ISSUES RAISED

I.

WHEHTER THE CASE AGAINST MR. GRAVUS CONCERNING GENOCIDE BY

KILLING CASTIRIAN MEN AND DELIBERATELY INFLICTING CONDITIONS OF
LIFE ON CASTIRIRANS CALCULATED TO BRING ABOUT THEIR PHYSICAL
DESTRUCTION IS ADMISSIBLE PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 17 OF THE ROME
STATUTE?

II.

WHETHER THERE ARE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THAT THE CASE

AGAINST MR. GRAVUS CONCERNING GENOCIDE BY KILLING CASTIRIAN MEN
AND DELIBERATELY INFLICTING CONDITIONS OF LIFE ON CASTIRIRANS
CALCULATED TO BRING ABOUT THEIR PHYSICAL DESTRUCTION FALLS
WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 19 OF
THE ROME STATUTE?

III.

WHETHER THERE ARE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THAT MR.

GRAVUS IS CRIMINALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR GENOCIDE BY KILLING
CASTIRIAN MEN AND DELIBERATELY INFLICTING CONDITIONS OF LIFE ON
CASTIRIANS CALCULATED TO BRING ABOUT THEIR PHYSICAL DESTRUCTION
UNDER ARTICLE 28 (A) (B) OF THE ROME STATUTE?
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 1: THAT THE CASE AGAINST Mr. GRAVUS IS ADMISSIBLE PURSUANT TO

ARTICLE 17.
It is submitted before the PTC that the case against Mr. Gravus is admissible under Article 17 as
the twin requirement of complementarity and gravity has been satisfied. Article17(2) of the given
statute has laid the factors which the court should consider as genuine unwillingness on the part
of the republic of Hanatun. The state formed a military court on 10 th December 2021 to
investigate the crime which was committed on 3rd November 2015, such a delay establishes the
unwillingness to provide justice. Further the proceedings were undertaken for the purpose of
shielding Mr. Gravus as recommendation of high-ranking military officers were taken into
consideration rather than following proper judicial process to meet the ends of justice. The
investigation by the military court is insufficient to the threshold proposed by article 17.
Secondly, the gravity threshold recognised by the pretrial chamber has been met in this case, the
quantitative measure does not mean lower no. of victims to be determinative of the gravity of the
crime. It refers to the manner and impact that has been caused by the commission of crime. The
counterterrorism campaign seeked to destroy CNF terrorist and called them “castirian cance”
rand “lying rats”. Here the role of the perpetrator is on the hands of the most senior leader of the
alleged crime. In this case it's Mr. Geavus, thus he holds the greatest responsibility for the scale,
nature, manner, impact of crime.

ISSUE 2: THAT THE COURT HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE PURSUANT TO
ARTICLE 19
It is humbly submitted before the PTC that firstly, the article 13(b) of the Rome statute can create
jurisdiction of the court in the cases of crimes committed on the territory of the state that has not
yet joined the court.
The UNSC is empowered under chapter VII of the UN charter to adopt measures for the
maintenance of international peace and security. This authority of UNSC was earlier held in
rulings of international tribunals and appear to be upheld beyond dispute.

Secondly, the conduct of Mr. Gravus seizing power of the republic of Hanatun through a military
coup and was overthrown by another coup, provides the court ratione temporis. Also, there are
reasonable ground was satisfied for the commission of crime of genocide under Article 5 of the
Rome Statute.

ISSUE 3: THERE ARE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THAT Mr. GRAVUS

IS CRIMINALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE

It is humbly submitted before the PTC that firstly, the crime of genocide has been committed
under article 6 (a) and (c) of the Rome statute as Mr Gravus targeted a particular community
with the intent to destroy them and to bring about physical destruction of that group in whole or
in part and deliberately inflicted conditions of life on Castirians.

Secondly, Mr. Gravus is individually criminally responsible under article 25(3) and Article 28 of
the Rome Statute. Mr Gravus being the commander in chief of the republic of Hanatun is
responsible for the crime of genocide acting out of his direct control over the organised apparatus
of power, proposes individual criminal responsibility against him.