01Prosecution

IN THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT

THE HAGUE, NETHERLANDS

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROSECUTOR

v.

COLONEL XANDER RIVIA

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

September 2019
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................................... 5

SUMMARY OF THE FACTS ................................................................................................ 6

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ........................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

PLEADINGS .......................................................................................................................... 10

I. THE CONFLICT BETWEEN THE TAF AND THE RLF IS AN INTERNATIONAL ARMED

CONFLICT ............................................................................................................................ 10

A. This is an IAC because Lyria has overall control over the RLF ............................. 10

1. Lyria has a role in organizing, coordinating, or planning the military actions of

the RLF. ....................................................................................................................... 10

2. Lyria is responsible for financing, training and equipping or providing

operational support to the RLF. ................................................................................... 11

B. In the alternative, the Rennish People in Temeria are Fighting in the Exercise of

Their Right to Self-Determination ................................................................................... 12

C. Temeria, including Rivia and the TAF, considered the conflict against the RLF as a

conflict against Lyria ....................................................................................................... 13

II. MERITS ...................................................................................................................... 14

A. Col. Rivia is Individually Responsible for the War Crime of Excessive Incidental

Death, Injury, or Damage. ............................................................................................... 14

1. The war crime of excessive incidental death, injury, or damage was committed in

the Siege of Velen ........................................................................................................ 14

a. The TAF encircled Velen and cut off vital and essential supplies to the City of

Velen ........................................................................................................................ 14

Page 2 of 25
 b. The siege of Velen caused or resulted in clearly excessive incidental death,

injury and damage to the City of Velen. .................................................................. 14

c. Rivia knew that the attack would result in the clearly excessive incidental

death, injury and damage to the city of Velen. ........................................................ 16

2. Col. Rivia is individually responsible because the war crime was directly

intended and resulted from his Directive 66 ................................................................ 17

B. Col. Rivia, on the Basis of Command Responsibility, committed the War Crime of

Intentionally Directing an Attack Against Protected Persons and Objects Involved in

Humanitarian Assistance ................................................................................................. 17

1. The firing upon the convoy of the ICRC constitutes the war crime of attack on

personnel or objects involved in humanitarian assistance. .......................................... 17

a. Lt. Metz directed the attack on 6 vehicles approaching the checkpoint manned

by Unit 52 ................................................................................................................ 17

b. The object of the attack was the missing ICRC convoy .................................. 18

c. Lt. Metz intended such vehicles and personnel to be the object of the attack . 18

d. The convoy was entitled to protection under the law of armed conflict and Lt.

Metz was aware of the same .................................................................................... 19

2. Col. Rivia is responsible on the basis of Command Responsibility because, as

area commander, he has effective control of TAF inside and around the Velen area . 20

a. Rivia knew, or should have known, that Unit-52 was about to commit an

attack on the ICRC Convoy ..................................................................................... 20

b. Col. Rivia failed to take all necessary and reasonable measures to prevent or

repress the commission of the crime or submit guilty subordinates to proper

authorities................................................................................................................. 21

Page 3 of 25
 C. RIVIA DECLARED THAT NO QUARTER WILL BE GIVEN TO THE MEMBERS

OF THE RLF IN VELEN ................................................................................................. 22

1. Directive 66 is a declaration that no quarter will be given to members of the RLF

22

a. Rivia, through his Directive 66, declared that there shall be no survivors. ..... 22

b. Directive 66 was given in order to threaten members of the RLF and to

conduct hostilities on the basis that they should be prepared to fight to the bitter

end. 23

c. The perpetrator was in a position of effective command or control over the

subordinate forces to which the declaration or order was directed. ......................... 23

2. Col. Rivia is individually responsible for issuing Directive 66 ........................... 23

PRAYERS FOR RELIEF ..................................................................................................... 25

Page 4 of 25
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Treaties and Conventions

International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Geneva Convention for the Amelioration

of the Condition of the Wounded and the Sick in Armed Forces in the Field (First Geneva

Convention), 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 31 [hereinafter First Geneva Convention] ......... 11

International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Protocol Additional to the Geneva

Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International

Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977, 1125 UNTS 3 [hereinafter First Additional

Protocol] .............................................................................................................................. 11

UN General Assembly, Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (last amended

2010), 17 July 1998, ISBN No. 92-9227-227-6 [hereinafter Rome Statute] ....................... 18

United Nations Documents and Other International Instruments

International Criminal Court, Elements of Crimes, 2011 [hereinafter EC] ... 14, 15, 17, 18, 19,

20, 23, 24

Judgement and Decisions of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former

Yugoslavia

Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic (Opinion and Judgement), IT-94-1-T, International Criminal

Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), 7 May 1997 [hereinafter Tadic Trial

Judgement]........................................................................................................................... 11

Page 5 of 25
 SUMMARY OF THE FACTS

Rennish people, an ethno-religious group have historically been subject to persecution

in region of Greater Temeria. Even after independence of Temeria and Lyria from Redania, the
Rennish peoples within Temeria have faced discrimination in access to public service,
employment, education, healthcare, and finance. They have been unjustly accused of
association with criminal organizations by the mainstream Temerian press.

Thus, the Rennish Liberation Front (RLF), a group that fought for independence from
Redania, became active again in the northwest region of Temeria, especially in and around the
city of Velen which has a majority Rennish population and subject of a territorial dispute
between Lyria and Temeria. The RLF now seeks independence from Temeria.

On November 2, 2007, a young man bearing the colors of the RLF (white stars on a
blue background) drove a truck into a crowd in Novigrad, the capital of Temeria. The police
officer who shot the young man, Elsa Letha, eventually became President of Temeria in 2010
on a platform of protectionism and border security.

From 2010-2012 Temeria established several racially discriminatory and anti-

immigration measures which gravely affected Lyrian migrant workers and Rennish Temerians.
On January 2012, Temeria started the construction of a border wall just within the Temerian
border with Lyria. These acts and policies fanned Rennish aspirations for independence. The
Lyrian government also viewed the construction of the border wall as an act of aggression.

The Temerian government continuously linked RLF actions to the Lyrian government,
indirectly accusing the latter of financially and materially supporting the RLF. In 2011, a
person who was arrested for transporting RLF propaganda and weapons was alleged to be a
Lyrian agent. Attacks on the border wall by the RLF were alleged by the Temerian government
to have been carried out using weapon systems used by the Lyrian Defense Force.

By May of 2012, the RLF were in open conflict with the Temerian Armed Forces
(TAF). The RLF had a well-organized chain of command, used a distinct color, and
successfully seized and controlled the northeastern portion of Temerian territory in and around

Page 6 of 25
the city of Velen known as the “Liberated Zone” (LZ), from which it had popular support. The
city of Velen became the stronghold of the RLF and the center of its operations in the LZ.

By September 2013 however, the TAF had successfully regained control of the southern
half of the LZ and reached the southern periphery of Velen. The TAF conducted operations
inside the city knowing fully well that there were still civilians inside/despite civilian
casualties.

In response to TAF incursions into Velen, the RLF barricaded most of the entrances
into the city in defense. The civilian population of Velen was still trapped inside Velen when
the TAF began intercepting supplies coming in to Velen from the north indicating that Velen
had been surrounded and was under siege.

On October 15, 2013, in the middle of the Seige of Velen, Col. Xander Rivia (Rivia),
the TAF area commander, issued Directive 66 which ordered the cutting off of supplies to
Velen and declared that no quarter will be given to RLF fighters and inhabitants of Velen who
would not surrender within 48 hours.

Only 30,000 out of 150,000 trapped civilians were able to evacuate within the short 48
hour period. Thereafter, Rivia ordered the northern gate destroyed ensuring that only one entry-
exit point remained in the eastern part of Velen. The TAF then enforced blanket no-entry or
exit policy even if there were still civilians inside.

Due to Directive 66, civilians trapped inside Velen began to starve. Operations of the
TAF to take back the city resulted in massive civilian casualties. Indiscriminate bombing of
Velen caused the destruction of water mains which contributed to the spread of cholera in the
city. On Christmas Day 2013, the TAF supervised a one-day evacuation of several thousand
civilians as well as 1,500 mortal remains of civilians killed in the crossfire.

After mounting international pressure, an agreement between all parties was finally
struck on February 3, 2014 to allow the Red Cross (ICRC) to enter Velen and deliver relief.
Despite announcing that the Temerian Government will not interfere with the humanitarian
mission, Rivia ordered that Red Geralt, the RLF leader, be shot on sight if he tried to enter

Page 7 of 25
Velen, even if Red Geralt had announced publicly that he intended to enter the city to help
distribute relief supplies.

On February 5, 2014, the convoy of clearly marked Red Cross Land Cruisers entered
the city via a pre-arranged route in the eastern portion of Velen. However, it encountered a
flooded section which became difficult to pass. The convoy was forced to abandon 2 vehicles
and proceeded along an alternative route. Attempts to communicate the change to the TAF
failed and the TAF command center did not take precautions. It seems that only TAF units
posted along the pre-designated route were informed of the convoy. Even when the convoy had
not checked in for more than 30 minutes, the command center did not make any attempt to find
them.

When the convoy finally reached TAF Unit 45, posted in the Southern section of Velen,
which was on high alert and clearly uninformed of the convoy’s presence in the city, the convoy
was fired upon by TAF Unit 45 resulting in several ICRC casualties. Rivia failed to
immediately order Lt. Metz (checkpoint leader) to be cautious when the latter attempted to
report the sighting and before the unit fired upon the convoy. And despite the grave lack of
discipline, the unit was merely re-assigned to a different area of the LZ.

Page 8 of 25
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

A. Character of Armed Conflict

The RLF is fighting against the racist regime of Pres. Letha in the exercise
of their right to self-determination under the overall control of the Lyrian
government.

B. First Count
Col. Rivia is responsible for ordering the intentional cutting off the supplies
to the population of Velen knowing this would cause incidental death or injury to
civilians and damage to civilians objects

C. Second Count
Col. Rivia failed to take all necessary and reasonable measures to prevent
or repress the commission of the crime of firing upon the ICRC convoy which did
not lose its protected status anytime during February 5, 2014.

D. Third Count
Col. Rivia declared that no quarter shall be given through his issuance of
Directive 66 to all the TAF units inside the Velen area.

Page 9 of 25
 PLEADINGS

I. THE CONFLICT BETWEEN THE TAF AND THE RLF IS AN

INTERNATIONAL ARMED CONFLICT

An international armed conflict (IAC) exists whenever there is war “between

two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized
by one of them.”1 While the RLF is not a “High Contracting Party”, the definition of
IAC include conflicts in which peoples are fighting “against racist regimes in the
exercise of their right of self-determination.”2

E. This is an IAC because Lyria has overall control over the RLF

To attribute the acts of a military or paramilitary group to a State, it must

be proved that the State wields overall control over the group, not only by equipping
and financing the group, but also by coordinating or helping in the general planning
of its military activity.3

1. Lyria has a role in organizing, coordinating, or planning the military actions of

the RLF.

A Lyrian intelligence agent was caught transporting “Freedom

Fighters” and other publications, as well as weapons and ammunition.4

1Geneva Conventions of 1949, Common Article 2.

2 First Additional Protocol , Article 1(4).
3 Tadic Trial Judgement, par. 131.
4 Facts, ¶9.

Page 10 of 25
 In 2012, Lyria declared that the wall construction was an act of
aggression5 because the wall was constructed on territory it claimed as its own.6
Shortly after the declaration, RLF forces began attacking the barricade.7

Independent news organizations reported that operations of the RLF in

the LZ were directed from the Skellig Mountains inside Lyrian territory.8 With
LDF assistance, the RLF established a system of seniority and became an
organized armed force.9

2. Lyria is responsible for financing, training and equipping or providing

operational support to the RLF.

Lyria equipped the RLF with weaponry because weapons seized by the
TAF during its clashes with the RLF were of the same model as those issued in
the LDF. The deliberate erasure of the serial numbers of these weapons10 proves
that the LDF did not want the weapons to be traced as coming from them.
Similarly, shell casings recovered from artillery attacks on the border wall on
discloses that the LDF and RLF use the same weapons systems.11

The RLF camps in the Skellig mountains were being used by the LDF
to train RLF members. LDF personnel are even found among the dead after
TAF and RLF clashes.12

Red Geralt, the leader of the RLF, was a member of the Lyrian
Parliament13. The members of the Rennish Freedom Party, a minority party in

5 Facts, ¶10.
6 Facts, ¶5.
7 Facts, ¶10-12.
8 Facts, ¶14.
9 Facts, ¶12.
10 Facts, ¶14.
11 Facts, ¶11.
12 Facts, ¶16.
13 Facts, ¶15.

Page 11 of 25
 the Lyrian Parliament, financed the operations of RLF and gave donations to
field hospitals in the LZ. There are indications that Lyrian funds from its Central
Bank had been used to fund RLF operations.14

F. In the alternative, the Rennish People in Temeria are Fighting in the Exercise
of Their Right to Self-Determination

Even prior to the independence of the peoples of Greater Temeria, Rennish

people have already been historically subject to persecution15 that led to the creation
of the Rennish Liberation Front, a movement highly active in the struggle for
independence against Redania.16

Rennish Temerians have faced discrimination since independence,

preventing their employment in the Temerian public service and restricting their
access to public education and health care. They are unable to take out bank loans
without a Temeri guarantor and are often accused of association with criminal
organizations by the mainstream press.17 After the incident on 2 November 200718
Rennish peoples in Temeria were subject to discriminatory registration laws19.
Rennish peoples, through the RLF, have been expressing their desire for
independence by using hobby drones to drop “Freedom Fighters” manuals20 and
sustained armed hostilities against the TAF, calling areas seized from Temerian
control as a “Liberated Zone”.21

14 Facts, ¶13.
15 Facts, ¶2.
16 Facts, ¶4.
17 Facts, ¶6.
18 Facts, ¶7.
19 Facts, ¶8.
20 Facts, ¶9.
21 Facts, ¶10-14.

Page 12 of 25
 G. Temeria, including Rivia and the TAF, considered the conflict against the RLF
as a conflict against Lyria

War crimes under Article 8(2)(b) of the Rome Statute all require that the
perpetrator had knowledge of the circumstances of factual circumstances that
established the existence of an armed conflict.22

The Temerian government continuously linked RLF actions to the Lyrian

government, indirectly accusing the latter of financially and materially supporting
the RLF.23 In 2011, a person who was arrested for transporting RLF propaganda
and weapons was alleged to be a Lyrian agent.24 Attacks on the border wall by the
RLF were alleged by the Temerian government to have been carried out using
weapon systems used by the Lyrian Defense Force.25

It was a Temerian cabinet who leaked the information regarding Lyrian

involvement in the conflict26 which makes it inevitable for the TAF to not have any
knowledge that it is truly Lyria who they are up against.

Col. Rivia is the area commander of the TAF in the LZ. He and his forces
are aware that the RLF are not merely a rebel group but a well-organized force.27

22International Criminal Court, Elements of Crimes, 2011, Articles 8(2)(b)(iii)7, 8(2)(b)(iv)5,

8(2)(b)(xii)5.
23 Facts, ¶9,11,13, 14,16.
24 Facts, ¶9.
25 Facts, ¶11.
26 Facts, ¶13.
27 Facts, ¶20.

Page 13 of 25
 II. MERITS

A. Col. Rivia is Individually Responsible for the War Crime of Excessive

Incidental Death, Injury, or Damage.

1. The war crime of excessive incidental death, injury, or damage was committed
in the Siege of Velen

a. The TAF encircled Velen and cut off vital and essential supplies to the City
of Velen28

By September 2013, the TAF had regained control of nearly half of the
“liberated zone”, and was now able to conduct operations on the southern
periphery of the city of Velen.29 The TAF also successfully intercepted the
RLF’s supply chain from Lyria to the north by October 2013.30 By January
2014, RLF lost control over a significant portion of Velen which took a large
toll on RLF’s supply chain to the city. At the remaining RLF stronghold in
Velen’s Eastern Quarter, a large number of civilians remained trapped
without supplies31.

b. The siege of Velen caused or resulted in clearly excessive incidental death,

injury and damage to the City of Velen.32

i. The siege of Velen caused incidental (1) death or injury to civilians

and (2) damage to civilian objects.

Starting October 2013, the TAF established the blanket no-

entry no-exit policy which mandates its forces to “shoot on sight”

28 EC, Art.8(2)(b)(iv)1.
29 Facts, ¶17.
30 Facts, ¶18.
31 Facts, ¶25.
32 EC, Art.8(2)(b)(iv)2.

Page 14 of 25
 anyone seen on the wall.33 This resulted to the death of 1,500
civilians within the city.34 The TAF indiscriminately prevented all
supplies entering Velen resulting in starvation of the trapped
persons.

TAF operations within Velen caused massive civilian

casualties.35 Indiscriminate use of heavy explosives killed many
civilians and destroyed civilian buildings and infrastructure
including part of the water mains and sewage system between the
Southern and Eastern Quarters of the city, resulting in the spread of
disease36, which could not be relieved due to lack of medicines
entering Velen. Any attempted operations within the city continued
to produce severe casualties both for the TAF and for the civilians
trapped in Velen.37

ii. The deaths, injuries, or damages are clearly excessive in relation

to the concrete and direct overall military advantage.

sds Commented [DV1]: Brief explanation of “clearly excessive

incidental death, injury, and damage in relation…”

The military objective of the TAF is merely to cut off the

RLF’s “means of fighting”.38 This can be done without invading the
city. Merely surrounding the city is sufficient. Moreover, as the TAF
had control of all materials entering Velen, it had the capacity to
merely cut-off military supplies. Moreover, the military objective

33 Facts, ¶21.
34 Facts, ¶23.
35 Facts, ¶18.
36 Facts, ¶18,22.
37 Facts, ¶19.
38 Facts, ¶20.

Page 15 of 25
 did not prevent Rivia from ordering reasonable time for evacuation
of civilians and hors de combat.

However, from the start of the Siege of Velen, the population

of Velen did not have an opportunity to leave the city due to its
relative peace.39 After Rivia issued Directive 66, the occupants of
Velen were only given 48 hours to evacuate. Thus, only 30,000 out
of the 150,000 people in Velen were evacuated. The remaining
120,000 were subject to the enforced blanket no-entry or exit and
“shoot on sight” policies of Rivia.40 Those who were not fighting
with the RLF were left to die. During the Christmas Day evacuation,
only a handful of civilians escaped the city.41 At least 1,500 mortal
remains were recovered.42 These are clearly excessive in relation to
the direct overall military advantage of the TAF which is merely cut
off the RLF’s supplies in order to force their surrender.

c. Rivia knew that the attack would result in the clearly excessive incidental
death, injury and damage to the city of Velen.43

Colonel Rivia is aware of Velen’s structural design that it is fortified by

two rings of inner and outer walls.44 He has this knowledge at the time he
ordered the siege and as a result of this knowledge, he knew that building to
building fighting would ensue which means that a high number of casualties
is inevitable.45 Colonel Rivia also knew that a sizable civilian population

39 Facts, ¶17.
40 Facts, ¶21.
41 Facts, ¶23.
42 Facts, ¶23.
43 EC, Art.8(2)(b)(iv)3.
44 Facts, ¶18.
45 Facts, ¶18.

Page 16 of 25
 was still trapped in Velen as the TAF supervised the only 2 evacuations of
the city since the siege began in October 2013.46

2. Col. Rivia is individually responsible because the war crime was directly
intended and resulted from his Directive 6647

As area commander, Col. Rivia is the officer with authority to direct all
aspects of TAF operations, particularly through his order: Directive 66.48

B. Col. Rivia, on the Basis of Command Responsibility, committed the War

Crime of Intentionally Directing an Attack Against Protected Persons and
Objects Involved in Humanitarian Assistance

1. The firing upon the convoy of the ICRC constitutes the war crime of attack on
personnel or objects involved in humanitarian assistance.

a. Lt. Metz directed the attack on 6 vehicles approaching the checkpoint

manned by Unit 5249

The perpetrator is Lt. Metz of Unit-52. Unit-52 fired on what they

described as ‘unidentified vehicles’ approaching their temporary checkpoint
in the Southern Quarter of Velen. Metz was in charge of Unit-52 since he
was the one who was in communication with Rivia right before the attack,
reporting that they were “Preparing to engage” and “preparing to fire” at
around 7:45, the time of the attack.50

46 Facts, ¶19,20,23.
47 Rome Statute, Article 25(3)(b).
48 Facts, ¶20.
49 EC, Art.8(2)(b)(iii)1.
50 Facts, ¶34.

Page 17 of 25
 b. The object of the attack was the missing ICRC convoy51

Initially comprised of 8 vehicles52, the convoy was forced to abandon 2

vehicles sometime after 7:00 because they got stuck in the mud.53 The
vehicles which tried to tow the stuck vehicles were sprayed with mud.54
Because of the flooded streets along their original designated route, the
convoy decided to find an alternative route taking them to the Southern
Quarter where Unit 52 was posted.55 At 7:45, Metz reported the approach of
6 vehicles approaching their checkpoint. Lt. Metz identified the front
vehicles as covered with mud.

Thus, the approaching vehicles described by Metz fits the description

given by the ICRC regarding the condition of the convoy at the time of the
attack.

As a result of gunfire from Unit-52 eight humanitarian personnel were

wounded.56

c. Lt. Metz intended such vehicles and personnel to be the object of the attack57

Prior to the attack on the convoy at 7:45, Unit-52 was ram-raided by a

RLF truck. This put Unit-52 on high alert.

In his last conversation with Col. Rivia right before the convoy incident,
he reported that there were 6 vehicles approaching their checkpoint and that

51 EC, Art.8(2)(b)(iii)2.
52 Facts, ¶29.
53 Facts, ¶31.
54 Facts, ¶31.
55 Facts, ¶32.
56 Facts, ¶35.
57 EC, Art.8(2)(b)(iii)3.

Page 18 of 25
 they were prepared to engage these vehicles. The firing upon the ICRC
convoy was no accident.

When the ICRC convoy approached Unit 52, believing the vehicles to
be RLF, Metz ordered Unit-52 fired to upon the same.

d. The convoy was entitled to protection under the law of armed conflict and Commented [PEAE2]: Define ICRC
protection/humanitarian personnel protection legal basis
Lt. Metz was aware of the same58

On 3 February 2014, President Letha publicly announced that the ICRC

had the agreement of all parties, including the Temerian government, to
enter Velen on 5 February. The attack occurred on the day when Metz
should have known that the convoy was in Velen.

From his last communication with Col. Rivia right before the attack,
Col. Rivia even asked if he saw a red cross on the vehicle which leads to the
conclusion that both Col. Rivia and Lt. Metz knew that if the vehicles had
the Red Cross emblem, they were to be afforded protection.

All vehicles of the ICRC convoy had the Red Cross emblem
prominently placed on their bonnets and sides. All the personnel riding in
the convoy wore vests displaying the same emblem on their chests and
backs.59 Only the vehicles that had tried to tow the 2 stuck vehicles were
sprayed with mud.60 Thus, at least 4 other vehicles in the convoy were
indubitably protected.

Moreover, nowhere in the facts does it state that the actions of the ICRC
convoy in approaching the checkpoint of Unit-52 swas comparable to the
actions of the RLF truck that previously ram-raided the checkpoint earlier
in the day.

58 EC, Art.8(2)(b)(iii)4-5.
59 Facts, ¶29.
60 Facts, ¶31.

Page 19 of 25
 2. Col. Rivia is responsible on the basis of Command Responsibility because, as
area commander, he has effective control of TAF inside and around the Velen
area

A military commander effectively acting as a military commander shall

be criminally responsible for crimes committed by forces under his effective
command and control, as a result of his failure to exercise control properly over
such forces where said military commander (a) knew or, owing to the
circumstances at the time, should have known that the forces were committing
or about to commit such crimes; and (b) failed to take all necessary and
reasonable measures within his or her power to prevent or repress their
commission or to submit the matter to the competent authorities for
investigation and prosecution.61

a. Rivia knew, or should have known, that Unit-52 was about to commit an
attack on the ICRC Convoy

As the TAF area commander, Rivia knew that the convoy was in the city
on Feb 5. It even passed near his command center at 6:00 on that day. 62 He
would check the status of the convoy through reports from the convoy
itself63 as well as the TAF checkpoints along the pre-designated route.64 He
was informed that the location of the convoy was not accounted for by the
time of the attack.65 During the time of the attack, Rivia was at the TAF
Command Centre and in communication with Metz. Rivia made Lt. Metz
describe the vehicles and asked him if he saw a “cross on the vehicles.”66

61 Rome Statute, Article 28(a)

62 Facts, ¶29.
63 Facts, ¶30-31.
64 Facts, ¶33.
65 Facts, ¶33.
66 Facts, ¶34.

Page 20 of 25
 Rivia knew, or should have known, that the vehicles sighted by Metz was
the convoy.

b. Col. Rivia failed to take all necessary and reasonable measures to prevent
or repress the commission of the crime or submit guilty subordinates to
proper authorities

i. Rivia failed to take necessary and reasonable measures to prevent

or repress

On February 4, Rivia issued a “fire at will” order to all the

TAF units in and around the city of Velen if they had eyes on Red
Geralt. It is highly unacceptable to give such a careless order
knowing that in the following day, humanitarian workers will be
carrying out a mission Velen.

When convoy’s location became unaccounted for almost 30

minutes,67 Rivia did not take measure to ascertain where the convoy
was.

Even when he entertained the possibility that the unidentified

vehicles approaching Unit-52 were part of the ICRC convoy, he did
not immediately and initially order prudence before asking Metz to
confirm the identity of the vehicles.

ii. Rivia failed to take necessary and reasonable measures to submit

guilty subordinates to proper authorities

After the attack, instead of initiating investigation and court

martial proceedings, Rivia merely withdrew Unit 52 and re-assigned
them outside the “former liberated zone”.68

67 Facts, ¶33.
68 Facts, ¶36.

Page 21 of 25
 C. RIVIA DECLARED THAT NO QUARTER WILL BE GIVEN TO THE
MEMBERS OF THE RLF IN VELEN

1. Directive 66 is a declaration that no quarter will be given to members of the

RLF

To give “no quarter” means that a military force shall conduct hostilities
on the basis that there shall be no survivors.69

a. Rivia, through his Directive 66, declared that there shall be no survivors.70

On 15 October, Rivia issued Directive 66 which commanded all TAF

units in Velen to “take all necessary measures to cut off the RLF’s means of
fighting” and “remember who we’re fighting, the RLF are barbarians, they
take no prisoners.”71

The phrase “take all necessary measures” is so vague that it is

susceptible to the interpretation that Directive 66 authorizes a “no holds
barred” way of warfighting. Coupled with the immediately following
insinuation that the RLF did not take prisoners, including a dehumanizing
characterization of the RLF, it is reasonable to infer that Rivia is ordering
his men to also take no prisoners and completely destroy the RLF’s
warfighting capability. The “all necessary measures” standard was intended
to qualify the character of the offensive measures against RLF.

69 EC, Art.8(2)(b)(xii)1-2.
70 EC, Art.8(2)(b)(xii)1.
71 Facts, ¶20.

Page 22 of 25
 b. Directive 66 was given in order to threaten members of the RLF and to
conduct hostilities on the basis that they should be prepared to fight to the
bitter end.72

Col. Rivia issued Directive 66 on 15 October. The following day, the

TAF dropped leaflets with messages to the fighters inside Velen saying
“RLF: surrender now or be prepared to fight to the bitter end.”73

Although Directive 66 did not explicitly state that there shall be no

survivors, it is clearly shown to have been the intended meaning because the
phrase “surrender now or fight to the bitter end” has no other interpretation.
Moreover, a ‘shoot-on-sight’ policy was also initiated by the TAF for
anyone seen trying to exit the city by going over the wall.74

c. The perpetrator was in a position of effective command or control over the

subordinate forces to which the declaration or order was directed.75

Rivia issued his Directive 66 to all TAF units in the Velen area. The
actions of the TAF after the issuance of the directive demonstrate that the
TAF were implementing the Directive.76 Even if communications were
difficult, they were not impossible.77 Thus, it is obvious that Rivia had
effective command and control.

2. Col. Rivia is individually responsible for issuing Directive 6678

A person shall be criminally responsible and liable for punishment for a

crime if that person commits such a crime, whether as an individual, jointly with

72 EC, Art.8(2)(b)(xii)2.
73 Facts, ¶20.
74 Facts, ¶21.
75 EC, Art.8(2)(b)(xii)3.
76 Facts, ¶20-23.
77 Facts, ¶29-34.
78 Rome Statute, Article 25(3)(a)

Page 23 of 25
another or through another person, regardless of whether that other person is
criminally liable. It is not disputed that Rivia issued Directive 66.

Page 24 of 25
 PRAYERS FOR RELIEF

The Prosecutor hereby requests the Court:

A. To declare that there was an International Armed Conflict between the Government of
Temeria and the Rennish Liberation Front

B. To rule that there are sufficient facts to charge Col. Xander Rivia of committing
1. On the basis of individual criminal responsibility, the war crime of intentionally
cutting off the supplies to the civilian population of the city of Velen knowing it will
cause clearly excessive incidental death, injury, and damage to civilians and civilian
objects.

2. On the basis of command responsibility, the war crime of intentionally directing

attacks against protected personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a
humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission with respect to the 5 February 2014
attack by Unit 52 on the ICRC convoy.

3. On the basis of individual criminal responsibility, the war crime of declaring that no
quarter shall be given with respect to Directive 66 issued on 15 October 2013.

Page 25 of 25