TC-8 DEFENCE

Page |1

AMITY INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

In the International Criminal Court at Hague

IN THE MATTERS OF
PROSECUTOR VS. MUSTAFA ALIAS 40TH FIR-RA
AND
PROSECUTOR VS. RHAEGAR TARGAREYAN

MEORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENSE

TC-8 DEFENCE

Page |2

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................................................................................. 2
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................................................................... 3
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ............................................................................................................................ 5
CHARGES FRAMED ...................................................................................................................................................... 6
QUESTIONS PRESENTED........................................................................................................................................... 7
STATEMENT OF FACTS.............................................................................................................................................. 8
SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS................................................................................................................................... 11
PLEADINGS .................................................................................................................................................................... 12
1. THIS HONOURABLE COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION TO TRY THE CASE OF
ACCUSED NO.1, GENERAL MUSTAFA. .......................................................................................................... 12
1.1.

The Territory of White Land is a State. ................................................................................................. 12

1.1.1.

Criteria of Statehood is fulfilled: ................................................................................................... 12

1.1.2.

Recognition of the State of White Land:...................................................................................... 13

1.2.

The Republic of White Land is not party to the Rome Statute. ...................................................... 14

2. GENERAL MUSTAFA ALIAS 40TH FIR-RA CANNOT BE HELD CRIMINALLY LIABLE

UNDER ARTICLE 7 OF THE ROME STATUTE. ............................................................................................ 15
2.1.

There is no evidence to prove the alleged conduct as the Accuseds. ......................................... 15

2.1.1.

No Bodies in the Temple Fire at Astapore. ................................................................................ 15

2.1.2.

Bodies found at the pit of Astopore irrelevant to the incident.............................................. 15

2.1.3.

Presence of Red Clad Men does not signify the alleged conduct by the accused. ......... 16

2.1.4.

Credibility of Witness X is disputed.............................................................................................. 16

2.1.5.

Supposed evidence of Ownership of weapons is baseless. .................................................... 17

2.2.

The elements of the Crime enlisted under the Rome Statute are not fulfilled. .......................... 17

2.2.1.

Conduct of Murder First Element is not fulfilled. ................................................................ 18

2.2.2.

Widespread systematic attack- Second element not fulfilled. ............................................... 18

2.2.3.

Knowledge or Intent of the Crime Third Element not fulfilled......................................... 18

3. RHAEGAR TARGAREYAN IS NOT CRIMINALLY LIABLE UNDER ARTICLE 6 OF THE

ROME STATUTE FOR GENOCIDE. ................................................................................................................ 20
3.1.

There is no evidence to prove the alleged conduct. .......................................................................... 20

3.1.1.
The Paramilitary forces were within their rights in using tear gas shells in order to
control the riot on Feb 10, 2014 by the College of Red Priests. ............................................................. 20
3.1.2.

There have been incidents of violence and rioting in the Capital City earlier. .............. 21

3.1.3.

Tear gas shells were fired by the paramilitary only when the crowd began to riot. ..... 21

3.1.4.
Use of riot control agents such as tear gas shells under the Chemical Weapons
Convention is not prohibited for the purpose of domestic riot control. ............................................... 22
3.1.5.
There is no sufficient evidence to show the poisonous gas bombs were exploded by the
Paramilitary forces in the crowd and that this was done under the order of Rhaegar Targayeran.
22

TC-8 DEFENCE

Page |3

3.1.6.
The Pre-recorded tape aired by Radio Nine is hearsay evidence and insufficient to
prove that the procession was a peaceful one. ............................................................................................. 22
3.2.

The elements of crimes under the above mentioned provision is not fulfilled. ......................... 23

3.2.1.

The Intent to destroy a particular ethnic group is not fulfilled............................................ 23

4. RHAEGAR TARGAREYAN IS NOT CRIMINALLY LAIBLE UNDER ARTICLE 7 OF THE

ROME STATUTE FOR CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY. .................................................................... 24
4.1.

There is a lack of credible evidence against the accused................................................................ 24

4.1.1.
There is no sufficient evidence to indict Rhaegar Targareyan for crimes against
humanity under 7(1)(i)-Enforced disappearance of persons ................................................................... 24
4.1.2.
4.2.

Hearsay Evidence cannot be admissible in any circumstance of a criminal proceeding.

25

The elements of crimes under the Rome Statute is not fulfilled. .................................................... 26

4.2.1.

Requirements under Article 7(1) (g-6 ) and Article 7(1)(i) not fulfilled. .......................... 26

PRAYER ............................................................................................................................................................................ 28

TC-8 DEFENCE

Page |4

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
I.

CASES

Bank of Ethiopia vs. National Bank of Egypt and Ligouri

Luther vs. Sagor

Prosecutor vs. Ali Kushayb

Prosecutor vs. Ngudjolo Chui

Barcelona Traction

Continental Shelf (Tunisia/ Libyan Arab Jamarhiya)

II.

BOOKS REFERRED:

Kanade, Jai and Kanade Vishal, Introduction to Public International Law, Lexis Nexis
Publications

Tandon, M.P., Public International Law, Allahabad Law Agency

Oppenheim L., Oppenheims International Law, Vol.1 (9th Ed. 1996, ed. Robert
Jennings & Arthur Watts)

Ahuja V.K., Public International Law, Lexis Nexis Publications

Stephen, J., 1872, The Indian Evidence Act, with an Introduction on the Principles of
Judicial Evidence, Calcutta: Thacker, Spink & Co.

III.

DICTIONARIES:

Bryan A. Garner, Blacks Law Dictionary, 8th

Chambers English Dictionary Allied Publishers Ltd., 1992.

Corpus Juris Secundum, Vol. 77, 2005, West Thompson Publishing, New York.

New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Clarindon Press Oxford, 1993.

Sweet and Maxwell, Whartons Law Lexicon, 14th Edition (2004), West Groups,
N.York Edition (1997). ULP Co. Pvt. Ltd.

IV.

CONVENTIONS:

The Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States

Arbitration Commission of the European Conference on Yugoslavia

Rome Statute of international Criminal Court

Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Elements of Crimes

TC-8 DEFENCE

Page |5

Chemical Weapons Convention

Convention on the Prohibition of the development, production, stockpiling and use of

chemical weapons and on their destruction

Statute of the International Court of Justice

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

V.

REPORTS AND DOCUMENTS:

P. Jessup, the Estrada Doctrine, 25 AJIL 1931, p.719 (as cited in Shaw, p.306)

United Nations Doc. PCNICC/2000/1/Add.2 (2000)

Arbitration Commission of the European Conference on Yugoslavia, Opinion No.1

VI.

E-SOURCES:

www.inc-int.org

www.ijmonitor.org

www.iccnow.org

www.un.org

VII.

WEBLINKS:

http://www.icc-cpi.int/pages/record.aspx?uri=279858

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evidence-legal/#AdmExcRul

http://www.un.org/en/preventgenocide/adviser/pdf/osapg_analysis_framework.pdf

https://www.icc-cpi.int/darfur/albashir/Documents/AlBashirEng.pdf

http://www.icc-cpi.int/pages/record.aspx?uri=1918951

https://www.icc-cpi.int/about/witnesses

https://www.icc-cpi.int/drc/lubanga

https://www.icc-cpi.int/drc/katanga/Documents/KatangaEng.pdf

TC-8 DEFENCE

Page |6

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Honble Courts Pre-trial Chamber exercises jurisdiction in the case, under Article 61(1)
of the Rome Statute of International Criminal Court.
Article 61(1) - Confirmation of the charges before trial
Within a reasonable time after the person's surrender or voluntary appearance before the
Court, the Pre-Trial Chamber shall hold a hearing to confirm the charges on which the
Prosecutor intends to seek trial. The hearing shall be held in the presence of the Prosecutor
and the person charged, as well as his or her counsel.

TC-8 DEFENCE

Page |7

CHARGES FRAMED

1. That a charge has been framed against Accused No. 1, General Mustafa, for the
offence of Crimes against Humanity under Article 7(1)(a) of the Rome Statute;
2. That the first charge has been framed against Accused no. 2, Rhaegar Targareyan for
the offence of Genocide under Article 6(b) of the Rome Statute;
3. That the second charge has been framed Accused No. 2, Rhaegar Targareyan for the
offence of Crimes against Humanity under Article 7(1)(i) and Article 7(1) (g)-6 of
the Rome Statute.

TC-8 DEFENCE

Page |8

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. WHETHER THIS HONOURABLE COURT HAS THE JURISDICTION TO TRY

GENERAL MUSTAFA, THE 40TH FIR-RA.
2. WHETHER GENERAL MUSTAFA IS CRIMINALLY LIABLE UNDER ARTICLE
7 OF THE ROME STATUTE FOR CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY.
3. WHETHER RHAEGAR TARGAREYAN IS CRIMINALLY LIABLE UNDER
ARTICLE 6 OF THE ROME STATUTE FOR GENOCIDE.
4. WHETHER RHAEGAR TARGAREYAN IS CRIMINALLY LIABLE UNDER
ARTICLE 7 OF THE ROME STATUTE FOR CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY.

TC-8 DEFENCE

Page |9

STATEMENT OF FACTS

STATE OF BLACK LAND:

Black Land, one of the most prominent states of Middle East, is a petroleum-based
economy. It was admitted as a member of United Nations in 1970. One fourth of Its
Area is covered by desert, which is bisected by the river Life-Sea. Black land is a
state with the existence of two religious communities the Old Gods Faith and the
Firos Faith.
THE FIROS FAITH:
It is relatively a new religion in the State. It is headed by a group of Red Priests, who
are presided over by FIR-RA, who is worshipped as a living God among the
followers of the faith. The community is in disdain of temple goers and idol
worshippers. The current FIR-RA published a document called World under his
Light, which was banned by the State due to its provocative language.
The Economic status of the Firos Community was dismal and the rate of
unemployment also rose. This contributed to the rise in Sectarian Violence.
MINIMAL STATE INTERVENTION POLICY:
The State followed this policy in public affairs, i.e. the States role was limited to
administration and tax collection. The Targareyans maintained a neutral attitude so
far. Rhaegar Targareyan, Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces and Head, Homeland
Security also stated the Governments role in establishment of various educational
programs and job opportunities. He also mentioned the unwillingness of the people to
utilize these opportunities and refrain from full-time religious education, which
invited the irk of the Firos Community. It led to widespread protests and violent
revolts against the Government, demanding Public apology and resignation of
Rhaegar Targareyan.

TC-8 DEFENCE

P a g e | 10

PROTESTS:
A survey by The Times of Black Land on the condition of the Firos community
revealed the poor education rate, discrimination and rejection of job opportunities for
them in the State. This report created further furor in the country. To oppose the
policies of the country, the Community under the leadership of the FIR-RA took out
a procession. Tear gas shells were fired by the Paramilitary to bring the people under
control and restore law and order. There were two bombs exploded in the procession
that released asphyxiating fumes, which resulted in the deaths of more than 100
people.
CHARGES AGAINST RHAEGAR TARGAREYAN:
An FIR was filed regarding the kidnapping of eight persons including three men, four
women and a boy between 13 and 14 years of age. They had been reported missing
since February 10, 2014. On February 17, two of the allegedly kidnapped persons
came back with scars and bruises and the brutally assaulted bodies of the three girls
were recovered from the outskirts of the Capital City. In an interview of the survivors
conducted by a senior Journalist, Lorres Tyrell, they indicated the involvement of the
Targareyan regime in the abduction.
UNREST OF THE FIROS COMMUNITY:
Post this incident, the community started organizing itself into groups. They
demanded a nation free of Targareyans and declaration of Firos as the national
religion of the country. The Nationwide membership of the Firos religion increased
to 49% within three months. The City of White Land had soon become an all Firos
city-state, becoming a haven for all kinds of Firos community. As per a report by the
Sons of Harpy, FIR RA became the de facto administrator of the city. People
flooded into White Land in lieu of an annual tax paid to the FIR-RA. However no
documentary proof could be produced. Children were holding banners stating
Article 21.

TC-8 DEFENCE

P a g e | 11

THE TEMPLE OF ASTOPORE:

A temple in Astopore belonging to the Old Gods Faith caught fire and the
Governmnet stepped in for rescue efforts. No dead bodies Recovered and the officers
saw some red clad men who were heavily armed. The temple edifice was completely
burnt.
CHARGES AGAINST GENERAL MUSTAFA:
The Incident of Astopore led to investigation by the Police and they came to the
conclusion that the fire was caused with the intent to instill terror among the people.
They apprehended a man trying to cross the international border illegally with an aim
to reach Blue Land. He was interrogated and indicated the involvement of FIR-RA in
the incident. The police had also found highly sophisticated arms and ammunitions in
the possession of that witness, which had distinct marks of a fire ring and the logo of
Mustafa Pvt. Ltd. It was a common belief amongst that the ownership and control of
the said company lies with the FIR-RA, who is named Mustafa.
Three days later, a local newspaper flashed reports about a pit of decomposed bodies
of men and women about five miles from Astopore, which were mutilated and had
burn marks. Forensics suggested the same time of all deaths.
TERRITORY OF WHITE LAND:
The King of Black Land promulgated an ordinance declaring White Land an
Unstable Territory and defence forces took positions around White Land. The US
representative to the UN released a statement wherein White Land was denied
recognition by the States of the UN Security Council and other member States of the
UN.
In furtherance of the above issues, the matter has been brought before this Honble
Court.

TC-8 DEFENCE

P a g e | 12

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS

1. THIS HONOURABLE COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION TO TRY THE CASE

OF ACCUSED NO.1, GENERAL MUSTAFA.
The challenge to the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court will hold, for the reason; a)
The Territory of White Land is a State; b) The Republic of White Land is not party to the
Rome Statute.
2. GENERAL MUSTAFA ALIAS 40TH FIR-RA CANNOT BE HELD CRIMINALLY
LIABLE UNDER ARTICLE 7 OF THE ROME STATUTE.
General Mustafa alias 40th FIR-RA is not liable under Article 7 of the Rome Statute. This
argument is two-fold, a) There is no evidence to prove the alleged conduct as the
Accuseds; b) The elements of the Crime enlisted under the Rome Statute is not fulfilled.
3. RHAEGAR TARGAREYAN IS NOT CRIMINALLY LIABLE UNDER ARTICLE
6 OF THE ROME STATUTE FOR GENOCIDE.
Rhaegar Targareyan is not liable under Article 6 of the Rome Statute. This Argument is
two- fold a) There is no evidence to prove the alleged conduct; b) The elements of
crimes under the above mentioned provision is not fulfilled.
4. RHAEGAR TARGAREYAN IS NOT CRIMINALLY LAIBLE UNDER ARTICLE
7 OF THE ROME STATUTE FOR CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY.
Rhaegar Targareyan is not liable under Article 7 (1)(i) and Article 7(1) (g-6) of the Rome
Statute. The argument is two-fold: a) There is a lack of credible evidence against the
accused; b) The elements of crimes under the Rome Statute is not fulfilled.

TC-8 DEFENCE

P a g e | 13

PLEADINGS
1. THIS HONOURABLE COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION TO TRY
THE CASE OF ACCUSED NO.1, GENERAL MUSTAFA.
The challenge to the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court will hold, for the reason; a)
The Territory of White Land is a State; b) The Republic of White Land is not party to the
Rome Statute.
1.1. The Territory of White Land is a State.
A State proper is in existence when people are settled in a territory under its own
sovereign Government. 1 The State is commonly defined as a community which
consists of a territory and a population subject to organized political authority and
such a state is characterized by sovereignty.2
1.1.1. Criteria of Statehood is fulfilled:
The State as a person of International Law should possess the following
qualifications:

A permanent population

A defined Territory

Government

Capacity to enter into relations with the other States3

The city of White Land became a haven for all kinds of people belonging t the
Firos community, who settled there. 4 They also have a defined territory
extending to the whole city of White Land and the surrounding areas of the
city including Mereen, Astopore and Dorne.5 Their Government is also headed
by the 40th FIR-RA, who is the de-facto administrator of the territory.6

L. Oppenheim, Oppenheims International Law, Vol.1 (9 th Ed. 1996, ed. Robert Jennings & Arthur Watts) P.
120.
2
Arbitration Commission of the European Conference on Yugoslavia, Opinion no.1, 92 ILR , P. 162, 165
3
Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States. Though the Convention was a PanAmerican Union Convention, Article 16 of the same provides that, The present Convention shall be open for
the adherence and accession of the States which are not signatories. Hence, the Convention is applicable even
to those countries, which are not its signatories.
4
As per the Report made public by the Sons of Harpy Page 6, Moot Proposition
5
White Land Independence Act, 2014 (Page 9, Moot Proposition)
6
Supra 4
1

TC-8 DEFENCE

P a g e | 14

The Capacity to enter into relations with the other states also means
sovereignty. Sovereignty is achieved when the Government is in effective
Control of the State. The Government is said to be in effective control of the
State when the majority of the population of such a State obeys the commands
of such Government with a reasonable expectancy of permanence.7
In the instant case, the people living the Territory of White Land have been
paying an annual tax to the FIR-RA in lieu of their residence8 and have also
consented to the formation of the New state and New Government through the
Referendum.9
Hence, if given a chance, the State can enter into treaties with other nations.
But the Other nations have refused its recognition as a State.
1.1.2. Recognition of the State of White Land:
State practice over the past century has favored the declaratory approach over
the Constitutive approach of Recognition. This is to say, that the State, which
fulfills the criteria of statehood does not necessarily need recognition by the
other States.10 In fact, The political existence of the state is independent of
recognition by the other states.11 Recognition only serves as an affirmation of
Statehood.
Constitutionality or unconstitutionality of the Government is an internal affair
of the State. Thus non-recognition of the Government on the ground of
Unconstitutionality would amount to interference with the domestic affairs of
the state. 12 The Montevideo Convention states No state has the right to
intervene in the internal or external affairs of another.13
Hence, the Statement of the US Representative to the UN and the refusal to
recognize the Sovereignty of the State of White Land by the State of Black land

Kanade, Jai and Kanade Vishal, Introduction to Public International Law, Lexis Nexis Publications, P. 102
Supra 4 Page 6
9
Page 9, Moot Proposition
10
Supra 7 P.100
11
Article 3, The Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States. It also states, Even before recognition
the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence, to provide for its conservation and prosperity,
and consequently to organize itself as it sees fit, to legislate upon its interests, administer its services, and to
define the jurisdiction and competence of its courts.
12
P. Jessup, the Estrada Doctrine, 25 AJIL 1931, p.719 (as cited in Shaw, p.306)
13
Article 8, The Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States
8

TC-8 DEFENCE

P a g e | 15

is a violation of the Montevideo Convention and the general principles of

International law as mentioned above.
Moreover, considering the current circumstances, the State of White Land is
liable for at least de facto recognition by the States.
In Bank of Ethiopia vs. National Bank of Egypt and Ligouri14, the court gave
effect to the de facto authority over the de jure ruler, whose authority is merely
theoretical and incapable of being enforced.15
Applying it to the case at hand, the de facto administrator is the 40th FIR-RA
and the de jure Government may be the Targareyan Government which is
seemed to have be collapsed16, whose authority has become merely theoretical
as the people of the State of White Land recognize the FIR-RA Government as
the legitimate Government.17
In Luther vs. Sagor18, it was stated in case of de jure recognition as well as in
de facto recognition, The Government in question acquires the right to be
treated by the recognizing state as an independent Sovereign State, and none
the less that our Government does not pretend to express any opinion on the
legality or otherwise of the means by which the power has been obtained.19
Hence, it is proved that the territory of White Land is a state and it has a right
to be recognized under the above-mentioned circumstances.
1.2. The Republic of White Land is not party to the Rome Statute.
The Republic of White Land was not a signatory to the Rome Statute as a new
State. 20 By the principles of Succession 21 and the lack of jurisdiction of this
Honourable Court on non-party nationals, the trial of General Mustafa, who is the
Accused no.1 in the instant case is not liable to be proceeded with.

14

1937 L.R. Ch. 513

Id.
16
Page 7, Moot Proposition
17
Supra 8 and 9
18 (1921) 3 KB 532 at p.551
19
Id.
20
Supra 9
21
Tandon, M.P., Public International Law, Allahabad Law Agency, Module 5
15

TC-8 DEFENCE

P a g e | 16

2. GENERAL MUSTAFA ALIAS 40TH FIR-RA CANNOT BE HELD CRIMINALLY

LIABLE UNDER ARTICLE 7 OF THE ROME STATUTE.
General Mustafa alias 40th FIR-RA is not liable under Article 7 of the Rome Statute. This
argument is two-fold, a) There is no evidence to prove the alleged conduct as the
Accuseds; b) The elements of the Crime enlisted under the Rome Statute is not fulfilled.
2.1. There is no evidence to prove the alleged conduct as the Accuseds.
Article 66 (3) presumes the innocence of the Accused and states that In order to
convict the accused, the Court must be convinced of the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt.22Hence, it is important to understand and analyse the
evidence against the Accused to prove the crime allegedly committed by him
beyond reasonable doubt.
2.1.1. No Bodies in the Temple Fire at Astapore.
In the case at hand, it is pertinent to note that no casualty was reported neither
were any dead bodies recovered from the fire of the Temple of Astapore. The
edifice was damaged while no dead bodies were reported on the day of the
fire.23
2.1.2. Bodies found at the pit of Astopore irrelevant to the incident.
It is further material to note that there is no evidence with regards to the
identities of the bodies found in the pit near Astapore by the local police.
Forensic experts that had examined the dead bodies could not give an
affirmative answer about the identity of the dead bodies.24 There is no way to
establish as to which community the bodies belonged or whether such
differentiation is even a legitimate concern. Since there is no link between the
dead bodies and the FIR-RA or the followers of the Firos religion, such charges
are not only light-minded but also frivolous. Such evidence leaves a lot of
ambiguity and the accused cannot be implicated.

22

Article 66, Rome Statute of International Criminal Court

Supra 16
24
Page 8, Moot Proposition
23

TC-8 DEFENCE

P a g e | 17

2.1.3. Presence of Red Clad Men does not signify the alleged conduct by the
accused.
The unfounded assumption that the red clad men present at the temple 25 is
whimsical so as to state that any person who wears red belongs to the Firos
community. There is no definitive link between the red clad men and the Firos
community. Additionally, there is no link between the Defendant and the redclad men. Hence, Article 25(3)(a) of the Rome Statute would not be
applicable.26
2.1.4. Credibility of Witness X is disputed.
Further, the credibility of Witness X is challenged on the grounds that the
identity of this witness has not been revealed. The validity of inclusion of
WITNESS Xs testimony as his identity has not been disclosed by the Office of
the Prosecutor, it is contended that non- disclosure of identities of such
witnesses is inconsistent with his right to fair and impartial trial.27 The right to
fair and impartial trial is a fundamental right accepted by most states. It is a
general principle of law.28 It is a General Principle of Law which is recognised
by civilised states. It is an instruct idea of law and basic to all legal systems.
Principles of justice are founded on the very nature of man as a rational and
social beings therefore it is essential that every man has the right to be heard
without any prejudice to his rights. In the Continental Shelf (Tunisia/ Libyan
Arab Jamarhiya) Case29, the ICJ made the following observation with respect
to equity, Equity as a legal concept is a direct emanation of the idea of justice.
The court, whose task by definition is to administer justice, is bound to apply
it.30

25

Supra 16
Article 25(3)(a), Rome Statute - Individual criminal responsibility- In accordance with this Statute, a person
shall be criminally responsible and liable for punishment for a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court if that
person Commits such a crime, whether as an individual, jointly with another or through another person,
regardless of whether that other person is criminally responsible.
27
General Principles of Law; As mentioned under Article 38 (1) of the Statute of the International Court of
Justice
28
The right to fair trial is a widely accepted common law principle and is imbibed in most municipal laws of the
world. The principle of fair and impartial trial is also founded on the basic principles of justice, equity and good
faith which are natural laws., Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
29
Judgment decided on 24th February, 1982
30
Id.

26

TC-8 DEFENCE

P a g e | 18

2.1.5. Supposed evidence of Ownership of weapons is baseless.

The facade that the weapons had two distinct marks one of a fire ring, what
seemed to be a red eye, and the logo of Mustafa Pvt. Ltd is connected to the
40th FIR-RA again is preposterous. The word seemed31 should be construed
literally and strictly.32
There is no definitive proof that the mark of the fire ring or the red eye is the
mark of the Firos. Also, the words impression and something are to be
highlighted. 33 Both words construe an unsure, uncertain, indeterminable and
unsettled outlook therefore, both the distinct marks fail to link General Mustafa
to the weapons found by the police.
It is whimsical and laughable to say that the name Mustafa is distinct and
available only to General Mustafa. It is an arbitrary presumption that Mustafa
Pvt. Ltd. is that of the 40th FIR-RA as there is no clear evidence to prove such
ownership or role in the said company. Again, there is no definite proof
indicating a link between the company and General Mustafa, the debate only
highlighted drawing room conversation between communities that were
threatened by the growing popularity of the Firos faith. It was nothing but a
common belief34 amongst the people of the Old Gods faith and was nothing
but a mere conjecture without definitive proof intended to malign the
Generals reputation.
2.2. The elements of the Crime enlisted under the Rome Statute are not fulfilled.
Article 7 (1)(a) enumerates elements to be fulfilled to be constituted as a the
crime against humanity of murder. The three elements to constitute the offence
under Article 7(1)(a) are the conduct of murder, the conduct committed as part of
a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population and the
knowledge of the perpetrator regarding the same.35
Until all elements of the crime are satisfied, no case is made out for prosecution
against the perpetrator. In this case, false, baseless and unfounded accusations
31

Principle of Strict Construction of Penal laws, Article 22 of the Rome Statute

Id.
33
Supra 31
34
Page 8, Moot proposition
35
Article 7(1)(a), Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Elements of Crimes, (United Nations Doc.
PCNICC/2000/1/Add.2 (2000)
32

TC-8 DEFENCE

P a g e | 19

are made against General Mustafa alias the 40th FIR-RA which do not satisfy the
elements of crime in order to indict him of any charge against him.
2.2.1. Conduct of Murder First Element is not fulfilled.
Firstly, pursuant to the first precondition of killing of one or more person, it is
pertinent to note that since Article 7 pertains to international criminal law, its
provisions, consistent with Article 2236, must be strictly construed.37
In case of ambiguity, the definition shall be interpreted so as to give a benefit
of doubt. Pursuant to the initial evidence perused, it is concluded that the
prosecution fails to prove the first element of the crime.
2.2.2. Widespread systematic attack- Second element not fulfilled.
Secondly, with regards to the widespread or systematic attack directed against
a civilian population, it is vehemently denied that there was any attack planned
or conducted against the civilian population by General Mustafa alias the 40th
FIR-RA. There is no sufficient evidence leading to any link between the fire at
the temple on the 12th of September 2014 and General Mustafa.
2.2.3. Knowledge or Intent of the Crime Third Element not fulfilled.
Thirdly, it has been previously established that there was no systematic attack
against the civilian population on part of General Mustafa and the Firos
community. In continuation of the above, it is clear that since there was no
systematic attack planned, the question of knowledge, intent and the conduct
cannot be raised at all. Additionally no fact or evidence has come into the light
that links General Mustafa with the fire at the temple on 12th September,
2014.
Additionally, the Defendant is not responsible for any violation whatsoever
under Article 16 of the Protocol II of the Geneva Convention.38
Lack of sufficient evidence is no cause for conviction and becomes a stronger

36

Article 22 of the Rome Statute

In criminal law, it is essential that the rule of strict interpretation of statutes is applied that is to say it should
be beyond reasonable doubt. This is in consonance with Article 23, the maxim Nulla poena sine lege, a person
convicted by the Court may be punished only in accordance with this Statute. Article 22 states that the definition
of a crime shall be strictly construed and shall not be extended by analogy.
38
Protection of Cultural Objects and Places of Worship
37

TC-8 DEFENCE

P a g e | 20

case for acquittal. In the Ali Kushayb case39, there was no sufficient evidence
against the accused and hence it resulted in an acquittal. 40 In the Ngudjolo
Chui case 41 , the accused was acquitted on the same grounds. The Appeals
Chamber also upheld the acquittal.42 The court stressed that the ruling does not
mean that no crimes were committed in Bogoro nor does it question what the
people of this community have suffered on that day, but that it was difficult
to establish Ngudjolos guilt beyond a reasonable doubt because the testimony
was too hazy and contradictory43
Therefore, since none of the criteria of the crimes against humanity of murder
are satisfied, the charges against General Mustafa fall.

39

Prosecutor vs. Ali Kushayb ICC-02/05-01/07-3

http://www.icc-cpi.int/pages/record.aspx?uri=279858
41
Prosecutor vs. Ngudjolo Chui ICC-01/04-01/07-260-tENG
42
ICC-01/04-02/12-271
43
Id.
40

TC-8 DEFENCE

P a g e | 21

3. RHAEGAR TARGAREYAN IS NOT CRIMINALLY LIABLE UNDER ARTICLE

6 OF THE ROME STATUTE FOR GENOCIDE.
Rhaegar Targareyan is not liable under Article 6 of the Rome Statute. This Argument is
two- fold a) There is no evidence to prove the alleged conduct; b) The elements of
crimes under the above mentioned provision is not fulfilled.
3.1. There is no evidence to prove the alleged conduct.
The incidents pertaining to the procession on February 10, 2014, forms the basis
of the charges framed under the said provision by the Prosecution. However,
there is no credible evidence to prove the conduct of Accused no. 2, Rhaegar
Targareyan.
3.1.1. The Paramilitary forces were within their rights in using tear gas shells in
order to control the riot on Feb 10, 2014 by the College of Red Priests.
3.1.1.1. The procession taken out by the college of Red Priests was a riot.
Riot is defined as a tumultuous disturbance of the peace by three persons or
more, assembling together of their own authority, with an intent mutually to
assist each other against any who shall oppose them, in the execution of some
enterprise of a private nature, and afterwards actually executing the same in a
violent and turbulent manner, to the terror of the people, whether the act
intended were of itself lawful or unlawful.44
According to the above definition, the procession taken out by the college of
Red Priests had all the elements of a riot as they had:

Assembled of their own authority under the command of the

college of the Red Priests in the Capital City on February 10,2014
with an intent to protest against Rhaegar Targareyen statements
criticising Conclave Spiritual schools and inherently criticising the
principles of their faith.45

There were nearly 10,000 protestors who were determined to resist

and undermine the authority of the State 46

They had the intent to oppose the Government and The FIR-RA
and their supporters demanded ousting of the royal family.47

Pg.1490, Blacks Law Dictionary, 4th Edition

Para II, page 4, Moot Proposition
46
Id.
44

45

TC-8 DEFENCE

P a g e | 22

The crowd became increasingly violent and actively pelted stones

at the troops attempting to restore law and order. Men inside the
procession even fired airguns at the rooftops.48

3.1.2. There have been incidents of violence and rioting in the Capital City earlier.
The statement made by Rhaegar Targareyan did not go well with the FIROS
community. It led to a series of protests against the royal family and the
government. 49
The capital city faced severe unrest, and violent revolts. The 40th FIR-RA and
the College of Red Priests immediately withdrew their support to the
government in power. They demanded a public apology from Rhaegar
Targareyan and his immediate resignation from his office.50
Hence an atmosphere of revolt, imminent violence and rioting was already
prevalent in the Capital city. Tension between the Firos community and the
Government was mounting.
When the Procession on 10th February, took place, in order to prevent such an
atmosphere surrounding it to lead to further violence, the Paramiltary forces
were called in.51
3.1.3. Tear gas shells were fired by the paramilitary only when the crowd began to
riot.
Since the situation was becoming explosive and a domestic riot was imminent,
Rhaegar Targareyan swiftly called two Divisions of Paramilitary Forces to
restore law and order. He wanted normalcy to be restored. The soldiers had
appropriated all neighboring buildings and did not commit any act of physical
violence against the crowd. One division surrounded the procession as a
preventive measure.

52

The crowd however, became extremely hostile towards the legal authorities
and began pelting stones and firing airguns. In order to control the riot, tear
gas shells were fired.

47

Supra 44
Id.
49
Page 3, Moot proposition
50
Id.
51
Id.
52
Supra 44
48

TC-8 DEFENCE

P a g e | 23

3.1.4. Use of riot control agents such as tear gas shells under the Chemical Weapons
Convention is not prohibited for the purpose of domestic riot control.
The use of such chemicals for law enforcement including domestic riot
control purposes is not prohibited.53
While tear gas and pepper spray, under international law, are banned as a
method of warfare, there are no restrictions to their domestic use as a riot
control agent. According to the CWC, riot control agents are any chemicals
which are not specifically listed in their list of prohibited chemicals and that
can cause in humans rapid sensory irritation or disabling physical effects
which

disappear

within

short

time

following

termination

of

exposure. Under Article II Clause 9 of the CWC, the use of such chemicals
for law enforcement including domestic riot control purposes

54

is not

prohibited under the Convention.

Hence the paramilitary forces could use tear gas shells to disperse the crowd in
order to control the domestic riot created by the College of Red Priests.
Rheagar Targareyan cannot be charged or convicted for ordering the same.
3.1.5. There is no sufficient evidence to show the poisonous gas bombs were
exploded by the Paramilitary forces in the crowd and that this was done under
the order of Rhaegar Targayeran.
The facts clearly state After about fifteen minutes, two bombs exploded inside
the procession releasing asphyxiating fumes and gases. It caused a stampede
and immediately scattered the procession.55 There is no tangible evidence to
show that the said bombs had been exploded by the troops.
3.1.6. The Pre-recorded tape aired by Radio Nine is hearsay evidence and
insufficient to prove that the procession was a peaceful one.
According to the facts, two days after the event, the local radio channel Radio
Nine aired a pre-recorded tape, which said, The procession was silent and
peaceful. There were no signs of unnecessary revolt and aggression from the

Clause 9, Article II of the Chemical Weapons Convention (hereinafter the CWC)

Clause 9, Article II, Convention on the Prohibition of the development, production, stockpiling and use of
chemical weapons and on their destruction, 1992
55
Page 4, Moot Proposition

53

54

TC-8 DEFENCE

P a g e | 24

FIROS community. The forces were able to take care of the situation, but our
commander did not want us to waste any time.56
3.2. The elements of crimes under the above mentioned provision is not fulfilled.
Article 6(a) of the Rome Statute specifies Genocide by killing. There has to be
a strong genocidal intent that is to be proved under the said Provision.57 Also, the
other elements that are to be proved under the specific provision are the conduct
of killing, the ethnicity of the people killed, the intent to destroy the particular
ethnic group and the pattern of such destruction.
Until all elements of the crime are satisfied, no case is made out for prosecution
against the perpetrator. In this case, false, baseless and unfounded accusations
are made against Rhaegar Targareyan which do not satisfy the elements of crime
in order to indict him of any charge against him.
3.2.1. The Intent to destroy a particular ethnic group is not fulfilled.
By the perusal of evidence mentioned above, there has been no genocidal intent
on the part of Rhaegar Targareyan. It is a simple instance of a mob going out of
bounds and the paramilitary forces attempting to control it. Hence, there is a
complete lack of any act of genocide or a pattern of destruction like a genocide
by killing.
This also destroys the other elements of the crime of Genocide by killing and
refutes all the charges against Rhaegar Targareyan.
Hence, Rhaegar Targareyan should not be held Criminally Liable for Genocide under Article
6 of the Rome Statute.

56

57

Page 5, Moot proposition

Article 6 , Rome Statute (Introduction- Elements of Crimes)

TC-8 DEFENCE

P a g e | 25

4. RHAEGAR TARGAREYAN IS NOT CRIMINALLY LAIBLE UNDER ARTICLE

7 OF THE ROME STATUTE FOR CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY.
Rhaegar Targareyan is not liable under Article 7 (1)(i) and Article 7(1) (g-6) of the Rome
Statute. The argument is two-fold: a) There is a lack of credible evidence against the
accused; b) The elements of crimes under the Rome Statute is not fulfilled.
4.1. There is a lack of credible evidence against the accused.
There is no credibility in the evidence that the prosecution has relied upon and
framed the charges against the Accused. Hence, the evidence presented is not
sufficient to prove the alleged conduct of the defendant beyond reasonable doubt.
4.1.1. There is no sufficient evidence to indict Rhaegar Targareyan for crimes
against humanity under 7(1)(i)-Enforced disappearance of persons
4.1.1.1. The interview published by Black Land Today of the alleged witnesses is
hearsay evidence and is inadmissible according to general principles of law
Hearsay evidence is defined as Evidence not proceeding from the personal
knowledge of the witness, but from the mere repetition of what he has heard
others say. That which does not derive its value solely from the credit of the
witness, but rests mainly on the veracity and competency of other persons. The
very nature of the evidence shows its weakness58
As per this definition, the interview published by the magazine Black Land
Today is hearsay evidence and the same is inadmissible in a court of law
according to the general principles of law. Newspapers offered in evidence as
proof of the facts recited therein are out-of-court declarations generally held to
be inadmissible under the hearsay rule.
Firstly, the contents of the interview does not derive its value solely from the
credit of the witnesses i.e. the two alleged survivors but it lies on the veracity
and competency of the journalist Tyrells reporting59 of the same.
Secondly, it is a mere repetition of what Tyrell allegedly heard the witnesses
say.

58
59

Blacks Law Dictionary, 4th Edition, Page 852

Page 5, Moot proposition

TC-8 DEFENCE

P a g e | 26

4.1.1.2. The statements made by the witnesses are unreliable and prove no direct link
between the abduction and the involvement of Targareyan in the same.
Firstly, the witnesses state that they were picked up by masked men, which
indicates that they were completely unaware of the identity of the abductors.
Additionally, they had been blindfolded in a poorly lit room and hence were
unaware of their surroundings as well. The only incident the man directly
witnessed was the alleged rape of the boy by two unidentified men. There was
no proof linking these men to Rhaegar Targareyan.
Secondly, the man himself admitted that he was not allowed to sleep for two
days, and was administered a series of injections which made him hallucinate.
He also felt dizzy and his vision was blurred thereby making whatever he
witnessed or heard questionable, unreliable and not a definitive proof of
Targareyans involvement. Also, they were given bare minimum food and the
man was not in a coherent, sound state.
Therefore his claims of having heard voices taking names like Boss,
Targareyan etc. or shrieks of girls begging for mercy cannot be relied on.
There has been no tangible, credible or reliable evidence to prove that Rhaegar
Targareyan ordered the abduction and disappearance of the man, boy and
allegedly 200 other people.
Neither is there any evidence linking him to the sexual assault, rape or murder
of the girls, whose bodies were recovered from the outskirts of the capital city.
4.1.2. Hearsay Evidence cannot be admissible in any circumstance of a criminal
proceeding.
It is a generally accepted rule of law that hearsay Evidence will not be relied
on as evidence. 60 Hearsay is not evidence in legal proceedings.

61

As a

general rule, the court will not rely on hearsay as a premise for an inference
towards the truth of what is asserted. It will not allow a witness to testify in
court that another person X (who is not brought before the court) said that p on

60

Stephen, J., 1872, The Indian Evidence Act, with an Introduction on the Principles of Judicial Evidence,
Calcutta: Thacker, Spink & Co.
61
Id.

TC-8 DEFENCE

P a g e | 27

a certain occasion (an out-of-court statement) for the purpose of proving

that p.62
In the Barcelona Traction case63, it was held by the Court that the principles
laid down by a majority of municipal law of the states will also count as
general principles of International law.
Hence, the rule of hearsay evidence would be applicable in the instant case
and hence, the evidence relied upon is not to be considered.
4.2. The elements of crimes under the Rome Statute is not fulfilled.
Crime against humanity means any of the following acts when committed as
part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population,
with knowledge of the attack.64
The introduction to Article 7 of the Rome Statute clarifies the requisite
participation in and knowledge of a widespread or systematic attack against a
civilian population. However, the last element should be interpreted as requiring
proof that the perpetrator had knowledge of all characteristics of the attack or the
precise details of the plan or policy of the State or organization.65
4.2.1. Requirements under Article 7(1) (g-6 ) and Article 7(1)(i) not fulfilled.
As the above evidence has been perused, there is no credibility and substance
in them as they are hearsay. The foremost requirement of the above-mentioned
provision is the awareness of the factual circumstances of the case, systematic
attack and intention, which has not been proved whatsoever.
Lack of sufficient evidence is no cause for conviction and becomes a stronger
case for acquittal. In the Ali Kushayb case66, there was no sufficient evidence

62

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evidence-legal/#AdmExcRul
[1970] ICJ 1
64
Article 7, The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The Rome Statute is a treaty that reinforces
these rights across the world with an aim to protect these humane rights from being violated in any manner. This
treaty is based on conscious consensus of states which are mindful and recognise the need for the protection and
prevention of any infringement of these human rights. States are determined and empowered to act individually
and collectively in the preservation of these rights. In pursuance of the same, the Rome Statute has enumerated
what constitutes as a crime against Humanity.
65
Page 5, Moot Proposition
66
Prosecutor vs. Ali Kushayb ICC-02/05-01/07-3
63

TC-8 DEFENCE

P a g e | 28

against the accused and hence it resulted in an acquittal.67

In the Ngudjolo Chui case68, the accused was acquitted on the same grounds.
The Appeals Chamber also upheld the acquittal.69 The court stressed that the
ruling does not mean that no crimes were committed in Bogoro nor does it
question what the people of this community have suffered on that day, but that
it was difficult to establish Ngudjolos guilt beyond a reasonable doubt because
the testimony was too hazy and contradictory70
Hence, Rhaegar Targareyan should not be held Criminally Liable for Genocide under Article
7 of the Rome Statute.

67

http://www.icc-cpi.int/pages/record.aspx?uri=279858
Prosecutor vs. Ngudjolo Chui ICC-01/04-01/07-260-tENG
69
ICC-01/04-02/12-271
70
Id.
68

TC-8 DEFENCE

P a g e | 29

PRAYER
In the light of Issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the Defence
humbly submits that this Honble Chamber may be pleased to:
1. Drop the Charges against Accused No. 1 General Mustafa
2. Drop the Charges against Accused No. 2 Rhaegar Targareyan

And

Any other order as it deems fit in the interest of equity, justice and good
conscience.

For This Act of Kindness, the Defendants Shall Duty Bound Forever Pray.

Sd/(Agent for the Defendants)

TC-8 DEFENCE

P a g e | 30