A.

GENERAL TROY IS CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR VIOLATING WAR CRIME ON ATTACKING

CIVILIANS ON THE FIELD.

The parties to a conflict must at all times distinguish between civilians and
combatants in order to spare the civilian population and civilian property. Neither the civilian
population as a whole nor individual civilians may be attacked. Attacks may be made solely
against military objectives. Parties to a conflict do not have an unrestricted right to choose
methods or means of warfare (International Humanitarian Law Answers to your questions).
Persons protected by the Convention are those who at a given moment and in any manner
whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of persons a
Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals (Art. 4, GENEVA
CONVENTION RELATIVE TO THE PROTECTION OF CIVILIAN PERSONS IN TIME
OF WAR OF 12 AUGUST 1949). The attack over the East Colmer where three civilians
caught in the cross fire was a product of facilitating the commission of such a crime, aids,
abets or otherwise assists in its commission or its attempted commission, including providing
the means for its commission (Article 8 (2)(e)(xv); and Article 25(3)(c) of the Rome Statute).
Forensic reports on the cause of death of the six militants killed indicated that they had been
wounded by firearms using expanding bullets. Evidently, General Troy was beyond his
control in commanding the attacks which led to fatalities including innocent civilians.
B. GENERAL TROY IS CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR EMPLOYING BULLETS IN
ARMED CONFLICT

The prohibition of expanding bullets in any armed conflict is set forth in several
military manuals. (See, e.g., the military manuals of Australia (ibid., § 7), Canada (ibid., §
12), Ecuador (ibid., § 14), France (ibid., §§ 16–17) (“totally prohibited”), Germany (ibid., §§
18–20), Italy (ibid., § 22), Kenya (ibid., § 23), South Africa (ibid., § 29) and Spain (ibid., §
30) (“absolute prohibition”). The use of expanding bullets is an offence under the legislation
of several States. (See, e.g., the legislation of Andorra (ibid., § 36), Ecuador (ibid., § 42),
Estonia (ibid., § 43), Germany (ibid., § 45) and Yugoslavia (ibid., § 53); see also the
legislation of Italy (ibid., § 46), the application of which is not excluded in time of non-
international armed conflict.) Article 23 (e) Hague Regulations 1907, prohibits to employ
arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering. An attack was made
at the building sheltering a group of some twelve NF militants which resulted to the death of
six militants and of one civilian, both wounded with expanding bullets, as well as to the
injury of four militants and two civilians (Statement of Facts). Use of such bullets which
uselessly aggravate the sufferings of disabled men, or render their death inevitably is contrary
to the laws of humanity. Practice is in conformity with the rule’s applicability in both
international and non-international armed conflicts, as the same ammunition is used in non-
international conflicts as in international conflicts, and bullets which expand or flatten easily
in the human body are not employed in either case. That this general abstention is not purely
coincidental can be deduced also from the fact that weapons which cause unnecessary
suffering are prohibited in both international and non-international armed conflicts (see Rule
70) and that there is general agreement that such bullets would cause unnecessary suffering
(See, e.g., Hague Declaration concerning Expanding Bullets (cited in Vol. II, Ch. 20, § 3); the
military manual of Australia (ibid., § 34) (“hollow point weapons”), Ecuador (ibid., § 52),
France (ibid., §§ 55–56), Germany (ibid., §§ 57–59), Netherlands (ibid., §§ 71–72), Russian
Federation (ibid., § 78), South Africa (ibid., 80), United States (ibid., § 91) and Yugoslavia
(ibid., § 94). Based on foregoing facts, General Troy’s action towards the militants and
civilians is a crime in its nature, hence, must be dealt with accordingly.
ON ADMISSIBILITY ISSUE

General Troy should be tried for war crimes or crimes against humanity and not for domestic
crimes.

As defined, the term “war crimes” refers to serious breaches of international

humanitarian law committed against civilians or enemy combatants during an international or
domestic armed conflict, for which the perpetrators may be held criminally liable on an
individual basis. Such crimes are derived primarily from the Geneva Conventions of 12
August 1949 and their Additional Protocols I and II of 1977, and the Hague Conventions of
1899 and 1907. Their most recent codification can be found in article 8 of the 1998 Rome
Statute for the International Criminal Court (ICC). The definition of ‘crimes against
humanity’ is codified in article 7 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
(ICC). “The notion encompasses crimes such as murder, extermination, rape, persecution and
all other inhumane acts of a similar character (willfully causing great suffering, or serious
injury to body or to mental or physical health), committed ‘as part of a widespread or
systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the
attack’.”(https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/crimes-against-humanity)
Accordingly, domestic crimes pertains to those crimes which involves an incident of violence
that causes actual physical injury, or the imminent threat of physical injury within a particular
country.

In light of the foregoing circumstances, it is but of great magnitude and impact, that
General Troy be tried for war crimes or crimes against humanity because his acts constitute
those acts punishable under International law.
Prosecution will oppose the challenge to admissibility on the grounds that any convictions
under Homeland criminal law would be for domestic crimes of
murder, manslaughter and grievous bodily harm rather than the more serious
war crimes or crimes against humanity. The Homeland Government has not
incorporated war crimes and crimes against humanity into its domestic
legislation. Furthermore, to date the Homeland Government has not launched
any criminal investigation into the conduct which forms the basis for Count 1
(see paragraph 22).

count 3 and admissibility issue

Count Three – With respect to the campaign to regain control of Northland towns
and cities, in particular the search and sweep operations that took place on and
around the 11th of October 2012,
- for the purpose of facilitating the commission of such a crime, aiding,
abetting or otherwise assisting in the commission of the war crime of
“employing arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary
suffering, notably bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body,
such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core or is
pierced with incisions”, under Article 8 (2)(e)(xv); and Article 25(3)(c) of the
Rome Statute.

Prosecution will oppose the challenge to admissibility on the grounds that any convictions
under Homeland criminal law would be for domestic crimes of
murder, manslaughter and grievous bodily harm rather than the more serious
war crimes or crimes against humanity. The Homeland Government has not
incorporated war crimes and crimes against humanity into its domestic
legislation. Furthermore, to date the Homeland Government has not launched
any criminal investigation into the conduct which forms the basis for Count 1
(see paragraph 22).