Good morning/afternoon/evening your excellency/ies, may I please

the Court. My name is Vedia A. Genon and with me is my co-counsel,

Ma. Jennifer T. Ocenia, Together, we represent the prosecution. We
are asking for 15mins each to discuss the case. I will be discussing
the preliminary matters and count 1 while my co-counsel will be
discussing counts 2 and 3 of the case. We would also like to ask for
an additional 10 mins of your time for our rebuttal/surrebuttal.

PRELIMINARY MATTERS
Kynes faces Pre-Trail Chamber I for the confirmation of charges where under such proceeding,
the Prosecution shall provide sufficient evidence to establish substantial grounds to believe that
herein Defendant committed each crimes charged.

The Prosecutor must “offer concrete and tangible proof demonstrating a clear line of
reasoning underpinning the specific allegations.” The Chamber must be thoroughly satisfied that
the Prosecutor’s allegations are sufficiently strong to commit the person to trial.

Inadmissibility of the case under the Rome Statue

The ICC shall be complementary to national criminal jurisdictions. Complementary jurisdiction

dictates that the ICC would only be competent to investigate and try a case if there is no other
State that claims jurisdiction. In the fight against impunity, the ICC will only be able to serve as a
court of last resort where justice cannot be achieved on a national level. Hence, the ICC does
not acquire automatic jurisdiction over crimes because primary criminal jurisdictions reside in
the domestic courts.

Despite the principle of Complementary, the ICC would be preferred over the domestic courts in
case when the Statue which is supposed to take primary jurisdiction is unwilling or unable to
prosecute or investigate the case.

Nature of the Conflict

The case at hand involves a Non-international armed conflict. NIAC exists when the hostilities
reach at least a minimum level of intensity and when the non-government groups in the conflict
are under certain command structure and has the capacity to sustain military operations.

The armed conflict in question does not involve another state

An International armed conflict (IAC) exists in cases of declared war or of any other armed
conflict which may arise between two or more High Contracting Parties or States, even if the
state of war is not recognized by one of them. It also exists in cases of partial or total occupation
of the territory of a State, even if the said occupation meets with no resistance.

A State should possess a permanent population, defined territory, a government, and a capacity
to enter into relations with other States.

The mere support of the tribal leader did not internationalize the conflict
An IAC exists when a State exercises over-all control over an armed group fighting another
State. Control is exercised by equipping and financing the group and also by coordinating or
helping in the general planning of its military activity. Having established that the Ravis is not a
State, even the support of some Tribes towards the TFRA does not clothe the current situation
with the veil of an international armed conflict.

Burden of Proof

Being a proceeding for the confirmation of charges, the Prosecution shall provide sufficient
evidence to establish substantial grounds to believe that herein Defendant committed each of
the crimes charged.

There must be concrete and tangible proof demonstrating a clear line of reasoning underpinning
the specific allegations. The Chamber must be thoroughly satisfied that the Prosecutor’s
allegations are sufficiently strong to commit the person to trial.

LIET KYNES IS LIABLE FOR THE DOWNING OF AN AIRCRAFT BELONGING TO

SULTANATE CALADAN BY “FOREIGN FIGHTERS.”

 Kynes is individually criminally responsible for committing the war crime under
Article 25(3)(d) of the Rome Statute.

Article 25 (3)(d) of the Rome Statute provides:

In any other way contributes to the commission or attempted commission of such a crime by a
group of persons acting with a common purpose. Such contribution shall be intentional and shall
either:
(i) Be made with the aim of furthering the criminal activity or criminal purpose of the
group, where such activity or purpose involves the commission of a crime within the
jurisdiction of the Court; or

(ii) Be made in the knowledge of the intention of the group to commit the crime;

In the present case, Kynes’ contribution falls within element (ii). It is of no doubt that Mr. Kynes
is responsible for the killing all 14 crew members. The prior act of Kynes sending a picture
message to the Red Eagles showing himself with his foot on a downed Ravis drone, with a
message that was captioned “Go forth and blind the Earth destroyers’ eyes in the sky” and the
post by foreign fighter three days before the incident, had shown him next to TFRA Commander
Kynes, standing over two dead men in Raveen Imperial Forces uniforms are indicative of his
knowledge and participation in the willful and deliberate downing of the aircraft.

 Liet Kynes is responsible for the war crime of attacking civilians

Article 8 (2) (b) (i) are the following:

 The perpetrator directed an attack.

 The object of the attack was a civilian population as such or individual civilians not taking
direct part in hostilities.
 The perpetrator intended the civilian population as such or individual civilians not taking
direct part in hostilities to be the object of the attack.
 The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international armed
conflict.
 The perpetrator was aware of factual circumstances that established the existence of an
armed conflict.
 1. Kynes directed an attack

Attack” is defined as “acts of violence against the adversary, whether in offence or in defence.”
The facts of the case established that Kynes, being the leader of the group, is the one who
directed the attack against civilians. It should be noted that on 2 Aug. 2014, five months before
the actual incident which happened on January 2015, Kynes sent a picture message to the Red
Eagles, showing himself with his foot on a downed Ravis drone with a message that was
captioned “Go forth and blind the Earth destroyers’ eyes in the sky” is indicative that Kynes
directed the TRFA to down more drones.

2. The object of the attack directed by Kynes was a civilian population as such or
individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities.

A civilian is anyone who is not a member of the State or non-State armed force and making the
civilians as objects of attack or doing acts or threats of violence to spread terror are prohibited.
In this case, victims were not participating in the conflict since they are neither part of the TRFA
unit nor the Raveen Imperial Forces of the government. In Galic case, the Trial Chamber stated
that in case of doubt whether a person is a civilian, that person shall be considered to be a
civilian.
The presence among the civilian population of individuals who are not classified within the
definition of a civilian does not deprive the entire population of its civilian character.

3. Kynes intended the civilian population as such or individual civilians not taking
direct part in hostilities to be the object of the attack.

In the Katanga Trial Judgement, the Trial Chamber held that specific mental element of intent
may be inferred from various factors establishing that civilians not taking part in the hostilities
were the object of the attack, such as the means and methods used during the attack, the
number and status of the victims, the discriminatory nature of the attack or, as the case may be,
the nature of the act constituting the attack.

In the present case, since the status of the civilians and the order of attack from Kynes were
established, it follows that he is also aware of the discrminatory nature of the means and
methods used in the attack. The downing of drones is evidently a wide-range attack that could
possibly affect nearby population. Kynes, the leader of the TFRA knew the possible
consequences of such.

4. The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an armed
conflict not of an international character.

In the Tadic case, the Tribunal stated that "an armed conflict exists whenever there is a resort to
armed force between States". In the present case, the nature of the conflict is non-international
since the war is not between two states but of two groups in a state, TRFA and Imperial Raveen
Forces of the government.

5. Kynes was aware of factual circumstances that established the existence of an

armed conflict.

Kynes, being the former leader of the group, had knowledge on the ongoing armed conflict
during the time of the attack. Clearly, if a relevant crime was committed in the course of fighting
necessary tensions during an armed conflict, this would be sufficient to render the offense of
violation of international humanitarian law.

May I humbly remind this honorable court that the prosecution is not
required to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused
since the burden of proof provided is only substantial evidence which
means only that which is necessary to lead a prudent and reasonable
mind to believe that the accused or defendant has committed the
crimes charged against him.