VIII S.K.

PURI MEMORIAL INTERNATIONAL MEMORIAL

MOOT COURT COMPETITION JUSTIFIED 2024

BEFORE

TRIAL CHAMBER II, INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT THE HAGUE, THE

NETHERLANDS

IN THE MATTER of

THE PROSECUTOR PROSECUTION

v.

PRESIDENT KARA DEFENSE

DEFENDANT CHARGED WITH

CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY OF MURDER ALONG WITH CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY UNDER ARTICLE 7 (1) (A) AND
ARTICLE 25 (3) (A) UNDER THE ROME STATUTE.
 VIII S.K. PURI MEMORIAL INTERNATIONAL MEMORIAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION JUSTIFIED 2024

Original: English No: ICC-**/2****/**

Date: December 29, 2024

TRIAL CHAMBER II

BEFORE: Judge , Presiding Judge

Judge , and

Judge

SITUATION IN THE REPUBLIC OF TITAN IN THE CASE OF THE

PROSECUTOR V. PRESIDENT KARA

Registrar:

Source: Office of the Prosecutor

VIII S.K. PURI MEMORIAL INTERNATIONAL MEMORIAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION JUSTIFIED 2024

TABLE OF CONTENTS……………………………………………………………………… 1

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES…………………………………………………………………...3

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS…………………………………………………………………..6

STATEMENTS OF FACTS…………………………………………………………………….7

ISSUE PRESENTED………………………………………………………………………. ….9

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS………………………………………………………….. …10

ARGUMENTS in DETAIL…………………………………………………………………...11

I. WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY OF COMMITTING CRIME

AGAINST HUMANITY UNDER ARTICLE 7(1)(A) OF THE

ROME STATUTE?...........................................................................................................11

I.1 The conduct was committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack against

any civilian population……………………………………………………………...10

I.1.A Presence of an attack…………………………………………………………….12

I.1.B The Acts were directed against a civilian population……………………………12

I.2 The perpetrator had knowledge that the conduct was part of or intended the conduct

to be part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a

civilian population…………………………………………………………………….14
I.2.A The Perpetrator had knowledge of the attack……………………………………14

I.2.B The Perpetrator knew his acts were part of the attack…………………………..15

I.3 The Perpetrator killed one or more persons…………………………………………..15

II. WHETHER PLUTON HAS BREACHED ARTICLE 27 OF THE

ROME STATUTE……………………………………………………………………..17

II.1 Article 27’s objective of accountability without immunity justifies

pluton’s involvement.................................................................................................17
 II.2 Pluton’s role as a state party supports the enforcement of
article 27 .....................................................................................................................18

II.3 Pluton’s alleged breach is unfounded, as it seeks to strengthen the integrity

of article 27………………………………………………………………………….19

II.4 Pluton’s involvement promotes uniform application of article 27 to uphold

justice………………………………………………………………………………..19

II.5 Pluton’s role is essential to address any procedural breaches by the icc

prosecutor……………………………………………………………………………20

PRAYER………………………………………………………………………………………21

2
International Statutes

● AP I, art. 50(1)

● 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).

● 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
(Fourth Geneva Convention).

● Rome Statute Art. 7(1)(a)

● Rome Statute, Art. 30

● Rome Statute, Art. 7(2)(a)

● Rome Statute, art. 25(3)(a)

● Rome Statute, art. 86

● Rome Statute, preamble

ICC Cases

● Prosecutor v. Gbagbo, ICC-02/11-01/15.

● Prosecutor v. Bemba, ICC-01/05-01/08.

● Prosecutor v. Katanga, ICC-01/04-01/07, 7 March 2014.

● Prosecutor v. Al Mahdi, ICC-01/12-01/15.

● Prosecutor v. Lubanga, ICC-PIDS-CIS-DRC-01-017/21.

● The Prosecutor v. Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, ICC-02/05-01/09.

3
ICTR Cases
● Prosecutor v. Akayesu, ICTR-96-4-A

● Prosecutor v. Bagosora, (ICTR-98-41-A).

● Prosecutor v. Kambanda, (ICTR-97-23).

ICTY Cases
● Prosecutor v. Tadic, IT-94-1-AR72, Appeals Chamber, Decision, 2 October 1995

● Prosecutor v. Kunarac, Radomir Kovac and Zoran Vukovic, IT-96-23 and IT-96-23/1,
Appeals Chamber, Judgement, 12 June 2002.

● Prosecutor v. Radovan Karadžić IT-95-5/18-T, Trial Chamber, (Int’l Crim. Trib. For the
former Yugoslavia 24 March 2016).

● Prosecutor v. Blagojevic and Jokic, (IT-02-53) , Jokić (IT-01-44) , Vidoje Blagojević

(IT-98-33/1).

● Prosecutor v. Blaskic, IT-95-14-T.

● Prosecutor v. Kordic and Cerkez, (IT-95-14/2).

● Prosecutor v. Furundžija, IT-95-17/1-T.

● Prosecutor v. Krajisnik, (IT-00-39).

● Prosecutor v. Brdjanin, (IT-99-36).

● Prosecutor v. Perisic, (IT-04-81).

● Prosecutor v. Bagosora, (ICTR-98-41-A).

Articles
● Moruf O. Mimiko et al., Unresolved Jurisprudence of Crime against Humanity under Article
7 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 07 Beijing L. Rev. 420, (2016),
https://doi.org/10.4236/blr.2016.74033.

● William Schabas, Introduction to the International Criminal Court (2001).

4
● Antonio Cassese, Reflections on International Criminal Justice, 61 Mod. L. Rev. 1, (2003),
https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.00124.

Reports
● Elements of crimes, Published by the International Criminal Court ISBN No. 92-9227-232-2
ICC-PIOS-LT-03- 002/15_Eng, pg 3, 4.

● 1986, Report of ILC Special Rappoteur, note 62, para 93, 94.

● Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court, Working Group on Elements of
Crimes, 16-26 February 1999; 26 July-13 August 1999; 29 November-17 December 1999.

● Resolution 1593 (2005) /, https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/544817?ln=en (last visited Nov.

8, 2024).

5
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AC Appeals Chamber

AP I Additional Protocol I

IAC International Armed Conflict

ICC International Criminal Court

ICTY International Criminal Tribunal For Rwanda

International Criminal Tribunal For Former

ICTR
Yugoslavia

Id. Harvard Bluebook Format of Reference for

cross-references
IHL International Humanitarian Law

Rome Statute International Criminal Court Statute

¶ Paragraph

Supra Harvard Bluebook Format of Reference for

cross-references

v. Versus

Art. Article

UN United Nations

i.e. That is

ICJ International Court of Justice

6
The Republic of Titan, a prominent democratic nation, has pursued economic and
technological advancement under President Kara’s administration. Known for privatizing
national defense operations, Titan invested heavily in the BattleAxe complex—a
state-of-the-art military-industrial entity designed to bolster the nation's cyber defense and
offense capabilities. BattleAxe became integral to Titan’s defense policy, with claims that
Kara used it to execute strategic cyber operations. Meanwhile, in the Southern Atlantic, the
island nation of Cosmo, rich in untapped rare earth minerals, maintained a xenophobic and
resource-conservative policy. The government of Cosmo resisted foreign investments,
preserving the island’s resources and relying on agriculture and tourism as economic
mainstays.

Tensions escalated when a series of sophisticated cyber-attacks targeted Cosmo between

October 2020 and February 2021, crippling public infrastructure, including transportation,
financial systems, and healthcare facilities. The October 21, 2020, attack caused widespread
chaos, with misinformation disrupting emergency services and resulting in numerous injuries.
On December 24, a financial cyber-attack erased $14 million from Cosmo’s depository,
triggering an economic crisis. The February 14, 2021, botnet attack on power and health
services led to severe casualties, highlighting the devastating impact on the populace.

Evidence surfaced linking these incidents to BattleAxe, implicating President Kara in

orchestrating the attacks. Testimonies from former operatives and intercepted
communications revealed Kara's alleged influence and his administration’s covert efforts to
destabilize Cosmo. The international community, led by the International Criminal Court
(ICC), issued an arrest warrant for Kara on charges of crimes against humanity. Seeking
refuge in Pluton, a NATO member, Kara faced extradition challenges due to claims of state
immunity. Despite Pluton’s resistance, Kara was eventually apprehended in El Salvador and
brought before the ICC, where a trial is now set to determine his culpability.

7
 SEQUENCE OF EVENTS

Date Event Description

October 21, Semantic cyber-attack on Cosmo’s public information systems, causing

2020 transportation disruptions and health service failures, leading to numerous injuries.

December Cyber-attack on Cosmo’s Central Securities Depository, erasing $14 million in

24, 2020 financial data and causing an economic downturn.

January 7, Violent protests erupt in Cosmo, resulting in deadly confrontations between

2021 civilians and riot-control police.

February Botnet attack on Cosmo’s hydroelectric plants and healthcare sector, causing data
14, 2021 breaches, power outages, and multiple fatalities.

March 2, Rumors spread, affecting tourism in Cosmo, exacerbated by Kara’s public remarks
2021 casting doubts on Cosmo's safety.

May 2021 Kara’s presidency in Titan ends; whistleblower revelations about his
administration’s corruption emerge.

September The ICC seeks to investigate the situation between Titan and Cosmo, preparing
2021 charges against Kara.

August Kara is apprehended in El Salvador while attempting to dispose of assets and is

2022 subsequently brought before the ICC.

October The ICC confirms charges of crimes against humanity against Kara, initiating
2023 proceedings in the Trial Chamber.

8
 ISSUE 1

WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS LIABLE FOR CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY OF MURDER UNDER
ARTICLE 7(1)(A) OF THE ROME STATUTE.

and

ISSUE 2

WHETHER PLUTON HAS BREACHED ARTICLE 27 OF THE ROME STATUTE.

9
 WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS LIABLE FOR CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY OF
MURDER UNDER ARTICLE 7(1)(A) OF THE ROME STATUTE.

The accused is liable for crimes against humanity of murder under Article 7(1)(a) of the
Rome Statute. Titan’s systematic and widespread attacks on Cosmo’s civilian population
were executed through an organized structure involving substantial financial and logistical
support to insurgent groups. Titan’s administration, led by President Kara, pursued an explicit
policy of destabilizing Cosmo, resulting in civilian fatalities. The evidence demonstrates that
these actions were conducted with the knowledge and intent required under Article 7(1)(a),
establishing a nexus between Titan’s conduct and the deaths of civilians in Cosmo.

WHETHER PLUTON HAS BREACHED ARTICLE 27 OF THE ROME STATUTE.

Pluton’s actions do not constitute a breach of Article 27 of the Rome Statute. Instead, Pluton’s
involvement serves to uphold Article 27’s purpose by reinforcing the principle of
accountability without immunity. By actively supporting the ICC’s mission to prosecute
serious international crimes, Pluton’s participation ensures that Article 27 is applied
consistently and fairly, preventing any selective enforcement that could undermine the ICC’s
legitimacy. Pluton’s role in the trial underscores its commitment as a State Party to the Rome
Statute, reflecting a duty to uphold international criminal justice standards and combat

10
 1. The State humbly submits that the accused is liable for the charge of Crime against
Humanity of Murder as defined under Article 7(1)(a) of the Rome Statute. This charge
against the accused will be substantiated in a three-fold manner,
[I.1.] The conduct was committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack against any
civilian population
[I.2] The perpetrator had knowledge that the conduct was part of or intended the conduct to
be part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population
[I.3] The perpetrator killed one or more persons.

2. It is humbly contended that the term ‘widespread’ denotes the large-scale nature of the
attack, impacting a substantial number of civilians.1 "Systematic" refers to the
organized or methodical nature of the actions, often sanctioned or orchestrated by the
state or a ruling authority.2
According to the Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions, ‘civilians’ can be
defined as all persons who are civilians, and the presence within the civilian population
does not deprive the population of its civilian nature.3 The systematic element requires a
clear pattern or organized conduct, which can be inferred from the regularity and
planning evident in the events.4

1
Moruf O. Mimiko et al., Unresolved Jurisprudence of Crime against Humanity under Article 7 of the Rome Statute of the
International Criminal Court, 07 BEIJING L. REV. 420, (2016), https://doi.org/10.4236/blr.2016.74033.
2
Id.
3
AP I, art. 50(1).
4
Prosecutor v. Akayesu, ICTR-96-4-A.
11
 I.1.A PRESENCE OF AN ATTACK

3. According to the Rome Statute, an “attack directed against any civilian population”
constitutes a course of conduct involving multiple acts against civilians, pursuant to or
in furtherance of a State or organizational policy. This attack can be either widespread
(characterized by a large-scale nature) or systematic (characterized by organized,
systematic patterns). ‘Attack’ may be defined as a course of conduct involving the
commission of acts of violence. An attack may encompass any mistreatment of the
civilian population.5 The Accused is not required to commit an attack as it only needs to
be established that his acts comprise a part of the attack.6 In determining whether the
‘part of’ requirement was met, it would consider the “characteristics, the aims, the
nature of the consequences of the act.”7 However, there must be a sufficient nexus
between the unlawful acts of the accused and the attack.8 Attacks may not require
armed conflict, thus extending its application to non-war contexts.9 Titan, through the
organization “BattleAxe”,10 established infrastructure explicitly designed to destabilize
foreign governments, specifically Cosmo. This involved clandestine funding and
strategic support of rebel groups,11 aligning with the Rome Statute’s requirements for a
systematic or widespread attack. Furthermore, the organized nature of Titan’s
contributions to private groups engaging in armed conflict12 fulfills the “systematic”
criterion under Article 7. This includes providing resources, facilitating operational
planning, and covertly channeling funds to insurgent groups, showing intent to harm
Cosmo’s population through these orchestrated efforts.

I.1.B THE ACTS WERE DIRECTED AGAINST A CIVILIAN POPULATION

4. The Rome Statute necessitates that the attack resulting in murder must be directed
against the civilian population as the primary object.13 This requirement underscores the
intentional and systematic nature of the crime. An attack aimed at a civilian population

5
Rome Statute, art. 7(2)(a).
6
Supra note 4.
7
Elements of crimes, Published by the International Criminal Court ISBN No. 92-9227-232-2 ICC-PIOS-LT-03- 002/15_Eng,
pg 3, 4.
8
1986, Report of ILC Special Rappoteur, note 62, para 93, 94.
9
Prosecutor v. Tadic, IT-94-1-AR72, Appeals Chamber, Decision, 2 October 1995; Prosecutor v. Kunarac, Radomir Kovac and
Zoran Vukovic, IT-96-23 and IT-96-23/1, Appeals Chamber, Judgement, 12 June 2002.
10
Compromis, ¶ 6.
11
Compromis, ¶ 5, 7.
12
Compromis, ¶ 8.
13
Prosecutor v. Radovan Karadžić IT-95-5/18-T, Trial Chamber, (Int’l Crim. Trib. For the former Yugoslavia 24 March 2016).
12
 is interpreted as a series of actions encompassing multiple offenses outlined in 7(1)(a).
“Civilian Population”
refers to a larger body of victims (non- combatants), and crimes of a collective nature.
Civilians, under the Rome Statute, are those not actively engaged in hostilities. The ICC
clarified that a civilian population refers to non-combatant groups who are either
indirectly or directly impacted by the actions of the aggressors.14

(I) THE CIVILIAN POPULATION IS THE PRIMARY OBJECT OF THE ATTACK IN THE PRESENT CASE BY PRESIDENT
KARA

5. “Attack directed against a civilian population” in these context elements is understood

to mean a course of conduct involving the multiple commission of acts referred to in
Article 7, paragraph 1, of the Statute against any civilian population, pursuant to or in
furtherance of a State or organizational policy to commit such attack. The acts need not
constitute a military attack. It is understood that a “policy to commit such attack”
requires that the State or organization actively promote or encourage such conduct as an
attack against a civilian population.15
6. Titan’s alleged policy aimed to indirectly coerce Cosmo into economic compliance by
supporting armed factions against the government. Civilian populations in Cosmo were
directly impacted, as Titan-backed insurgent activities disrupted daily life, employment,
and economic security.16
7. Indirect harm to civilians through widespread destabilization tactics constitutes a crime
against humanity if civilians are foreseeably impacted. Titan’s support for destabilizing
operations would foreseeably endanger civilian lives and livelihoods.17
8. The state submits that there exists a liability where the accused planned or facilitated
violence that impacted civilians, even if indirectly.18 By providing financial and
operational support to armed insurgencies, Titan’s role meets this threshold of
culpability, as seen in BattleAxe’s instrumental role in supporting rebel actions that
endangered Cosmo's civilian population.19

14
Prosecutor v. Gbagbo, ICC-02/11-01/15.
15
Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court, Working Group on Elements of Crimes, 16-26 February 1999;
26 July-13 August 1999; 29 November-17 December 1999.
16
Compromis, ¶8.
17
Prosecutor v. Blagojevic and Jokic, (IT-02-53) , Jokić (IT-01-44) , Vidoje Blagojević (IT-98-33/1).
18
Prosecutor v. Bagosora, (ICTR-98-41-A).
19
Compromis, ¶6, ¶8.
13
 (II) A STATE OR ORGANIZATIONAL POLICY INFERRED FROM THE TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES.

9. The ICC requires that crimes against humanity are part of a policy that either implicitly
or explicitly directs such conduct. This does not have to be a formal declaration but
rather a consistent strategy or pattern indicating state or organizational endorsement.20
10. Titan’s government-led policy included financial schemes that supported insurgent
activities against Cosmo under the guise of "developmental aid",21 which served as an
indirect mechanism to foster instability. The use of BattleAxe as a strategic platform for
these activities22 demonstrates Titan’s policy-level involvement, similar to Prosecutor v.
Bemba,23 where state-sanctioned attacks on civilians through indirect means led to
liability.
11. The nexus between state policy and organized violence aligns with the principle
established by the ICTY, which held that state actors facilitating or funding violent
actions against civilians fulfill the organizational policy requirement.24

1.2.A THE PERPETRATOR HAD KNOWLEDGE OF THE ATTACK

12. The state submits that “Article 30 of the Rome Statute” mandates that criminal
responsibility for crimes against humanity necessitates both intent and knowledge,
where knowledge implies awareness that conduct is part of a widespread or systematic
attack.25
13. ICTR held that an accused’s knowledge of the likelihood of harm to civilians can be
inferred from the context, even if not directly orchestrating the attacks.26 ICC reinforced
that the accused need not have direct control but must be aware of their contribution to
the criminal scheme.27

20
Rome Statute, art. 7(2)(a).
21
Compromis, ¶5.
22
Compromis, ¶6.
23
Prosecutor v. Bemba, ICC-01/05-01/08.
24
Prosecutor v. Blaskic, IT-95-14-T.
25
Rome Statute, art. 30.
26
Supra note 4.
27
Prosecutor v. Katanga, ICC-01/04-01/07, 7 March 2014.
14
 I.2.B THE PERPETRATOR HAD KNOWLEDGE THAT HIS ACTS WERE PART OF THE
ATTACK

14. Titan’s leadership, notably through President Kara, promoted policies of indirect
aggression against Cosmo by allowing tax-deductible contributions to “developmental
aid” organizations28 which were funding insurgencies. This evidences awareness that
the funding would indirectly lead to violence against civilians where a leader was held
responsible for policies fostering harm to civilians.29
15. BattleAxe’s establishment as a platform for defense and cyber operations with private
military contractors, suggests that Titan’s leadership anticipated and accepted the
possibility of civilian harm, particularly given the political stakes of destabilizing
Cosmo’s economy.30 This aligns with where indirect support and policy facilitation
demonstrated knowledge of civilian harm.31

16. The state submits that Article 7(1)(a) defines murder as the intentional killing of
individuals. Unlike traditional war crimes, intent here must connect the act of killing
with the broader attack on civilians.32
17. Titan’s support of insurgent groups and provision of funds to armed factions, which
predictably resulted in civilian deaths, fulfills this criterion. The indirect orchestration
of violence aligns with where the accused’s indirect involvement sufficed to establish
responsibility for resultant harm.33
18. The ICC has consistently held leaders liable for murders within systemic campaigns,
even if their involvement was indirect. The court established that encouragement and
logistical support for killings could satisfy the act requirement.34 Titan’s funding and
coordination with private military groups likely resulted in civilian fatalities, meeting
this element.
19. Article 7(1)(a) requires proof of a direct or indirect link between the accused’s actions

28
Compromis, ¶5.
29
Prosecutor v. Kambanda, (ICTR-97-23).
30
Compromis, ¶6.
31
Prosecutor v. Kordic and Cerkez, (IT-95-14/2).
32
Rome Statute, art. 7(1)(a).
33
Prosecutor v. Al Mahdi, ICC-01/12-01/15.
34
Supra note 14.
15
 and civilian deaths. The court has already held that financial and logistical backing that
facilitated civilian deaths was sufficient to establish liability.
20. Titan’s direct funding to groups operating violent campaigns in Cosmo demonstrates a
foreseeable link to civilian harm. This indirect involvement in civilian-targeted violence
meets the nexus requirement, as evidenced where financial support that contributed to
violence against civilians was sufficient for liability.35
21. The state submits that the accused’s actions meet the elements set forth in Article
7(1)(a) of the Rome Statute for the crime of murder as a crime against humanity. Titan’s
systematic support for insurgent groups, organized through BattleAxe, and Kara’s
policies facilitating violence against Cosmo’s civilian population substantiate the
criteria of widespread attack, intent, and resultant deaths.

35
Supra note 29.
16
 1. Article 27 of the Rome Statute eliminates immunity based on official capacity, ensuring
that all individuals, regardless of rank or position, can be held accountable before the
ICC.36 The state will argue that its involvement does not constitute a breach of Article
27 but, rather, supports the Article’s underlying purpose, i.e. to prevent state officials or
influential figures from using their status to evade justice. Pluton’s participation aims to
reinforce the ICC’s mission by holding the accused accountable and addressing
concerns about selective enforcement of Article 27. there will be the following
sub-issues:
a. Article 27’s Objective of Accountability Without Immunity Justifies Pluton’s
Involvement,
b. Pluton’s Role as a State Party Supports the Enforcement of Article 27,
c. Pluton’s Alleged Breach Is Unfounded, as It Seeks to Strengthen the Integrity of Article
27,
d. Pluton’s Involvement Promotes Uniform Application of Article 27 to Uphold Justice,
e. Pluton’s Role Is Essential to Address Any Procedural Breaches by the ICC Prosecutor.

II.1 ARTICLE 27’S OBJECTIVE OF ACCOUNTABILITY WITHOUT IMMUNITY JUSTIFIES

PLUTON’S INVOLVEMENT

2. Article 27 was designed to eliminate immunity claims for state officials, ensuring that
no individual can avoid accountability due to their official position. This principle
serves to combat impunity for serious international crimes by removing the protections
historically afforded to high-ranking officials.

3. The Rome Statute’s drafters intended Article 27 to address the common problem in
international law where individuals evade prosecution due to their status. This is
reflected in UN Security Council Resolution 1593, which called for cooperation with
the ICC, especially in cases involving state officials.37 Pluton’s intervention aligns with
the resolution’s spirit by advocating for Article 27’s consistent application.

4. Pluton argues that its involvement is meant to ensure that Article 27 is fully upheld,

36
Rome Statute, art. 27.
37
Resolution 1593 (2005) /, https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/544817?ln=en (last visited Nov. 8, 2024).
17
 particularly for high-ranking officials who may otherwise attempt to evade
responsibility. Allowing certain officials to escape accountability would weaken the
ICC’s mandate and send a contradictory message about the applicability of international
criminal law.
5. In Prosecutor v. Al-Bashir, the ICC asserted its jurisdiction over Sudanese President
Omar Al-Bashir, ruling that his official position did not exempt him from prosecution.
Pluton’s involvement echoes this approach, seeking to uphold the ICC’s authority to
prosecute officials without regard to their rank or state affiliation.38
6. Pluton argues that selective or inconsistent application of Article 27 would erode the
ICC’s legitimacy. By highlighting the ICC Prosecutor’s alleged breach, Pluton seeks to
ensure the principle of accountability is universally applied, maintaining fairness and
impartiality.
7. Scholars argue that selective enforcement risks undermining the ICC’s credibility, as
noted by legal scholar William Schabas in An Introduction to the International Criminal
Court. Schabas notes that “impartiality and consistency are pillars of the ICC’s
authority,” and selective application of Article 27 could weaken these pillars.39

II.2 PLUTON’S ROLE AS A STATE PARTY SUPPORTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF ARTICLE

27

8. As a State Party to the Rome Statute, Pluton has a vested interest in ensuring that
Article 27’s principles are applied uniformly. The Rome Statute mandates that all State
Parties support its objectives, including the elimination of immunity based on official
capacity.
9. Article 86 of the Rome Statute requires State Parties to cooperate fully with the ICC.40
Pluton’s intervention reflects this duty, as it seeks to ensure that all parties adhere to
Article 27’s purpose of holding individuals accountable without regard for official
capacity.
10. Pluton’s participation in the trial is motivated by its responsibility to prevent any
evasion of responsibility by powerful individuals who may otherwise use their status to
undermine justice. Pluton’s actions are a proactive measure to uphold international
criminal law’s core values and principles.
11. The ICTY emphasized the importance of state cooperation to achieve justice in
international criminal proceedings. Pluton’s involvement aims to support similar

38
The Prosecutor v. Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, ICC-02/05-01/09.
39
WILLIAM SCHABAS, INTRODUCTION TO THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT (2001).
40
Rome Statute, art. 86.
18
 objectives, ensuring that officials cannot bypass accountability.41

II.3 PLUTON’S ALLEGED BREACH IS UNFOUNDED, AS IT SEEKS TO STRENGTHEN

THE INTEGRITY OF ARTICLE 27

12. Pluton should argue that its actions are in full compliance with Article 27, as it aims to
reinforce the Article’s goal of ensuring no official can claim immunity from
prosecution. Pluton’s involvement is not an assertion of immunity but rather an effort to
prevent any misinterpretation or selective enforcement of Article 27 that could weaken
its intent.
13. Antonio Cassese in International Criminal Justice, argues that Article 27 embodies a
commitment to impartiality by holding all individuals accountable regardless of rank.42
Pluton’s role in the trial strengthens this commitment, ensuring that Article 27’s
principles are applied rigorously.
14. Pluton can emphasize that Article 27 does not preclude a state from participating in ICC
proceedings to advocate for justice. Instead, the Article’s goal is to prevent immunity
claims based on official capacity. Pluton’s intervention supports Article 27’s
enforcement rather than subverts it, as Pluton is not asserting immunity but promoting
accountability.
15. The ICC’s interpretation of Article 27 indicates that Article 27’s immunity restrictions
are specifically aimed at individuals who may attempt to avoid prosecution due to
official status. Pluton’s involvement does not represent an assertion of immunity; rather,
it aims to uphold Article 27’s accountability standards.43

II.4 PLUTON’S INVOLVEMENT PROMOTES UNIFORM APPLICATION OF ARTICLE

27 TO UPHOLD JUSTICE

16. The state argues that its participation ensures that Article 27 is applied fairly and
uniformly, preventing any official from using their status to evade ICC jurisdiction. This
aligns with the ICC’s mandate to administer impartial justice, as selective application of
Article 27 could erode confidence in the ICC’s objectivity.
17. According to the Rome Statute’s Preamble, the ICC’s purpose includes combating
impunity for serious crimes. Pluton’s involvement supports this objective by ensuring

41
Prosecutor v. Blaskic, IT-95-14-T.
42
Antonio Cassese, Reflections on International Criminal Justice, 61 MOD. L. REV. 1, (2003),
https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.00124.
43
Prosecutor v. Gbagbo, ICC-02/11-01/15.
19
 that Article 27 is applied consistently, regardless of the political or official stature of
individuals under investigation.44
18. By emphasizing Article 27’s universal applicability, Pluton’s role helps deter future
immunity claims by state officials and reinforces the ICC’s authority. This deterrent
effect is essential to maintain accountability and prevent high-ranking individuals from
exploiting their positions.
19. Article 27’s anti-immunity provision serves as a safeguard against the influence of
high-ranking officials who might otherwise subvert international criminal law. Pluton’s
engagement reinforces Article 27’s deterrent effect, supporting the ICC’s mission to
apply justice impartially.

II.5 PLUTON’S ROLE IS ESSENTIAL TO ADDRESS ANY PROCEDURAL BREACHES

BY THE ICC PROSECUTOR

20. Pluton has a legitimate interest in ensuring that the ICC Prosecutor adheres to the
principles of Article 27. As a State Party, Pluton’s participation allows it to bring
procedural irregularities to the ICC’s attention, thereby promoting transparency and
fairness.
21. The ICC emphasized procedural fairness as integral to international justice. Pluton’s
intervention is a procedural safeguard to ensure that Article 27’s provisions are
uniformly enforced, without bias or selective application.45
22. Pluton’s involvement in highlighting potential breaches of Article 27 by the ICC
Prosecutor safeguards the ICC’s reputation. The ICC must avoid any perception of bias
or procedural inconsistency, which could compromise its credibility.
23. The state argues that procedural adherence is critical for maintaining international
courts’ legitimacy. Pluton’s role helps address potential procedural missteps, bolstering
the ICC’s standing and the integrity of its processes.

44
Rome Statute, preamble.
45
Prosecutor v. Katanga, ICC-01/04-01/07, 7 March 2014.
20
Wherefore, in the light of the issues raised, arguments on merits, evidences supplied
and authorities relied on, it is humbly prayed:

a. That, the Accused, President Kara, was convicted for commission of Crimes against
Humanity of Murder under Article 7(1)(a) of the Rome Statute.
b. That, the State, be held not liable for the alleged breach of Article 27 of the Rome
Statute.

All of which is respectfully submitted,

Counsel for the State

21