Chua, Mary Joy T.

Alcantara, Marvin

For

DEFENSE
















Index of Authorities



1.

Luis Moreno-Ocampo, Chief Prosecutor at the International Criminal Court who investigated allegations of War
Crimes during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, "Allegations concerning War Crimes" Pages 4,5.
2.

Article 52 of the Additional Protocol I
3. Shamash, Hamutal Esther (20052006), "How Much is Too Much? An Examination of the Principle of Jus in Bello
Proportionality", Israel Defense Forces Law Review 2, SSRN 908369
4. Article 24(4), Hague Rules of Air Warfare
5. Article 43(2) of Additional Protocol I
6. Kordic vs Cerkez
7. Galic
8. Strugar
















Statement of Facts

The Federal Republic of Citrea (FRC) is composed of three republics: Citrea, Alphon and
Belthuis. The three republics disintegrated and become independent states in 1990.
The center of the armed conflict lies in the city of Kiesh, the main city of the province of
Kebia located in south eastern part of Alphon bordering Belthuis. In 2007, Colonel Neil Bing
recruited people to form a paramilitary group named Democratic Kebian Front (DKF). Colonel
Neil Bing was a member of the Aplhonian Armed Forces (AAF) and led the Belthuisian Peoples
Movement (BPM) in Kebia.
With the covert support of the Belthuisian Government, Colonel Bing hired Ventures, a
multinational security and military company based in Citrea to train recruits which took place in
Kebia. In June 2008, a succession of mass demonstrations was organized by the BPPM,
demanding that referendum be organized on the future of Kebia. By the end of the month,
situation in Kebia had ecome very volatile that the Alphonian government declared Kebia under
a state of emergency. The Alphonian government to protect its state, dispatched several AAF
units led by General Arthur Reed.
On July 5, 2008, DKFs units took over local government buildings in various part of
Kebia and in the following days, military compounds in Kiesh were attacked. The DKF and the
Peoples Army of Belthius (PAB) led by Colonel Ian Rose had gained control over Kiesh and the
eastern part of Kebia. On August 1, 2008, the Belthuisian National Assembly amended their
Constitution which included the province of Kebia a part of Bethuis and enjoyed the status of
autonomous region. Colonel Bing was granted the rank of Colonel in the PAB.
On December 15, 2008, the Alphonian government approved Operation Thunderstorm
aimed at regaining control over the eastern part of Kebia. President Arrow instructed General
Arthur Reed that we cannot win this war quick enough. General Arthur Reed took charge of
the operation.
The Aphonian Defense Minister, Atom Tom ; Head of National Intelligence Agency
(NIA), Perry Ash; General Arthur Reed; his deputy, Colonel Harvey Simms met to plan the
operation thunderstorm, a general agreement was formulated that recapturing Kiesh was the
utmost priority.
Colonel Neil Bings apartment was located in a residential area called the Peace
Garden. The NIA informed that Colonel Neil Bing was in his home on July 17, 2009. NIA head
Perry Ash suggested using armed drones to attack the apartment since artillery fire is not that
accurate and might just miss their target. And on July 18, 2009, at 6:00h, an armed drone was
launched a first strike, second missile was launched at 6:30h.
On July 21, 2009, the Head of NIA informed General Reed that eye witnesses had seen
Bethusian soldiers taking refuge in the Municipal Hospital and in the Kebia Military College, an

adjoining compound. General Reed immediately ordered a squad to be sent to the hospital area.
The squad commander was reminded that any threat should be eliminated, but that non-
threatening persons should be spared as much as possible.
The AAF squad was approaching the hospital when a Ventures guard fired a few shots
before his supervisor intervened. The squad commander then ordered his men to fire at the
hospital from all directions. There was also intermittent firing from inside the hospital and from
the surrounding area. At around 1930 h, the AAF finally entered the hospital and found ten
private security guards wounded. The squad took away twenty-five people, including PAB
soldiers, DKF fighters, Ventures guards and other patients from the hospital. Four dead PAB
soldiers were also found dead in the nearby Kebia Military College. General Reed ordered the
wounded to be treated and all twenty-five people detained in the Westwood Prison.






















Summary of Pleadings

General Arthur Reed is not guilty of the war crime under Article 8(2)(b)(iv) of the Rome
Statute. The attack which happened on July 18, 2009 was not excessive in relation to the
concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

General Arthur Reed is not guilty of war crime of intentionally directing attacks against a
hospital, which is not a military objective. The hospital was already controlled by the Bethusian
forces and is being used as a military objective.
























Pleadings
I. War Crime of Intentionally Launching an Attack Under Article 8 (2) (b) (iv)
Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during
an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable, does not in itself constitute a war crime.
International humanitarian law and the Rome Statute permit belligerents to carry out
proportionate attacks against military objectives
1
even when it is known that some civilian deaths
or injuries will occur. A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians or
an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries
would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military disadvantage anticipated;
Article 8(2)b(iv) draws on the principles of Article 51(5)(b) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to
the 1949 Geneva Conventions, but restricts the criminal prohibition to cases that are clearly
excessive. The application of Article 8(2)(b)(iv) requires, inter alia, an assessment of:
A. The anticipated civilian damage or injury
B. The anticipated military advantage
C. And whether (a) was clearly excessive in relation to b

Military objective is defined as, "In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives
are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective
contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in
the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.
2
Proportionality, as
defined in the International Humanitarian Law is that, The harm caused to civilians or civilian
property must be proportional and not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military
advantage anticipated by an attack on a military objective
3
.



1
Luis Moreno-Ocampo, Chief Prosecutor at the International Criminal Court who investigated allegations of War
Crimes during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, "Allegations concerning War Crimes" Pages 4,5.

2
Article 52 of the Additional Protocol I
3
Shamash, Hamutal Esther (20052006), "How Much is Too Much? An Examination of the Principle of Jus in Bello
Proportionality", Israel Defense Forces Law Review 2, SSRN 908369




The attack on July, 18, 2009 was clearly proportional. The anticipated military advantage
is clearly in excessive to anticipated civilian unjury or harm.. The military objective was directed
to Colonel Neil Bing, it was an anticipated great military advantage for the Alphonian
government, being the main recruiter of the DKF, the leader of the BPM and a member of the
AAF, ergo, negates the criminal liability of General Arthur Reed under Article 8(2)(b)(iv).


Justifying the launching of armed drones on July 18, 2009. It has been held that, in the
immediate neighbourhood of the operations of land forces, the bombardment of cities, towns,
villages, dwellings or buildings is legitimate provided that there exists a reasonable presumption
that the military concentration is sufficiently important to justify such bombardment, having
regard to the danger thus caused to the civilian population.
4


Combatants are defined as members of the armed forces of a Party to a conflict.
5
Colonel
Neil Bing was confirmed by the NIA to be at his residence located in the province of Kebia, the
very area of conflict during the launching of armed drones. General Reed is not guilty for
violations of war crimes for the law provides that, Members of the armed forces resting in their
homes in the area of the conflict residing in their homes, remain combatants whether or not they
are in combat, or for the time being armed.
6
Colonel Neil Bing remains to be a combatant by
being a member of the Alphonian Armed Forces.

II. War Crime of Intentionally Directing Attacks Against a Hospital, Which is Not a Military
Objective (Article 8 (2) (b) (ix)

[I]n accordance with the principles of distinction and protection of the civilian
population, only military objectives may be lawfully attacked. A widely accepted definition of
military objectives is given by Article 52 of Additional Protocol I as those objects which by
their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose
total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time,
offers a definite military advantage.
7



4
Article 24(4), Hague Rules of Air Warfare
5
Article 43(2) of Additional Protocol I
6
Kordic vs Cerkez
7
Galic, (Trial Chamber), December 5, 2003, para. 51

The attack directed at the Municipal Hospital and the adjoining Kebia Military College
was justified by the fact that eyewitnesses had seen Bethusian soldiers are taking refuge in the
said hospital and in the adjoining military college. The Ventures guard immediately fired the
first shots to the squad when the AAF squad was approaching the hospital. There was also
intermittent firing from inside the hospital and from the surrounding area which converts it into a
military objective. General Reed even gave orders to spare non-threatening persons as much as
possible.

[T]he Appeals Chamber confirmed that criminal responsibility for unlawful attacks
requires the proof of a result, namely of the death of or injury to civilians, or damage to civilian
objects. With respect to the scale of the damage required, the Appeals Chamber, while not
discussing the issue in detail, appeared to endorse previous jurisprudence that damage to civilian
objects be extensive.
8


The damage as a result of the attack was not extensive ten private security guards were
found wounded and four PAB soldiers were killed. The twenty five people taken were mostly
PAB soldiers, DKF fighters, Ventures guards and patients from the hospital. General Reed even
ordered for the treatment of the wounded in the attack.


















8
Strugar, (Trial Chamber), January 31, 2005, para. 280




Conclusion and Prayer


Wherefore, the DEFENSE prays to this Honorable Court to declare and adjudge that:

1. General Arthur Reed is not criminally liable for the war crime of intentionally
launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss or life
or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long term and
severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in
relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated.

2. General Arthur Reed is not criminally liable for the war crime of intentionally
directing attacks against a hospital, which is not a military objective (Article 8 (2) (b)
(ix)