Good morning, Mr. President, your Excellencies. May it please the court.

I am Brigette Domingo
together with my co-counsel Ms. Patricia Eustaquio appearing for the prosecution.

For 15 minutes, I will be making two submissions. First, that there is an international armed
between Temeria and the RLF; and second that Col Rivia is responsible for the war crime of
excessive incidental death, injury, or damage to the population of Velen.

The remaining 2 submissions will be discussed by my co-counsel for 15 minutes.

And we reserve 10 mins for rebuttal. If there are no preliminary questions, I will now proceed to
my first submission.

I. COMMON ART 2, of the 1949 Geneva Convention (IAC)

II. Prosecutor v. TADIC
a. INTERNAL ARMED CONFLICT MAY BECOME INTERNATIONAL (PARTICIPANTS ACT
ON BEHALF OF STATE)
b. OVERALL
III. Lyria has overall control over the RLF (Prosec v. Jadrankco);
a. RLF OPERATIONS IN SKELLIG MOUNTAINS ACCDG TO AL JAZEERA
AND REUTERS HQ IS AT SKELLIG
i. Advisers LDF OFFICERS
ii. Training camps
iii. One of the mortal remains in the LZ battles is an LDF officer.
iv. Geralt crossed borders from Lyria to temeria in order to aide in the
humanitarian missions. He was not in the LZ.
v. ARTICLE 69 (Relevance (connection sa matter), Probative Value
(reliability and siginificance in determining the issue), Prejudicial to the
Accused (harmful to the proceedings))
b. LYRI FINANCED RLF OPERATIONS
i. GERALT & RFP FINANCED LZ VIA LEAKED FOOTAGE - RULED
AGAINST ADMISSIBLITY OF EVIDENCE FROM UNKNOWN SOURCE
(judge other three elements and it may be admitted) PROSECUTOR v.
BEMBA, KATANGA, LUBANGA (Art 69)
ii. Youtube video GERALT IS THE NEW POLITICAL LEADER OF THE RLF
c. CORROBORATING EVIDENCE
i. Shell casings = same weapons system as that with the LDF
ii. Rifles with erased serial numbers
iii. Transporting weapons
iv. LYRIA has motive to erase them out of all the other states/LYRIA ACT OF
AGRESSION

second that the Rennish people are fighting in the exercise of their right to self-determination;
(SHELF)
I. ART 1, AP 1, 1949 GENEVA CONVENTION (IAC includes AC with
people fighting….)
 v. Colonial Domination and Racist Regime is present

1. As proof of colonial domination, no Rennish may obtain loans

without compulsory assistance from Temerian personnel (par 6)
2. As proof of colonial domination, Rennish peoples have been
historically subject to persecution which led to the creation of the
RLF movement, (par 2, 4)
3. As proof of racist regime and of discrimination, Rennish peoples are
subject to discriminatory policies since 2010 (par. 8)
a. Cost of Visas went higher which disproportionately affected
Lyrian immigrants (mejj weak)
b. In 2011, Temerians restricted visas for Rennish people
making it difficult for Rennish Temerians to depart their
own country
4. As proof of racist regime and discrimination, Rennish peoples were
deprived of public health care and education.
5. As proof of racist regime and discrimination, Rennish peoples were
often accused of association with the mainstream press.
vi. The RLF disseminated Freedom Fighters propaganda over Rennish
communities in Velen (par 9)
1. How do you know it was the RLF who did this?
a. (par 7) The first manifestation of the RLF was during the
Temerian Independence day as shown by the fact that the
perpretator was caught with the RLF’s colours which means
that the RLF are back on their feet once again.
b. (par 7-9) Ever since this incident, Rennish peoples were
continuously subjected to discrimination making it
reasonable for the RLF to encourage them to fight through
the dissemination of said paraphernalia.
vii. The RLF named its territory as Liberated Zone which signifies their intent to
secede from the racist crutches of Temeria (par 10-14).

d. and third, that Temeria, including Rivia and his men, considerd the conflict against
Lyria as a conflict against the RLF (SHELF)
i. (par 9) TAF arrested a Lyrian intelligence agent transporting weapons inside
Temeria.
ii. (par 10) TAF constructed a wall ever since this incident which was seen by
Lyria as an act of aggression. Having expressed this sentiment, Lyria became
involved in the subsequent clashes between the TAF and the RLF.
iii. Clashes between the TAF and the RLF disclosed that the RLF and the LDF are
using the same weapons system (shell casings, rifles with erased numbers to
preven the same from being traced back to Lyria) which means that the TAF
are aware that the LDF materially supports the RLF especially since the TAF
 were the ones responsible for the seizure of the weapons every after clash (10-
14)
iv. Independent news organizations reported that the RLF training camps were
located in the Skellig mountains within Lyrian borders. (par 16). A video
footage was leaked disclosing that Geralt was a member of the RLF and that
he and some members of the Rennish Freedom Party are funneling funds to
the RLF. (par 13) After resigning as a pariliament member, Geralt announced
on YT that he is the new leader of the RLF (par 15). All of these were disclosed
to the general public.
1. AL JAZEERA – has editorial independence and has a reputation for
empowering groups previously lacking a global voice. Major global
news organization.
2. REUTERS – int’l news organization. “value-neutral approach”
v. RIVIA is the area commander of the TAF; thus he and his men are aware that
the conflict was indeed against Lyria and not just against a random rebel force
(par 20).

IV. Rivia is responsible for the war crime of excessive incidental death, injury or damage
to the population of Velen.

ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME UNDER ROME STATUTE ART 8(2)(b)(iv)

A. The war crime was committed through the Siege of Velen. (par 17)

a. The TAF cut off vital and essential supplies (medicine, food) to Velen
i. (par 17-19) The TAF regained control over half of the liberated zone by
September 2013. The following month, TAF succeeded in completely
cutting off the supplies to Velen. (OCTOBER 13 DIRECTIVE 66)
b. The siege of Velen resulted in clearly excessive incidental death, injury or
damage to the City of Velen which are clearly excessive in relation to the
concrete and direct overall military advantage.
i. PROSECUTOR v. Galic Excessive Incidental death, injury or damage -
Death, injuries, or damages incidental to the attack are clearly
excessive when disproportionate to the entire military objective.
 Stanislav Galic is the commander of the Corps of the Sarajevo
Army. He was convicted for war crimes committed during the siege
of the Sarajevo.
ii. ICRC COMMENTARY CONCRETE AND DIRECT OVERALL
MILITARY ADVANTAGE
iii. AP1, ART 52 (Civilian objects must not be object of attack/Military
object: (1) contribute to military action (2) whose destruction would
give a definite military advantage)
iv. APPLICATION
 1. AS TO MILITARY OBJECTIVE: TAF’s objective was only
to destabilize. (arms embargo&ESSENTIALS)
i. MASSIVE casualties after Directive 66 (Oct 15).
2. AS TO EXCESSIVENESS:
a. AP 1, ART 54 DEFINITION OF I.A. (2 yun)
b. 120,000 remained wt RLF in Velen after evacuation.
c. BLANKET and SHOOT-ON-SIGHT by UNIT 50 LED
TO Starvation and cholera (immediate cause is
destruction of water main; proximate cause is lack of
medicine to cure them) (Par 21-22).
d. This is related to the siege because in cutting off the
supplies to the RLF civilians are adversely affected for it
is impossible to determine who the RLF is or who the
civilians are.
c. Rivia knew that the attack would result in the clearly excessive incidental death
injury and damage to the city
1. Being the area commander, Rivia oversees the cutting off of
supplies to Velen and thus, he knew or should’ve known that it
would result in clearly excessive incidental death, injury and
damage to the city in the ordinary course of events. (Par 20)
2. Rivia’s men also facilitated the evacuation of the citizens of
Velen and so he and his men knows that out of 150,000 people,
only 30,000 of them were safely evacuated before the institution
of the shoot-on-sight and blanket no-entry no-exit policy. (par
20-21)
3. AP1, ART 57 (TAKE ALL FEASIBLE
PRECAUTIONS..MINIMIZING INCIDENTAL..)
i. The literal meaning of Article 7(3) is not difficult
to ascertain. A commander may be held
criminally liable in respect of the acts of his
subordinates in violation of Articles 2 to 5 of the
Statute. Both the subordinates and the
commander are individually responsible in
relation to the impugned acts. The commander
would be tried for failure to act in respect of the
offences of his subordinates in the perpetration
of which he did not directly participate
B. Rivia is individually criminally responsible as the war crime was the intented result of
the issuance of Directive 66

a. ART25(3)(b) a person INDIVIDUALLY CRIMINALLY RESPONSIBLE

when he Orders the commission a crime which in fact occurs.
b. As area commander, Rivia was the officer with authority to direct all aspects
of TAF operations, particularly through his issuance of Directive-66 (par 20)
c. RIVIA, AS THE AREA COMMANDER, PRESUMED TO BE THE ONE
ORDERED.
Good morning, your Excellencies. May it please this court. I am Brigette Domingo counsel for the
defendant Colonel Rivia.

For 15 minutes, I will be discussing the remaining submissions, that Col. Rivia Is Not Responsible
for The War Crime of Attacking Humanitarian Personnel; and that Directive 66 did not declare no
quarter will be given to the RLF.

IF THERE ARE NO PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS, I WILL NOW PROCEED TO MY FIRST

SUBMISSION.

I. Col. Rivia Is Not Responsible for The War Crime of Attacking Personnel or Objects
involved in a humanitarian mission

LEGAL BASIS:

ROME STATUTE Art. 8(2)(b)(iii):

1. The perpetrator directed an attack.
2. The object of the attack was personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping
mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.
3. The perpetrator intended such personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles so involved to be the object of the attack.
4. Such personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles were entitled to that protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the
international law of armed conflict.
5. The perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established that protection.
6. The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international armed conflict.
7. The perpetrator was aware of factual circumstances that established the existence of an armed conflict

a. There was no criminal attack on the convoy

(NOT ALL ELEMENTS UNDER 82b3 are PRESENT)
i. Lt. Metz as perpretator is unaware that the convoy is engaged in a
humanitarian mission (DEFENSE SUBMITS THAT THE 5th EELEMTN IT
ABSENT)
1. ART 21, 1st GENEVA CONVENTION. The protection to which
fixed establishments and mobile medical units of the Medical
Service are entitled shall not cease unless they are used to commit,
outside their humanitarian duties, acts harmful to the enemy.
Protection may, however, cease only after a due warning has
been given, naming, in all appropriate cases, a reasonable time
limit, and after such warning has remained unheeded.
2. AP 1 ART 18: IDENTIFICATION/EMBLEMS/WAR IS TAKING PLACE
3. ICRC COMMENTARY: EMBLEM EVIDENCE OF PROTECTION
4. APPLICATION:
a. ACCORDING TO METZ’
PERSPECTIVE/POSITION:
i. MUDSPRAYED (par 29, 31)
ii. ALTERNATIVE ROUTE (par 31)
iii. 6 VEHICLES INSTEAD OF 8 VEHICLES. (par
34)
 iv. PREVIOUS RLF ENCOUNTER/HIGH ALERT
(par 32)
v. DID NOT ARRIVE AT THE SPECIFIED TIME;
No sight of convoy (par 33, 29)
vi. RLF PREVIOUSLY DISGUISED AS
HUMANITARIAN PERSONNEL (par 23)

b. Rivia is not responsible on the basis of Command responsibility

i. Command Responsibility (Art 28)
1. DID NOT FAIL TO PREVENT:
a. Rivia did not know that a crime was about to be committed:
i. Faulty communications (par 30-43)
1. Lost comm to convoy (par 30)
2. DID NOT KNOW ALTERNATIVE
ROUTE/“Water” (par 31)
3. “Red”, “Preparing to fire”, “Camouflaged”
“Mud” (par 34)
b. Rivia took necessary measures to prevent:
i. Communicated with convoy during travel (par 30)
ii. Contacted Unit 52 regarding ambush; HIGH ALERT
(par 32)
iii. Contacted Unit 45 distribution point (par 33)
iv. Confirmed identity of vehicles – how many; cross;
RLF (par 34)
2. DID NOT FAIL TO SUPPRESS
a. Rivia could not have known that a crime was being
committed (SAME REASONS)
b. Rivia did not fail to take necessary measures to suppress
crime because he was not even aware that a crime being
committed.
3. DID NOT FAIL TO SUBMIT THE MATTER TO
AUTHORITY:
a. ICTY TRIAL CHAMBER Prosecutor v. Radovan Karadžić:
i. THE CASE WAS ABOUT RADOVAN WHO
COMMITTED CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY
INCLUDING WAR CRIMES DURING THE
BOSNIAN WAR BY PRETENDING TO BE A
LICENSED PHYSICIST.
ii. In order to be liable, failed to take necessary and
reasonable measure to prevent or punish.
iii. NECESSARY (appropriate for the superiror to
discharge his obligation to punish the crime)
iv. REASONABLY (reasonably falling within the
material powers of the superior)
v. MATERIAL POWERS (effective control over
subordinates he has at the time/not impossible)
 1. Took disciplinary measures against the
commission of crime.
b. HE KNEW CRIME WAS COMMITTED WHICH WAS
WHY HE TRANSFERRED UNIT 52 OUTSIDE THE LZ
(par 36)
c. IN SUM…..

(PAUSE) (PAUSE)(PAUSE)
PROCEEDING TO THE THIRD COUNT.

II. The language of Directive 66 could not be said to have declared that no quarter will be
given.

LEGAL BASIS:
ROME STAUTE ART 82b12
1. The perpetrator declared or ordered that there shall be no survivors.
2. Such declaration or order was given in order to threaten an adversary or to conduct
hostilities on the basis that there shall be no survivors.
3. The perpetrator was in a position of effective command or control over the subordinate
forces to which the declaration or order was directed.
4. The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international
armed conflict.
5. The perpetrator was aware of factual circumstances that established the existence of an
armed conflict

No Quarter: The captured will not be given place of stay or residence and none therefore
shall be taken prisoners and so everyone captured will be killed.
Jurisprudence:
ICRC
Opportunity to Surrender:
i. main objective of the directive : DESTABILIZE THE RLF by cut off of
supplies
1. Directive 66 merely instructed the TAF “to take all necessary
measures to cut off the RLF’s means of fighting” (par. 20).
2. This cannot reasonably be construed to mean a declaration that
there shall be no survivors rather, it merely allows the TAF to do
what the situation requires them to do.
3. This includes cutting off RLF’s supplies.
ii. Directivee 66 was not given in order to threaten the RLF on the basis that
no quarter shall be given;
1. “remember who we’re fighting, the RLF are barbarians, they take
no prisoners” only describes the RLF as their enemy at most (par
20)
2. If anything, it is intended to boost the TAF’s morale by mentally
preparing them for their fight against the RLF.
iii. there was an opportunity to surrender for the RLF.
1. there was an opportunity to surrender because following the
issuance of Directive 66, information was also disseminated telling
 the RLF to surrender in an attempt to pre-empt further conflict
(par. 20)
2. LEAFLETS WERE NOT FROM RIVIA HIMSELF; IT
COULDVE BEEN DISSEMINATED BY
3. “fight to the bitter end” NOT NECESSARILY MEAN DEATH.