Cour

Pénale
Internationale

International
Criminal
Court

Original: English Date: 19th- 21st September 2018

No.: ICC-01/_______________

ICC TRIAL CHAMBER

At The Hague

Situation in the State of Sohulwa

In the case of

THE PROSECUTOR
V.

Z. KARMONIC

PUBLIC DOCUMENT

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

ON SUBMISSION TO THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT

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

THE MEMBERS OF ROKUM RELIGION ON THE NIGHT OF 25 MAY,

2018………………………………........................................................................……...05

A. ELEMENTS OF CRIME ARE SATISFIED IN THE PRESENT CASE... ..........….....……......05

[A.1] Element 1: Z. Karmonic intended to destroy in whole or in part, members

of the Rokum religion............................................................................................05

[A.1.1] Specific intent or dolus specialis

[A.1.2] To destroy
[A.1.3] In whole or in part
[A.2] Element 2: The Rokums are a protected group under the State….............07
[A.2.1] Identification of the Group………………………………………………..

[A.3] Element 3: Z. Karmonic killed one or more person……………………...10

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

conduct directed at the group…………………………………………

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. ELEMENTS OF WAR CRIME ARE SATISFIED IN THE PRESENT CASE.............................18

[A.1] Element 1: Mr. Z. Karmonic directed an attack .........................................18

[A.2] Element 2: The object of the attack were civilian objects, that is, objects

which are not military objects by virtue of their

nature..…….....................................................................................................19

[A.3] Element 3: Z. Karmonic intended civilian objects to be the object of

attack.....................................................................................................................20

[A.4] Element 4: Z. Karmonic’s conduct took place in the context of and was

associated with an international armed conflict

……………............................................................................................................21

[A.4.1] Existence of an International Armed Conflict…………………………….

[A.4.2] nexus between the crime and International armed conflict……………..

iii
 [A.5] Element 5: Z. Karmonic was aware of the factual circumstances that

established the existence of an armed conflict……….........................................22

B. MODE OF LIABILITY.................................................................................................24

[B.1] Article 25(3)(A)............................................................................................13

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……………………………………………..

[A.2] ELEMENT 2: Z. Karmonic was aware of the factual circumstances that

established the existence of an armed
conflict……………………………….……………………………………..
[A.3] ELEMENT 3: The attack was such that it would cause incidental death or
injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or wide-spread, long-term and
severe damage to the natural environment
………………………………..……………………………………………….
[A.4] ELEMENT 4: Z. Karmonic launched the attack……………………………….
[A.5] ELEMENT 5: Z. Karmonic knew that the attack would cause incidental death
or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or wide-spread, long-term and
severe damage to the natural environment and that such death, injury or damage
would be of such an extent as to be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and
direct overall military advantage………………………………………………

PRAYER FOR RELIEF....................................................................................................................27

iv
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ICC International Criminal Court

Rome Statute Statute of International Criminal Court

ICTY International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia

ICTR International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda

SCSL Special Court for Sierro Leone

AP I Additional Protocol I to Geneva Conventions

AP II Additional Protocol II to Geneva Conventions

Lfs Land For Sarozula

IHL International Humanitarian Law

Art. Article

u/Art. Under Article

EoC Elements of Crime

UNSC United Nation Security Council

¶ Paragraph

v
 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

TREATIES, CONVENTIONS & STATUTES

Rome Statute UN General Assembly, Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
(last amended 2010), 17 July 1998, ISBN No. 92-9227-227-6

GC I International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Geneva Convention

for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed
Forces in the Field (First Geneva Convention), 12 August 1949, 75
UNTS 31

GC II International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Geneva Convention

for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked
Members of Armed Forces at Sea (Second Geneva Convention), 12
August 1949, 75 UNTS 85

GC III International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Geneva Convention

Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (Third Geneva
Convention), 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 135

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

AP I 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

AP II 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 Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II), 8 June
1977, 1125 UNTS 609

ICTY UN Security Council, Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for

the Former Yugoslavia (as amended on 17 May 2002), 25 May 1993

ICTR UN Security Council, Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for

Rwanda (as last amended on 13 October 2006), 8 November 1994

EoC International Criminal Court (ICC), Elements of Crimes, 2011, ISBN No.
92-9227-232-2

CASES

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE (ICJ)

Wall Advisory Advisory Opinion Concerning Legal Consequences of the Construction of

Opinion a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, International Court of
Justice (ICJ),09 July 2004

INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT (ICC)

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.

Bemba The Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08-424,

International Criminal Court (ICC), 3 July 2009; Decision on Sentence
pursuant to Article 76 of the Statute, (Trial Chamber III), Case No. ICC-
01/05-01/08-3343, International Criminal Court (ICC), 21 March 2016.

Lubanga The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dylio, Decision on the Confirmation

of Charges (Pre Trial Chamber I), Case No. ICC- 01/04-01/06,
International Criminal Court (ICC), 29 January 2007; Judgment
Pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute (Trial Chamber I), Case No. ICC-
01/04-01/06, International Criminal Court (ICC), 14 March 2012.

Gbagbo The Prosecutor v. Laurent Gbagbo, Decision on the confirmation of

charges against Laurent Gbagbo (Pre Trial Chamber I), Case No. ICC-
02/11-01/11, International Criminal Court (ICC), 12 June 2014.

Sylvestre The Prosecutor v. Sylvestre Mudacumura, Decision on Prosecutor’s

application under Article 58 (Pre Trial Chamber II), No. ICC-01/04-
01/12, International Criminal Court (ICC), 13 July 2012.

viii
INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL TRIBUNAL FOR RWANDA (ICTR)

Akayesu The Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu, Judgment (Chamber I), Case

No. ICTR-96-4-T, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR),
2 September 1998.

The Prosecutor v. Georges Anderson Nderubumwe Rutaganda,

Rutaganda
Judgment and Sentence (Trial Chamber I), Case No. ICTR-96-3-T,
International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), 6 December 1999.

Ruzindana The Prosecutor v. Kayishema and Ruzindana, Judgment (Trial Chamber

II), Case No. ICTR-95-1-T, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda
(ICTR), 21 May 1999.

Nahimana 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 2003

Semanza The Prosecutor v. Laurent Semanza (Judgement and Sentence), ICTR-97-

20-T, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), 15 May 2003

INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL TRIBUNAL FOR YUGOSLAVIA (ICTY)

Krstic Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic (Trial Judgement), International Criminal

Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), 2 August 2001

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.

Galic The Prosecutor v. Stanilav Galic, Judgment and Opinion (Trial

Chamber I), Case No. IT-98-29-T, International Criminal Tribunal for
the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), 5 December 2003.

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.

Delalic Prosecutor v Delalic et al., Case No IT-96-21-A, Judgement, 20 Feb

2001, para. 697 ("Delalic Appeal")

Strugar Prosecutor v. Pavle Strugar (Appeal Judgment), IT-01-42-

A, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia
(ICTY), 17 July 2008

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

Kunarac Prosecutor v. Dragoljub Kunarac, Radomir Kovac and Zoran Vukovic

(Trial Judgment), IT-96-23-T & IT-96-23/1-T, International Criminal
Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), 22 February 2001

Kupreskic Prosecutor v. Kupreskic et al. (Decision on Motion for Review), IT-95-

16-R2, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia
(ICTY), 7 March 2003

Stakic Prosecutor v. Milomir Stakic (Trial Judgement), IT-97-24-

T, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), 31
July 2003

Krnojelac Prosecutor v. Milorad Krnojelac (Trial Judgement), IT-97-25-

T, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), 15
March 2002

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

Blaskic Prosecutor v. Tihomir Blaskic (Trial Judgement), IT-95-14-

T, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), 3
March 2000

ARTICLES, JOURNALS & YEARBOOKS

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).

L.C. Green, “Command Responsibility in International Humanitarian

Green
Law”, 320 (5 Transnational Law and Contemporary Problem, 1995)

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).

TREATISES, DIGESTS AND BOOKS

Bassiouni Cherif Bassiouni, “Crime Against Humanity In International Criminal

Law”, 471-472 (Springer, 1992).

Triffterer W.J. Fenrick, “Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International

Criminal Court”, 17 (O. Triffterer (ed.), 1999).

Schabas W. Schabas, “The International Criminal Court: A Commentary on the

International Criminal Court”, (Oxford University Press, 2010)

Meloni Chantal Meloni, “Command Responsibility in International Criminal

Law”, 185 (T.M.C. Asser, 2010).

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.

Customary IHL Jean-Marie Henckaerts and Louise Doswald-Beck, “Customary

International Humanitarian Law”, ICRC, Vol. II, Part I 169 (Cambridge
University Press, 2005).

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:

a) The crime of genocide;

b) Crimes against humanity;
c) War crimes;
d) The crime of aggression.”

Sohulwa and Rokumba are both parties to the ICC Statute.1

1
Page 14, Moot Proposition.

1
 IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES

The Prosecutor respectfully requests this Hon’ble Court to adjudge:

INDICTMENT I: THAT Z. KARMONIC BE FOUND GUILTY FOR COMMITTING THE

CRIME OF GENOCIDE OF FOLLOWERS OF ROKUM RELIGION, ON THE NIGHT OF
25 MAY, 2018 UNDER ARTICLE 6(a) OF THE ICC STATUTE.

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.

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.

2
 SUMMARY OF FACTS

1955 All countries of sarozula subcontinent achieved independence.

1999 Establishment of a non-political religious group, “Sarozula of

Sohu” (SOS) on the banks of river R2.

11 March, 2018 Stoppage of food supplies from LFS to rokumba.

Rokumba declared unilateral withdrawal from the treaty of

sarozula.

13 March, 2018 No traces of 500 rokumban nationals working in lfs areas.

30 March, 2018 ‘Help Sarozula’ facebook page created.

21 April, 2018 Karmonic reported missing from custody.

22 April, 2018 Launch of missile on five SOS offices by rokumba.

25 May, 2018 Post by ICRC insignia claiming the failure of negotiations.

This post was first shared by Karmonic. Attacks across
sohulwa on rokumban minorities.

30 May, 2018 Entry of rokumban armed forces in sohulwa.

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.

15 July, 2018 Bomb blasts in Rokumban Nuclear plants.

15 june, 2019 Arrest warrant issued by ICC against Z. Karmonic.

3
 SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS

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 THE

MEMBERS OF ROKUM RELIGION ON THE NIGHT OF 25 MAY, 2018

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

It is humbly submitted that Z. Karmonic is guilty of committing war crimes of attacking

civilian objects u/Art. 8(2)(b)(ii) of the Rome Statue. All the essentials of Art. 8(2)(b)(ii) of
the Rome Statute are fulfilled i.e., he directed the attack on the nuclear plant in Rokumba.
The object of the attack was a civilian object and Z. Karmonic intended to attack that civilian
object. Further Z. Karmonic’s conduct took place in the context of and was associated with a
n international armed conflict and that Z. Karmonic was aware of the factual circumstances
that established an armed conflict.

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.

It is humbly submitted that Z. Karmonic is guilty of committing war crimes of excessive

incidental death, injury or damage u/Art. 8(2)(b)(iv) of the Rome Statue. All the essentials of
Art. 8(2)(b)(iv) of the Rome Statute are fulfilled i.e., he launched the attack on the nuclear
plant in Rokumba. The attack was such that would cause incidental death or injury to
civilians or damage to civilian objects or wide-spread, long-term and severe damage to the
natural environment and that such death, injury or damage would be clearly excessive in
relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage and that Z. Karmonic intended
to such an attack. Further Z. Karmonic’s conduct took place in the context of and was
associated with a n international armed conflict and that Z. Karmonic was aware of the
factual circumstances that established an armed conflict.

5
 PLEADINGS

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 THE

MEMBERS OF ROKUM RELIGION ON THE NIGHT OF 25 MAY, 2018

It is humbly submitted that Z. Karmonic is criminally responsible u/Art. 25(3)(a) for

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

A. ELEMENTS OF CRIME ARE SATISFIED IN THE PRESENT CASE

The Prosecutor submits that pursuant to the ICC EoC3, the following elements need to be

met:

[A.1] ELEMENT 1: Z. KARMONIC INTENDED TO DESTROY, IN WHOLE OR IN PART,

FOLLOWERS OF THE ROKUM RELIGION

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

followers of the Rokum religion.

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

state, intent thus, must usually be inferred.6

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

the own ways all over Sohulwa immediately!”7

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

the exclusion, in this regard, of members of other groups.9

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

Rokums were made the specific targets of attack.

[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.

[A.1.3] In whole or in part

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

of Rokums all over Sohulwa.

[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.

[A.2.1] Identification of the Group

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

the political, social and cultural context.20

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

association to a particular group must be supported by certain concrete facts. 22 A religion

includes denomination or mode of worship or a group sharing common beliefs. 23 Moreover,

an overly restrictive definition ought to be avoided, provided that a coherent community

based upon a concept of a single, divine being is concerned.24

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.

[A.3]] ELEMENT 3: Z. KARMONIC KILLED ONE OR MORE PERSONS.

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.

[A.3.1] The physical element

The actus reus of the crime of Genocide consists of any act, omission or combination

thereof which contributes directly or indirectly to the killing of a large number of

individuals.26 The Prosecution need only prove beyond reasonable doubt that the

accused’s conduct contributed substantially to the death of the victim.27

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

contributed substantially to the death of the person.29

[A.3.2] The mental element

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

intent and knowledge apply.32

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

be inferred from direct or circumstantial evidence. 34 According to Art. 30, knowledge is

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

awareness that a consequence will occur in the ordinary course of events.

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

necessarily be effected by an immediately proximate cause in addition to the communication

itself. 36 This does not diminish the causation to be attributed to such a medium of

dissemination, like Facebook in the instant case, or the criminal accountability of Z.

Karmonic for the communication.

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

bullets in the gun”.37

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.

[A.4] ELEMENT 4: Z. KARMONIC’S CONDUCT TOOK PLACE IN THE CONTEXT OF A MANIFEST

PATTERN OF SIMILAR CONDUCT DIRECTED AGAINST THE ROKUMS

The satisfaction of this element requires that the perpetrator act within a broader context in

which the targeted group is already under pressure.38

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

members of the perpetrator’s group.41 This is substantiated in three limbs:

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

conduct directed against the Rokums.

Second, SoS members along with the Sohulwa armed forces were already killing Rokums

who are also of the Rokum faith.

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

derived from Articles 48 and 52 of AP I.42

A. ELEMENTS OF CRIME ARE SATISFIED IN THE PRESENT CASE

The Prosecutor submits that pursuant to the EoC43, the following elements are to be met

essentially for prosecuting the accused for the said crime.

[A.1] ELEMENT 1: MR. Z KARMONIC DIRECTED AN ATTACK.

The first element of the Elements of Crimes requires that “the perpetrator directed an attack”.

An attack is defined in Article 49 of Additional Protocol I as acts of violence against the

adversary, whether in offence or in defence. 44 There must be a causal link between the

perpetrator’s conduct and the consequence of the attack.45

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

direct the attack on nuclear plants.

[A.2] ELEMENT 2: THE OBJECT OF THE ATTACK WAS CIVILIAN OBJECTS, THAT IS, OBJECTS

WHICH ARE NOT MILITARY OBJECTIVES

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

definite military advantage”.47

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

employed in a manner contravening other provisions such as Article 8(2)(b)(i) or (iv). 48

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.

[A.3] ELEMENT 3: Z. KARMONIC INTENDED SUCH CIVILIAN OBJECTS TO BE THE OBJECT OF

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

should eventually satisfy the intent requirements of Articles 30 and 8(2)(b)(ii).49

Mr Z. Karmonic’s indifference towards Rokumbans could be inferred from the time he

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

ASSOCIATED WITH AN INTERNATIONAL ARMED CONFLICT

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’

[A.4.1] Existence of an international armed conflict

An international armed conflict is one that arises between two or more of High Contracting

Parties. 50 The official commentary of GC IV defines armed conflict as any difference

between two states leading to the intervention of armed forces. 51 It is indisputable that an

armed conflict is international if it takes place between two or more States.52

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

the killing of almost 500 people from both sides.

[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

related to the hostilities.

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.

[A.5] ELEMENT 5: MR. Z KARMONIC WAS AWARE OF FACTUAL CIRCUMSTANCES THAT

ESTABLISHED THE EXISTENCE OF AN ARMED CONFLICT

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

armed conflict and the international (or internal) character thereof. 56

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

holding state offices and furthering its interest.

Therefore, it is humbly submitted that Mr Z Karmonic is responsible for committing war

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)

of the Rome Statute.

[B.1] ARTICLE 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

serious violations of international humanitarian law in the former Yugoslavia contribute to

the commission of the violation and are, therefore, individually responsible.

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

actus reus of the crime.58

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

responsible for the said blatant act.

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.

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

derived from Art. 35(3) and 55 of AP I.

A. ELEMENTS OF CRIME ARE SATISFIED IN THE PRESENT CASE

The Prosecutor submits that pursuant to the ICC EoC59, the following elements need to be

met:

[A.1] ELEMENT 1: Z KARMONIC LAUNCHED THE ATTACK

The first element of the Elements of Crimes requires that “the perpetrator directed an attack”.

An "Attack" is defined in Article 49 of Additional Protocol I as "acts of violence against the

adversary, whether in offence or in defence."

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

formed to investigate the cause of blasts.

[A.2] ELEMENT 2: THE ATTACK WAS SUCH THAT IT WOULD CAUSE INCIDENTAL DEATH

OR INJURY TO CIVILIANS OR DAMAGE TO CIVILIAN OBJECTS OR WIDE-SPREAD, LONG-

TERM AND SEVERE DAMAGE TO THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT IN EXCESS OF

ANTICIPATED MILITARY ADVANTAGE

[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

to the natural environment

When an attack is launched, environmental conditions must play a role in the targeting

process. The attack is impermissible if the harm to the environment is expected to be

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

and direct overall military advantage anticipated.

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

civilian damage must not be disproportionate to the anticipated military advantage.68

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

DEATH OR INJURY TO CIVILIANS OR DAMAGE TO CIVILIAN OBJECTS OR WIDE-SPREAD,

LONG-TERM AND SEVERE DAMAGE TO THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT AND THAT SUCH

DEATH, INJURY OR DAMAGE WOULD BE OF SUCH AN EXTENT AS TO BE CLEARLY EXCESSIVE

IN RELATION TO THE CONCRETE AND DIRECT OVERALL MILITARY ADVANTAGE

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

harm and military advantage.71

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.

Moreover, a nuclear attack by definition is an attack that is disproportionate than the

anticipated military advantage of killing a few hundred Rokumban armed forces.

[A.4] ELEMENT 4: Z. KARMONIC’S CONDUCT TOOK PLACE IN THE CONTEXT OF AND

WAS ASSOCIATED WITH AN INTERNATIONAL ARMED CONFLICT

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

international armed conflict’ [A.1.2]

[A.1.1] Existence of an international armed conflict

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

armed conflict that had come into existence.

[A.5] ELEMENT 5: MR. Z KARMONIC WAS AWARE OF FACT

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

the sohulwan armed forces.76

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

The Prosecution respectfully requests this Hon’ble Court to adjudge and

declare that Z. Karmonic is criminally responsible under the Rome Statute and

punish him u/Art.77 of Rome Statute for:

i. Genocide by killing u/Art. 6(a).

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).

iii. War Crime of Excessive Damage u/Art. 8(2)(b)(iv).

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

COUNSELS FOR THE PROSECUTION

26