THE JEAN-PICTET COMPETITION- INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW

REPORT ON THE JEAN-PICTET MOOT COURT COMPETITION

PORTUGAL (SINTRA)
From 1st of March to 8th of March 2014
Submitted by: - Vusumuzi Bhebhe
- Daphne Natsai Maruta
- Melusi Moyo

1
OVERVIEW OF THE COMPETITION

The Jean-Pictet Moot Court competition is an unconventional type of moot court competition. It is not
solely based on making submissions like in a proper court room scenario but, it comprises of different
settings like taking part in role plays or simulations. Essentially the competition is based on “taking the
law out of the books”. This is to say the moot is not based on theoretical and abstract legalistic
arguments but on testing the ability of participants to apply in real life situations the trite principles of
International Humanitarian Law (IHL).

It is named after an eminent Swiss jurist Jean Pictet and was first held in 1989. Every year the
competition brings together students from five continents to compete in friendly debate on challenging
IHL topics. The competition is a tool for discovery and dialogue between students from all over the
world. Its unique practical oriented approach contributes to a better understanding of IHL by providing
practical skills that students might have to apply someday in the real world when dealing with IHL
related situations.

In summary, there were three groups comprising of sixteen teams each. There were to be four teams
from each group which would qualify for the semi-finals. We failed to qualify for the semi-finals meaning
we only participated in the preliminary rounds (seven tests or simulations). The ultimate winner of the
competition was the University of Virginia which we had met in the preliminary rounds as they were in
our green group.

2
UNIVERSITIES OR INSTITUTIONS THAT PARTICIPATED

Universite Laval (Canada)

Universite de Poitiers (France)
Universite de Bucarest (Romanie)
UniversiteLibre de Bruxelles (Belgique)
Universite Felix Houphouet-Boigny (Ivory Coast)
Universite Pantheon-Assas, Paris II (France)
Universite de Liege (Belgique)
Universite de Fribourg (Suisse)
UniversiteOuga II (Burkina Faso)
Universite Paris Quest Nenterre La Defense (France)
Universite Pierre Mendes- France, Grenoble (France)
Universite de Neuchatel (Suisse)
Universite du Quebec a Montreal (Canada)
Universite de Caen Basse-Normandie (France)
UniversiteOfficielle de Bukavu (Republiquedemocratique du Congo)
Universite de Lome (Togo)
University of Nottingham (United Kingdom)
University of the Phillipines (Phillipines)
ShahidBeheshti University (Iran)
University of Beunos Aires (Argentina)
International University “MITSO” Belarus
Doshisha University (Japan)
Lomonosov Moscow State University (Russia Federation)
Santa Clara University (United States of America)
Kenyatta University (Kenya)
University of Amsterdam (Netherlands)
National University of Singapore (Singapore)
United States Airforce Academy (United States of America)
ShaheedZulfikar All Bhutto Institute of Science and Technology (Pakistan)
National Law School of India University, Bangalore (India)
University of Essex (United Kingdom)
American University, Washington, DC (United States of America)
New York University (United States of America)
Kutafin Moscow State Law University (Russia)
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem (Israel)
University of New South Wales (Australia)
University of Carlifornia, Los Angeles (United States of America)
Mari University (Russian Federation)
The National University of Malaysia (Malaysia)
Royal University of Law and Economics (Cambodia)
University of Virginia (United States of America)
Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights (Netherlands)
University of Groningen (Netherlands)
IvaneJavakhishvili Tbilisi State University (Georgia)
National Law University, Jodphur (India)
Pontifical Catholic University of Peru (Peru)
3
University of Exeter (United Kingdom)
Midlands State University (Zimbabwe)

4
THE OPENING CEREMONY- FIRST DAY OF THE COMPETITION-Saturday 1st of March 2014.

This is the day that introduced us to the Jean-Pictet competition. We were addressed by the president
of the competition Ms Julia Grignon and Christophe Lanord. A synopsis of the principles of the
competition were elucidated. The moot comprises of a blending of the competition and training
sessions to achieve the three objectives mentioned above. The law students from all over the world
gather to be taught by experts fundamental developments in IHL as well as competing based on
fictitious scenarios which are a replica of the modern day armed conflict. We were encouraged to
establish permanent contacts not only with the experts but with our counterparts.

The competition is not restricted to undergraduate students only. Students studying towards their
masters in law are eligible to participate; some who even specialise in the field from the Geneva
Academy were people we met. Members of the United States Air force Academy also participate in this
competition. This means we were competing against post graduates specialising in IHL and those who
have experienced the gravity of armed conflicts and are privy to modern weaponry which we are
unaware of.

We were taught that there were three groups of people we were supposed to know. The Petits Bras are
the people who would distribute the documents, the Kitchen or Cuisine are the people who would
literally and metaphorically cook the tests; the jury members would be responsible for evaluating the
teams and finally the tutors who were responsible for assisting the teams on non-legal issues. Our tutor
was Manar Usama Alshiekh from Egypt. The tutor comes not as a judge but as one who encourages
the team after every test and gives tips as to only procedural issues.

Members of the Kitchen

We were also told that at the end of the competition we would not be ranked because ranking does not
assist the teams in any way. The jury would just inform us on which teams would proceed to the semi-
finals. In the semi-finals, teams would again not be ranked but those that would have qualified for the
finals would be informed.

Teams were then grouped into colour coded groups. There were sixteen teams in each group. There
was the red group, the blue group and the green group. The red group and the green group were for
the English teams whilst the blue group was to be a French one. We were in the green group and our
team was known as LIMA-4.

5
THE SECOND DAY OF THE COMPETITION-Sunday 2nd of March 2014

This was the first day of training; we attended three lectures which focussed on different aspects of IHL.
The first one was entitled “The dark side if IHL, accountability for international crimes” by Phillipe
Larochelle. It was based on the Rwandan genocide and the cases before the International Criminal
Tribunal of Rwanda (ICTR) that followed. Him being a defence counsel to many of the accused in the
cases, he discovered that many of his clients were accused of crimes they didn’t commit. The
witnesses fabricated lies and this leads to a weak international justice system. The accused persons
then inevitably became the victims of International Criminal Law (ICL) as they are vilified and subjected
to unparalleled trauma due to prolonged trials. Even if they are acquitted, they continue to be
scapegoats based on the fact that indeed the Rwandan genocide occurred and those that perpetrated it
are amongst those occupying the highest echelons of political power today in Rwanda. Some of these
when acquitted opt to stay in other countries rather than their countries of origin, in these countries they
are sometimes denied asylum. The ICL system should therefore be developed to both guard against
false accusations as well as protecting those acquitted.

The second lecture was conducted by Illario Maiolo and was entitled “The role of the National
Societies of the International Movement of the Red Cross in the disseminating and training in
IHL: the Canadian Red Cross experience”. We were taught the role of national societies of the Red
Cross as well as the difference between the International Committee of the Red Cross and the
International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. The roles of the national Red
Cross societies include emergency responses, restoring family contacts, youth and volunteer activities,
disaster preparedness, first aid training, community based healthcare among other things. The ICRC
has international legal personality meaning it is entitled to certain privileges like that of not to be
compelled to testify against any individual and capacity to enter into agreements with states. The
Federation is not a legal person at international law which invariably entails that it is not entitled to the
abovementioned privileges. The Federation is just a collection of national societies and its serves a
purpose of ensuring proper coordination in times of crisis.

The third lecture of the day was conducted by Etienne Kuster and was entitled “The ICRC and its role
towards IHL: overview of contemporary challenges”. We were firstly introduced to the fundamental
principles of the ICRC namely impartiality, independence, humanity and neutrality. The ICRC does not
meddle into the politics of states to gain their confidence in order to be able to work with these states in
times of armed conflicts. This august body is however impeded by the contemporary challenges of IHL.
This is usually in relation to the perception that the current legal regime of IHL is inadequate to cope
with these somewhat perceived limitations. Contemporary challenges include the regulation of cyber
warfare, application threshold of conventions in Non International Armed Conflicts (NIACs), terrorism
and IHL, direct participation in hostilities, security detention and occupation. These were the scenarios
we were to be evaluated on despite the fact that the law is not settled on these aspects.

In the afternoon we participated in a mock test which was designed to assist us in understanding what
the Jean-Pictet Moot is all about. We were given the role of acting as the Ministry of Defence. All the
sixteen teams in the green group participated in this session. We struggled to cope because every
individual wanted to say something before the jury. We realised we had to improve and our tutor
advised us to that effect. She (the tutor) told us that we were supposed to be more vocal and be able to

6
demonstrate that we could work as a team. We had to undergo self-introspection in order to understand
each other’s weaknesses and be able to assist one another. The better part of this test was that this
session would not be evaluated and so we still had a chance.

7
THE THIRD DAY OF THE COMPETITION- Monday 3rd of March 2014

This was the first day of tests or simulations. The facts and materials we received for the mock test
such as the map and a schedule of ratifications were to be used throughout the week.The facts would
represent a situation of an armed conflict which would degenerate into an International Armed Conflict
(IAC) which would call for the application of the law of war or IHL known to the legal fraternity as jus in
bello. In the morning we were given the role of acting as humanitarian relief personnel. We had to
negotiate with state representatives who were members of the jury. We were able to work together as a
team and were able to articulate our proposal in a clear and concise manner.

In the afternoon we were exposed to the challenge of modern weaponry. The question was whether or
not these weapons namely the boletus microleum bullets, hypnotizing bullets and killer flies were
compatible with IHL. We were given the role of representatives of the Ministry of Trade and Economic
Development. Our role was to understand the importance of the bottom line but at the same time to
give proper advice to the President on whether or not to continue producing and trading in such
weapons. We had to be innovative and apply the trite principles of IHL because we had never seen nor
heard about those weapons. We did not even know what their primary effects were when they are
employed in an armed conflict. The good thing is that we knew our principles and we clearly articulated
them. We believe we did justice in this engaging session.

8
THE FOURTH DAY OF THE COMPETITION-Tuesday 4th of March 2014

In the morning we were given as usual documents of scenarios by the Petits Bras. We were to act as
legal advisers of Qamdan State at a regional security meeting. The challenge was that this scenario
entailed the classification of cyber-attacks as well as ascertaining whether or not the Geneva
conventions and additional protocols regulate such attacks. We were able to argue our case in favour
of the motion relying on a general provision of Additional Protocol I which prohibits the means and
methods of warfare that are likely to injure civilians or destroy their property indiscriminately. We
worked together as a team, it was now clear that as team members we were able to complement each
other.

In the afternoon we participated in two tests. In the first one we were to face an active jury. We were
acting as the 51st battalion. In this session we were to participate together with other teams and advise
the minister of legal affairs on the condition of detainees at one of the state’s prisons. We were to
showcase our knowledge of the principle of humanity that is to say a person’s dignity is respected and
protected even in situations of an armed conflict when some fundamental rights are derogated from or
suspended.

In the second part of the test we met an active jury again. We were meeting the state military
commander as ICRC delegates. Our meeting was centred on negotiating with the army to gain access
to the detained and civilian victims of the armed conflict. This test was centred on our ability to
negotiate and be able to forego our principles in order to gain access. The demands of the army were
tough ones but a consensus was reached. The principle is “humanity first and the law and our

9
principles second”. It would have been ridiculous for us to stand firm on our principles of
independence at the expense of unarmed and defenceless citizens and detainees. On “wearing the
part”, we drew the Red Cross on white papers and attached them as tags. That way you can be easily
identified and there were marks on dressing for a particular role. It is our wish that the ICRC Zimbabwe
must give the next team at least any shirts or vests with their logo. This will really assist the team. Other
teams had such material and they were telling us that they had borrowed them from their national Red
Cross societies.

Meeting the commander

Members of the Petits Bras, they are responsible for the distribution
of documents to the teams (each member had his or her own group. The three groups of teams already
mentioned- red, blue and green).

10
THE FIFTH DAY OF THE COMPETITION- Wednesday 5th of March 2014

This is the time we were exposed to the “green plant jury” which means it was a jury which would not be
active; the teams would be left to conduct their business whilst the jury watched on the sidelines.

Meeting the green plant jury

This session was a test based on implementation of IHL. We were acting as Legal Unit B of the justice
department. We were going to meet fellow competitors as Legal Unit B and together we were supposed
to advise the President on the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and on whether he
was obliged under International Law to arrest a sovereign who was to visit in his country who had
committed war crimes and an arrest warrant had been so issued by the ICC. We handled our
International Criminal Law (ICL) well considering the fact that we had mooted at the Harare High Court
on such issues. We were able to advise the President and we complimented each other as a team. We
managed to avoid being dominated by our fellow contestants. We showed courtesy to our opponents
by giving each other ample time to articulate main points as well as offering a warm handshake at the
end of the meeting.

In the afternoon, the test was divided into two parts. The first part we represented the state which had
detained one of the musicians based on the fact that her music had led to the secession of one of our
state’s province. We were given twenty minutes to prepare for an interview with the detainee and the
state’s star witness. We were not informed that the second part of the test would be based on that
interview. We handled the interview perfectly well and asked the pertinent and relevant questions.
When it was time for the second part of the test, the documents indicated that we were to make oral
submissions before the Judge Advocate General as the Prosecution defending the continued detention
of the suspect. Our case was weak as the information we relied on was based on the posts of members
of the Facebook group created by the accused. We believe we put up a good fight and considering that
our opponents did not understand the purpose of the afternoon interview. So we were a step ahead of
them in that we were anticipating a trial.

In the evening we had a debriefing with the jury. The jury took questions from us and informed us on
some important aspects of the competition we were supposed to watch out for. We were told that even
if you are prosecutors, you must be courteous to the accused person and that way would lead you to
obtain more information to assist on the charges.

11
The debriefing by the jury.

12
THE SIXTH DAY OF THE COMPETITION- Thursday 6th of March 2014

This was the last day of the preliminary rounds. We were again advisers of the army. The Commander
had asked for advice and approval to go ahead and (i) mount rocket propelled grenade launchers on
medical vehicles because of the disrespect of IHL by enemy forces which saw these vehicles as easy
targets (ii) to use members of the army marching band as temporary medical personnel and (iii) to
station mobile medical units at the proximity of military bases. On these issues we had diverging ideas
as the team but we managed to reach a consensus. We learnt that as a team we cannot always agree
on issues. We also learnt that the solution to different opinions is to try and merge ideas into one and
present a unified and comprehensive response.

The second part of the test involved an addition to the above issues by the members of the jury. The
jury acting as the commanders had imposed an aerial blockade on one of the territories affected by war
and had also issued an order that any aircraft which would pass by the area would be shot down
without any prior warning. All the green teams that is to say sixteen were present to give their advice.
One member from each group was given a minute to summarise the team’s advice under such
circumstances. Our advice was a cautious one taking into account a vivid case study of Libya and the
effects thereof on civilians.

The afternoon was again devoted to training. Ana Urgoiti conducted a lecture which was entitled
“Humanitarian Accountability”. We were taught that humanitarian relief organizations are bound by
their code of guidelines and that they are accountable to the recipients of aid and donors. The
Organizations should be independent and impartial in order for them to be able to carry out their
mandate efficiently. A distinction was made between humanitarian relief and development aid.
Community Development aid is long-term and political whilst humanitarian relief is the direct opposite in
that it is apolitical and short term.

The second session of the training was conducted by Lindsey Cameron and was entitled “The Work of
the ICRC’s Legal Division: Spotlight on Special Projects”. We were informed that the Legal Division
of the ICRC is updating commentaries to the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols. The ICRC
is also currently updating the principles of Customary International Humanitarian Law.

We expected to make it to the semi-finals as four teams were to be picked from our green group. We
had put up a good fight and even our tutor believed that we were semi-final material. When the results
were announced in the evening, we discovered that our dreams were shattered. The only teams that
made it to the finals were the University of New South Wales, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, New
York University and the University of Virginia.

13
THE LAST DAY OF THE COMPETITION- Friday 7th of March 2014

The winner was the University of Virginia which we had met in our preliminary rounds. The finals took
place at the Universidade de Nova, Lisbon.

This is the group photo of all participants

our photo, from left to right- Melusi Moyo, Daphne Natsai

Maruta and Vusumuzi Bhebhe

14
APPRECIATION

We would like to express profound and sincere gratitude to the International Committee of the Red
Cross Zimbabwe, the Vice Chancellor of the Midlands State University, Professor NM Bhebe and the
Dean of the Midlands State University Law Faculty, Mr G Manyatera for giving us a once in lifetime
opportunity to see the world and learn IHL at a competitive forum. We express special thanks to all
those who assisted us in building and strengthening our team. We also thank the entire Midlands State
University family for giving us the moral support we needed.

OTHER COMMENTS

We commit ourselves to helping the next team in preparing for the Jean-Pictet competition. We also
promise to share the knowledge we now have on IHL with fellow students and the Zimbabwean
community at large.

The ICRC instructed us to give them advice on what they should improve in sponsoring teams for the
Jean-Pictet competition. We are grateful for what the organization has done and we believe we have no
burning concerns except to say that they should keep up their good work.

Report compiled by the team captain: Vusumuzi Bhebhe

For: The Dean of the Faculty of Law- Midlands State University

15
16