NICO

PROSEC

1. In what ways can the ICC acquire jurisdiction over a case?

2. Is it not that Toukanov must prosecute the case first before referring the matter to the ICC?
3. Is it not that the referral was by means of a bilateral treaty and that there was nowhere in the
compromis that says Toukanov was unwilling to prosecute?
4. Is this a case of IAC?
5. How long did the hostilities exist?
6. How can you say that the attacks herein were not sporadic but protracted?
7. Is it not that the attacks herein are mere internal disturbances; and therefore, should be tried
under their local law?
8. How was the intensity requirement satisfied when in fact FKA was only able to control one
province?
9. Where in the compromis can we find evidence that the intensity requirement was met? Is it not
that these casualties are considered as mere collateral damage?
10. Can you use inference to indict a person before this Court?
11. What is the quantum of evidence required before this Chamber? Define substantial evidence.
12. Is it not that the order was to protect the truck and not to attack civilians?
13. Is it not that the Ombrians were the first ones to attack?
14. Is it not that these Ombrians were part of the FKA?
15. Was there an order to attack the civilians?
16. Are the Ombrians protected persons under the IHL?

DEFENSE

1. What would be the difference if this involves an IAC rather than NIAC?
2. What are the implications if this is an IAC?
3. Is it not that we are only in the process of confirming the charges and that at this stage, we are
also determining the nature of the armed conflict, if there is any?
4. Who are the contracting parties in this case?
5. Is it not that Hakova is only an autonomous region and not a state?
6. What are the elements of the State and how can you say that these elements are met in this
case?
7. Prove the sovereignty of Hakova.
8. Can the Prosec amend the nature of the armed conflict before this Chamber?
9. If this is an IAC, then why do you contend that these charges cannot be confirmed? Does this
Chamber have no jurisdiction over war crimes committed during IAC?
10. Is not that Vande was indicted under the Rome Statute and not under the Geneva Conventions?
11. Is it not that the Ombrians are acting in self-defense?
12. Is it not that the violence was directed against the drivers and TAF soldiers and not against the
Lannister truck?
13. What is the mode of liability of Vande?
14. How can you explain the 110 deaths amongst the civilians vs the 10 deaths among the TAF
soldiers?
15. How can you explain the fact that the civilians who were fleeing were still targeted by your
clients soldiers?
16. Are the Ombrians equipped with enough weapons?
17. Is it not that the principle of proportionality was violated in this case?
18. How exactly did the 110 civilians died?
19. Is it not that the order was to protect the truck with all necessary means and therefore, anything
may be employed even attacking the Ombrians?
20. Is it not that the fact that 110 civilians died is indicative that TAF failed to employ precautionary
means?
21. Is it not that the machine guns were excessive and discriminatory?
22. Is it not that even if TAF employed suppressive fire, still the principle of distinction was not
observed?
NOEL

PROSEC

1. Do you agree with your co-counsel that terrorists are protected persons under IHL?
2. Is it not that the convoy was a fictitious decoy to attack Ombrians?
3. Did Vande order the crime of rape in this case?
4. Did he push for an investigation?
5. Do you have direct evidence to prove rape like interviews of the victims?
6. Is it not that the victims and the perpetrators here are all soldiers? Shouldnt this be tried before
their own military tribunal?
7. What are the sources of law under the Rome Statute?
8. Is it not that the evidence herein were mere hearsays?
9. Is it not that the reports were not verified? Hence, inadmissible?
10. How could Vande acquire knowledge when in fact what was condemned were the alleged
sexual abuses and not the raping of the soldiers?
11. Is it not that the change in the military structure in par17 meant that the erring soldiers have
already been penalized?
12. What is the definition of rape under the Rome Statute? Whats your evidence that rape was
committed here?
13. Was there an evidence of actual penetration?
14. Is sexual abuse the same as rape?
15. In par18, rape was not mentioned, but only sexual abuses.
16. Is it not that those involved in the crime were already removed from their positions and hence,
already punished?
17. If there was already punishment, what else is the duty of Vande that he failed to do?
18. Is displacement tantamount to illegal detention or arbitrary arrest?
19. Who issued Operation Blanc?
20. Is it not that it was President Arlet who ordered Operation Blanc?

DEFENSE

1. If this is an IAC, can this Court confirm the charges against Vande?
2. Do we presume guilt?
3. What are the elements of rape?
4. Is it not that direct evidence is not required before this Chamber?
5. Is it not that Vande condoned the commission of rape during the free time of his subordinates?
6. Is it not that the cause of the mutiny are the alleged sexual abuses?
7. Can a subordinate charge his General?
8. Did Vande initiate any investigation after having been informed of the sexual abuses?
9. Is Vande not a military commander?
10. If not Vande, then who should be indicted?
11. How can you say that he has no effective control when in fact he has the power to promote the
mutineers?
12. The fact that Vande did not prevent/punish is the very reason that we must confirm the charges
against him.
13. Is it not that he was directed to regain control over Kouka?
14. Is it not that he was the highest-ranking and senior most military commander?
15. Is it not that he has the power to issue orders?
16. Were the soldiers under the authority of Vande?
17. How can you explain the fact that he is supervising his troops yet failed to prevent the crime and
punish his erring subordinates?
18. Is command responsibility the same as superior responsibility?
19. Is arbitrary detention the same as displacement?
20. Is it not that forced conversion of religion is unlawful?
21. Can the military direct the civilians to change their religion?
22. Is this a case of forced conversion?
23. Can a Republican State impose a sole religion to be adhered to by its people?
24. Is it not that the detention was brought about by the failure to attend the classes?
25. Did the 80000 Ombrians convert?