CHALLENGER V, 2019

RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR CLARIFICATIONS

Prosecutor v. Dorothy Lam

1. In para 18, the Premier had a press release warning Nuvimbo. Was this held before or after

the UNSC Resolution passed on the same date as per Para 16/17?

After the resolution was passed. Paras 16, 17 and 18 are sequential.

2. In para 22, there is a mention of documents which were leaked by the anonymous group as

an inclusive, not an exhaustive list. what are the other documents produced by the group?

Please refer to the existing information.

3. What proportion of the Council of Ministers does Dorothy allege to have sought the support

of to pass the authorisation for carrying out the cyber attacks?

No comments.

4. How much percentage of the population of Otto was dependent on ships and ports of

Nuvimbo?

No comments.

5. Para 6 mentions that the Treaty of Free Port is reviewed by Nuvimbo every 10 years. In

the past, has there been any condition in this treaty?

No.

6. Are there any conditions mentioned in the Treaty of Free Port allowing Nuvimbo to

unilaterally revoke the agreement?

 No, it is to be governed by principles of international law.

7. In para 10, there is a mention of Ottoite local media reporting the Nuvimbo Army carrying

out frequent surgical strikes. Was there any formal enquiry made to this effect? What was

the say of the Ottoite Government in this regard?

The Ottoite government never took any measures against Nuvimbo for the surgical

strikes because of its heavy dependence on the port of Nuvimbo.

8. Was there any testing done with regard to the technology used on the charging boats? Was

it certified by any authority?

No comments.

9. Refer Paragraph 6 of the Moot Proposition. The Treaty of Free Port is to be reviewed by

the Nuvimbo Government every 10 years. When was the last review conducted?

2017.

10. What are the grounds for revocation under the Treaty of Free Port if any? Is unilateral

revocation of the same allowed for under the Treaty?

Refer question 6 for the same.

11. Refer Paragraph 12 of the Moot Problem. Which party was responsible for conducting the

skirmishes along the Nuvimbo border since January 2018?

The Tianese, primarily.

12. Paragraphs 29 and 31(4) of the Moot Proposition refer to Article 25(3)(b) as the model of

liability for the crimes of Genocide and Crimes against Humanity. Issue 3 in its wording

however makes no reference to Article 25(3)(b). Is there any amendment to the same?

The model of liability to be followed for Issue III is that as given under Art. 25(3)(b)

of the Rome Statute.

13. Paragraph 26 of the Moot Proposition mentions protests in front of the Premier’s residence.

Where in Otto is the residence of the Premier located?

No comments.

14. Refer Paragraph 28 of the Moot Proposition states that the Prosecutor notified the UN

Secretary General on 5th April 2018. However, the Prosecutor only decided to proceed

with the investigation subsequent to the protests of 2nd May 2018. Is there any clarification

regarding the dates?

The UN Secretary General was notified on 5th May 2018.

15. Is the judgment of the Pre-Trial Chamber in Paragraph 31 the actual text of the judgment

or a summary? If the same is a summary is to be assumed that the judgment specifies each

determination made by the court and any rationale behind the determination?

It is a summary of the charges.

16. Are the online leaked documents the sole evidence provided by the Prosecutor to the Pre-

Trial Chamber or has other evidence been provided to the Chamber? If yes then what other

evidence has been provided to the Chamber?

No comments.
17. Refer Paragraph 30 of the Moot Proposition. Are the ground provided for in this paragraph

the sole grounds for challenging the jurisdiction and admissibility of the case or were other

grounds also argued?

No comments.

18. Refer Paragraph 3 of the Moot Proposition. It states that Nuvimbo gained independence

through a series of wars fought between Otto & “Imperial Powers”. Wouldn’t the imperial

powers in the case of Nuvimbo be Otto itself? Is there any clarification regarding the same?

No, the war was fought between Otto and a third nation (the imperial power in

question) which led to the independence of Nuvimbo.

19. Refer Paragraphs 30(2) and 31(3) of the Moot Proposition. The 2 paragraphs make no

mention of Article 25(3)(b) of the Statute of the ICC however Issue (b) of the Proposition

does so. Should the reference not be to Article 25(3bis) of the Statute instead of 25(3)(b)?

Is there any clarification regarding the same?

Please refer to the Rome Statute and existing information.

20. Refer Paragraph 29 of the Proposition. The Security Council did not make any

determination regarding whether an act of aggression occurred or not. However, has the

UNSC made any other determination regarding the event?

No, it hasn’t.

21. Refer Rule 7.7 of the Challenger Memorial. Is the 10,000 word limit limited to arguments

advanced & prayer or does it also include ancillary pages within the 10,000 word limit?
 22. Refer Paragraph 10 of the Proposition. Were the people in Tinjiang forced to migrate

because the Bao community in Otto decided to settle there since Tinjiang remained part of

Otto?

No comments.

23. What do the rectangular bars on Region 1 and Region 2 of the map represent?

They are berths of the shipping terminal where the charging boats load/unload

cargo (REGION 1) and where the aircraft carriers were docked for maintenance

(REGION 2).

IMPORTANT DATE CHANGES:

a. At para 29, instead of 6th October 2018, the revised date is 6th November 2018.

b. At para 30, instead of 21st October 2018, the revised date is 11th November 2018.

c. Please refer to question 14 of the Clarifications as well.