PLEADINGS

1. The hearing takes place on the confirmation of charges pursuant to Article 61 of the 1998 Statute of
the International Criminal Court Statute (ICC Statute).1
PRELIMINARY MATTERS
I. STANDARD OF PROOF
2. The Prosecutor has to support each charge with sufficient evidence to establish substantial grounds
to believe that Mr. A. Owen (Owen) committed the crimes charged.2
II. JURISDICTION AND ADMISSIBILITY
3. The International Criminal Court (ICC) does not have a universal jurisdiction but only has limited in
ratione loci, ratione personae, ratione temporis and ratione materiae.3
4. The ICC does not have jurisdiction on the present case of Owen as the elements to grant jurisdiction
have not been fulfilled.
A. JURISDICTION RATIONE LOCI
5. The ICC will only have territorial jurisdiction if the crimes committed were in the territory of the
signatorys State and if not a party to the Rome Statute (RS) will accept the exercise of the ICCs
jurisdiction with respect to the crimes in question.4
6. The crimes accused of Owen happened in the territory of the Pinnattan Lands (PL) who are self-
autonomous in nature. This may establish that they are of an independent state because of the
declaratory theory of statehood apparent in its functioning government, clear definition of
geographical territory and permanent residents.5
7. Some crimes in relation to border policy also occurred in the No-mans land. This territory was
illegally created, meaning it still belonged to Acacias territory. Acacia is not a signatory or a party to
the ICC.6
8. Thus, ICC cannot have territorial jurisdiction over the case.
B. JURISDICTION RATIONE PERSONAE
9. dgfgd
C. OWENS IS IMMUNE FROM JURISDICTION

1
Instructions, [1].
2
ICC Statute, Article 61(5).
3
Wagner, Markus, The ICC and its Jurisdiction Myths, Misperceptions and Realities, Max Planck Yearbook of
United Nations Law, Volume 7, 2003, 409-512.
4
ICC Statute, Article 12.
5
Montevideo Convention, 26 December 1933; Problem, [13]
6
Problem, [12].
10. jhgjhjh
III. EVIDENTIARY MATTERS
11. The rule in determining relevance or admissibility of evidence is to take into account its probative
value and weigh it against the prejudicial effect that the evidence might cause. Moreover, it must be
stressed that it is necessary to evaluate whether the obtained evidence is even relevant to the trial.7
12. Social media and local news outlets are considered open source information. Open source
information is information that is publicly available.8
13. Stories in social media and local news outlets broke out regarding the mass executions of civilians
and large scale destruction by Pinattan militias and reprisal actions by the Boronian Armed Forces
(BAF); the target group were the Rogues because the Boronian government felt that they had
instigated the uprising; neighbourhoods were decimated and that hundreds of Rogues were found
dead, and thousands vanished.9
14. Although the ICTR has based its decision on relevant mass media in the case of Nahimana,
Barayagwiza and Ngeze,10 these open sources must be taken into consideration especially regarding
its reliability.11
15. Open sources raises several questions. First, the writers of the information might be unknown or
unclear, meaning the data could raise concerns on its credibility, impartiality, and bias on his/her
own views. Second, social media creates a dangerous illusion of unmediated flow of information,
making the views believe that they are receiving accurate and comprehensive accounts of the
conflict.
16. The stories that broke out in social media and local news outlets are not to be considered as
admissible evidence precisely because its reliability as an open source evidence is not credible.
These stories may have been written by biased persons and do not have an accurate grasp on the
current conflict. The credibility of these stories must first be investigated to even be considered as
admissible.

7
ICC Statute, Articles 64(9) and 69(4).
8
National Open Source Enterprise, Intelligence Community Directive 301, July 2006 cited in Eijkman, Weggemans
(2013)
9
Facts, [15].
10
Nahimana et al., AC, ICTR-99-52-A, 28 November 2007.
11
Laving, Laura-Liisa, The Reliability of Open Source Evidence in the International Criminal Court. Lund
University, Spring 2014.
17. On 20 June 2014, Lucy Brightwell published an article regarding a confidential Acacian memo stating
that her source was acquired through WikiLeaks.12
18. In any question of admissibility before the Tribunal, WikiLeaks as an admissible evidence requires
that there is a prima facie showing the relevance and probative value of this source.13
19. Though the Court had previously admitted WikiLeaks as an admissible evidence, in this case
however, there was no evidence that a credible source has acknowledged the authenticity or
accuracy of the source. Moreover, the authorship of the document taken from WikiLeaks has also
not been proven to be from an authentic and reliable source.14
20. Therefore, these open source evidences would prejudice Mr. A. Owens case beyond a reasonable
degree and should not be admissible in the present case.
INDICTMENTS
IV. Common Elements: No Context of Non-International Armed Conflict
21. Cvdfdfbgd
V. Indictment I Crime of Genocide Against Rogues
22. Dgfdfgdgd
A. Individual Responsibility Under Article 25(3)(B)
23. Sfdfggd
1) Actus Reus
24. Fggdgfd
2) Mens Rea
25. dfgdgdfgd
B. Crime of Genocide Against Rogues
26. dfgdfgdd
VI. Indictment II War Crime
27. fgdgd

12
Facts, [32].
13
Prosecutor v. Ayyash et al., STL-11-01/T/TC, Prosecution Response to Request for the Admission of a Document
and Submissions in favour of the Admissibility of Diplomatic Cables Published on the WikiLeaks Website, [3].
14
Prosecutor v. Ayyash et al., STL-11-01/T/TC, Decision on the Admissibility of Documents Published on the
WikiLeaks Website, [40].