military had to take measures to restrict the damage and

bring the area back into control.

Ciivil areas were harmed due to use of heavy explosives but this was not with the intent to

harm the civil population but was due to mistakes or technical flaws.

8/12/2019 Defense-ALS 2 _ M 17

21/24

8/12/2019 Defense-ALS 2 _ M 17

22/24

P a g e | 21


Taken from the The European Journal of International Law Vol. 21 no. 4

A The Scope of Immunity Ratione Personae: Immunity from Criminal Process for

International Crimes

It is clear that senior officials who are accorded immunity ratione personae will be hindered

in the exercise of their international functions if they are arrested and detained whilst in a

foreign state. For this reason, this type of immunity, where applicable, is commonly

regarded as prohibiting absolutely the exercise of criminal jurisdiction by states. The

absolute nature of the immunity ratione personae means that it prohibits the exercise of

criminal jurisdiction not only in cases involving the acts of these individuals in theirofficial capacity but also in cases involving private acts.(Arrest Warrant case,supra note

9, at para. 54; Fox, supra note 1, at 694. See also the treaty provisions cited supra at

note 5. )Also, the rationale for the immunity means that it applies whether or not the act in

question was done at a time when the official was in office or before entry to office. (

Arrest Warrant case,supra note 9, at paras 5455. ) What is important is not the nature

of the alleged activity or when it was carried out, but rather whether the legal process

invoked by the foreign state seeks to subject the official to a constraining act of authority at

the time when the official was entitled to the immunity. Thus, attempts to arrest or

prosecute these officials would be a violation of the immunity whilst invitations by a

foreign state for the official to testify or provide information voluntarily would not.( Ibid.,

at paras 55, 7071; Case Concerning Certain Questions of Mutual Assistance in

Criminal Matters (Djibouti v. France), ICJ judgment of 4 June 2008, at para. 170

)However, since this type of immunity is conferred, at least in part, in order to permit free

exercise by the official of his or her international functions, the immunity exists for only as

long as the person is in office.

In the Arrest Warrant case, the ICJ held that Foreign Ministers are entitled to immunity

ratione personae, and further held that the absolute nature of the immunity from criminal

process accorded to a serving Foreign Minister ratione personae subsists even when it is

alleged that he has committed an international crime and applies even when the Foreign

Minister is abroad on a private visit.(Arrest Warrant case,supra note 9, at para. 55. )The

Court stated:

8/12/2019 Defense-ALS 2 _ M 17

23/24

P a g e | 22

It has been unable to deduce . . . that there exists under customary international law any

form of exception to the rule according immunity from criminal jurisdiction and

inviolability to incumbent Ministers for Foreign Affairs, where they are suspected of

having committed war crimes or crimes against humanity.14

The principle that immunity ratione personae extends even to cases involving allegations ofinternational crimes must be taken as applying to all those serving state officials and

diplomats possessing this type of immunity.15 Indeed the principle is uncontroversial and has

been widely applied by national courts in relevant cases.( Ghaddafi case, Arrt no. 1414

(2001), 125 ILR 456 (France: Cour de Cassation); Castro case (Spain: Audiencia

Nacional, 1999), cited by Cassese,supra note 15, at 272 n. 20;Re Sharon and Yaron, 42

ILM (2003) 596 (Belgium: Cour de Cassation);R. v. Bow Street Stipendiary Magistrate

and others)

8/12/2019 Defense-ALS 2 _ M 17

24/24

P a g e | 23

7) PRAYER

For the Accused Colonel Jango Crackle

In the light of the aforesaid, it is humbly prayed before this Honble Court that:

1. The accused person is not guilty of any of the alleged crimes

2. The arrest of Colonel Jingo Crackle is illegal

3. The acquittal of the accused is humbly prayed before this Honble court.

For the Accused Lama Suki

In the light of the aforesaid, it is humbly prayed before this Honble Court that:

1. The accused person is not guilty of any of the alleged crimes

2. The accused person has Head of State immunity and therefore cannot be arrested and

prosecuted

3. The acquittal of the accused is humbly prayed before this Honble court.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

COUNSEL FOR THE ACCUSED PERSON

Documents

Defense-ALS 2 _ M 17