Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

Rebuttal Prosecution

1. They have failed to establish that the conflict was subsequently internationalized.

Defense admits that the conflict was not international in character but was subsequently
internationalized. However, they have failed to substantiate before us how does this conflict
internationalized due to the involvement of a code block.

Case of Prosecutor vs. Ayyash, the government has denied any participation or interference in
the assassination of Lebanon prime minister. There were two wiki links cables of a diplomatic
conversation that the defense wanted admit in order to prove the same and such case is in all
force with the case of General Vande. The Hakova has consistently denied its allegation and
moreover when it comes to the threshold of reliability of leads, it was not satisfied. For first, it
was not accurate. Moreover, its authenticity could not be justified. Having demonstrated that
the case of Prosecutor vs Ayyash, is in all force with this case. We believe that the proper
conclusion to the context of the armed conflict is that it was non-international in character
and despite of the alleged and unsubstantiated claim that Hakova was actually interfering; this
is not sufficient to prove the overall control test.

2. That the attack was actually against civilians nor were there justification of self-defense
substantiated in this case.

They tell us that the indiscriminate attack of civilians with the use of 50 caliber machine
guns while they were fleeing were justified because they were engaged in hostilities

In the case of Prosecutor vs. Strugar, in order for an action to be deemed to be taking part in
hostilities, the following elements must concur:
First, there must be a particular threshold
Second, causality
Third, there must be a belligerent nexus

It tells us that in order for an act to be considered to be directly taking part in hostilities, it
must adversely affect military operations and that said act must specifically designed and
calibrated in order to advance the interest of the resistance movement on the ground and
to cause a detriment to the military operations. In this case, this individuals because of their
acts of desperation and the food shortage that have constantly bedeviled them because
this armed conflict were pushed into the wall and had to act accordingly. On the second
layer of malice, they purported to us that this attack was under self-defense, however Art 31
par. C tells us that in order for said defense to attach, it is necessary that there is an
imminent danger upon the persons life. (interrupted Are you arguing that there is no
imminent death? they were fired upon!) However the second element in order for self-
defense to attach is the proportionality of the means that you use in order to repel the
threat. And in this particular case notwithstanding the fact that they were outnumbered 4 to
1, we have to take into consideration that they were facing military men who are
knowledgeable of and have been well trained in combat. Moreover, they were equipped
with 50 caliber machine guns which are considered anti-vehicle weapons which tells us that
in order to face the same, they have to be mounted into vehicles (interrupted you are
raising anti-vehicle weapons, can you discuss more about it) Given that they are anti-vehicle
weapons, these are the types of machineries that you have to mount within a particular
vehicle and that the standard ammunition that is used would actually blow up a truck
(interrupted source of definition?) Americas and Italys military manual.
(interrupted are these public documents? Which particular manual?) Military manual of
America, Canada and Congo

(more on anti-vehicle weapons, 50 caliber machine guns)

Atty. Kapunan we are on rebuttal, what other arguments are you proposing that we have

= The principle of proportionality and in this case, such use of high powered machine guns
when these civilians were already fleeing for their lives and indiscriminate manner by which
they were actually open fired at while they were fleeing

3. My co-counsel has proven the existence of a nexus between the occurrences of the rape
between combatants in light of the existing conflict.

On the issue of war crimes of rape, defense told us that the nexus between said incidences
of rape does not exist. However, the prosecution submits that the occurrence of a non-
international armed conflict allowed these men to actually perpetuate crimes of rape by
reason of the occurrence of the same. It is also highlighted that the defense has left out the
fact that those individuals are actually placed in a very coercive environment since the facts
of the case tells us that those hurried by the high ranking officials were those that were the
weakest and wounded

4. When we take into consideration the methods by which these individuals were displaced, it only
confirms the charges taken against General Vande.

On the issue of displacement, the prosecution submits that the conduct of General Vande
was a very essential contribution to the perpetuation of the same. That without general
Vande as a military strategist and the chief of the defense tact of the Toukanovan army, said
crime would have been frustrated. Paragraphs 21 and 22, it is clear that it was General
Vande who introduced the said operation in order to flush out the Ombrians and have
specifically designated the same to his Kouka guards.

The prosecution believes that General Vande should stand trial.