The final round of the 2015 he UCU Intra-University Moot will take place on Wednesday the 1st of April at 2:00 p.m. in Nkoyoyo Hall.
Monday, March 30, 2015
MOOT COURT 2015-16 MEETING
If you are hoping to compete in moots in 2015-16 we ask that you join us for a meeting in the Law Conference Room on Thursday the 23rd of April at 2:00 p.m. If your schedule prevents you from attending this meeting please designate another student to attend on your behalf.
If you have not competed in past Intra University Moots or other International Moots you should not expect to be assigned to a national or international moot team for the 2015-16 Academic year.
Certificates and results from the 2015 Intra-University Moot will be handed out at this meeting as well.
Thursday, March 5, 2015
2015 Intra-University Moot Seedings and Schedule
The following are the seedings for the Intra-University Moots based on heads of argument submitted. All students that submitted heads of argument should be commended for their work. Also, please note that this ranking is based on the assessment of one reviewer only. Congratulations to all of these teams for completing the briefing stage of the moot. It should be an exciting competition!
Team 1. Mutume Twongyeirwe
Team 2. Namuyomba Tomusange
Team 3. Basaija Luwaga
Team 4. Ateker Alecho (Respondents Brief)
Team 5. Ssemwogerere Agaba
Team 6. Birungi Muyama
Team 7. Mwine Banja
Team 8. Chesang Nakabiito
Team 9. Kalondo Nyangoma
Team 10. Namanya Muhumuza
Team 11. Okia Namaganda
Team 12. Amed Ayehare
Team 13. Mpirrwe Katimirike
Team 14. Atkunda Ongom
Team 15. Kunsa Komusana
Team 16. Mumbya Basemera
Team 17. Aheebwa Ganyanna
Team 18. Olocho Abaasa
Team 19. Atukwase Komakech
Team 20. Mutesi Nankinga
Team 21. Ssemuwenda Odongo
Team 22. Nagaddya Twesigye
Team 23. Ssenkumba Wanyama
The following teams will be competing on Wednesday evening at the rooms to be designated later:
Wednesday 11 March at 5:00 p.m.
Team 10 (Petitioner) v. Team 23 (Respondent):
Team 11 (Petitioner) v. Team 22 (Respondent);
Team 12 (Petitioner) v. Team 21 (Respondent);
Team 13 (Petitioner) v. Team 20 (Respondent).
Wednesday 11 March at 7:00 p.m.
Team 14 (Petitioner) v. Team 19 (Respondent);
Team 15 (Petitioner) v. Team 18 (Respondent);
Team 16 (Petitioner) v. Team 17 (Respondent)
Winning teams from the Wednesday matches will compete on Friday the 13th of March with the higher seeds. Team 9 will first face team 8 if there is no match between Team 24.
The morning elimination rounds for Friday the 13th of March will be as follows:
9:00 a.m. Rounds:
Team 1 (Petitioner) v. Team 16/17 Winner (Respondent)
Team 2 (Petitoner ) v. Team 15/18 Winner (Respondent)
Team 3 (Petitioner) v. Team 14/19 Winner (Respondent)
Team 13/20 Winner (Petitioner) v. Team 4 (Respondent)
11:00 a.m. Rounds
Team 5 (Petitioner) v. Team 12/21 Winner (Respondent)
Team 6 (Petitioner) v. Team 11/22 Winner (Respondent)
Team 7 (Petitioner) v. Team 10/23 Winner (Respondent)
Team 8 (Petitioner) v. Team 9 (Respondent)
Later elimination matches will take place on the afternoon of Friday the 13th of March. The higher seeded team will have the right to choose the side it would like to argue in those rounds.
Monday, January 26, 2015
Monday, January 19, 2015
Notice and Rules for 2015 UCU Intra-University Moot Competition
2015 Uganda Christian University
Intra-University Moot Competition
Student Notice
The preliminary oral rounds of the Intra-University Moot will take place on Friday the 13th of March of 2015.
You can access this year’s moot problem by going here http://ucumoots.blogspot.com/2015/01/2015-intra-university-moot-problem-19.html
All competing moot teams will consist of two students in the same year of study.
All teams seeking to compete in the intra-university moot must submit “Heads of Argument” for either (note change from initial posting) the Appellant and the Respondent side by Saturday the 27th of February by 11:59 p.m. No other written material needs to be submitted other than the “Heads of Argument” and a Title Page identifying the team members and whether each of the two briefs is submitted on behalf of the appellant or the respondent.
Heads of Argument should be submitted by email to dbriandennison@gmail.com
The Heads of Argument should include citations to legal authority and should not exceed 15 pages in length. The body of the text should be in 12 point Times New Roman Type, double spaced. The Footnotes should be in 10 point Times New Roman Type, single spaced.
For examples of quality briefs submitted in accordance with the “Heads of Argument” style please review the “Merits” section of the best English Language Briefs of 2012 in the African Human Rights Moot by NWU that are available for download at:
In case there are a large number of teams seeking to compete in the Intra-University Moot the quality of the Heads of Argument may be used to determine which teams are permitted to compete in the oral rounds. The teams that qualify for the oral rounds will be posted by Friday 6 March 2015.
The winning team from the Intra-University Moot will have the opportunity to will represent UCU at the second Uganda National Constitutional Moot (if the moot is funded and goes forward as hoped for) that would take place most likely in March, April or May of 2015.
2015 Intra-University Moot Problem (19 January 2015 Draft)
2015 Constitutional Moot Problem (19 January 2015 Draft)
In the Constitutional Court of Uganda, Kampala Division
Blue Uganda Inc. and Mahesh Gupta v the Attorney General of Uganda
PRELIMINARY NOTE: FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS MOOT PROBLEM WE WILL OPERATE UNDER THE FACTUAL PRESUMPTION THAT BOTH THE ANTI-PORNOGRAPHY ACT AND THE PUBLIC ORDER MANAGEMENT ACT WERE PROPERLY ADOPTED WITH PARLIAMENTARY QUORUM.
Royal Blue Telecom is mobile phone and internet service provider based out of Belgium. It is wholly owned by the members of the royal family of Belgium.
Blue Uganda is a duly incorporated corporation under the laws of Uganda. Royal Blue Telecom (an entity wholly owned by the Belgium royal family) owns 99% of the stock in Blue Uganda. 1% of the stock is held by Mahesh Gupta, a citizen of Uganda, who is also the Chief Operations Officer of Blue Uganda.
Blue Uganda has been offering mobile phone and internet access services in Uganda since 2009. Up until recently Blue Uganda was Uganda’s second leading provider of Internet access services and fourth leading provider of mobile phone services.
Blue Uganda prides itself on its commitment to social justice. Each year it holds the Blue Lake Triathlon which raises money for the education of children with disabilities in Uganda. Unfortunately concerns over bilharzia from swimming in Lake Victoria has limited participation in this event over the years.
Other efforts of Blue Uganda have generated greater community participation and impact. This is especially true of Blue Uganda’s Virtual Community Meeting (VCM) initiative. Every month Blue Uganda hosts an interactive gathering on its network to discuss a topic relevant to Ugandans. Internet access to participate in this event is provided at no charge. Recent topics covered at VCMs include ‘Women and their Bodies’ and ‘Presidential Term Limits as a Human Right.’ According to Blue Uganda over 2 Million Ugandans participated on their last VCM entitled ‘Realising the Right to Education’.
Blue Uganda has been rocked of late by the Government of Uganda. The Government actions against Blue Uganda have come from two fronts.
First, the Ugandan Government has taken action against Blue Uganda for violation of the Public Order Management Act, 2013. The Government contends that the VCMs hosted by Blue Uganda amount to unauthorised public meetings in violation of the Public Order Management Act. It is true that Blue Uganda never took any steps to register their VCMs with governmental authorities. Blue Uganda did not believe that online meetings amounted to public meeting under the Public Order Management Act.
Police arrested Mahesh Gupta based on his role in repeatedly violating the Public Order Management Act on 8 September 2014. He is now out on bond but is facing criminal charges for twelve violations of the Act. He faces a much as twelve months in prison for each of the alleged violations of the Act.
In addition, Blue Uganda faces a fine in the amount of 480,000 UGX for each of its 12 violations of the Public Order Management Act. The fine is based on the total estimated number of participants in the VCMs since the enactment of the Public Order Management Act. Blue Uganda has not been able to pay this fine with its funds from Ugandan operations and the Government of Uganda issued a directive that Blue Uganda must stop all business operations in Uganda until the fine is paid in full in order.
Second, the Ugandan Government has taken action against Blue Uganda for violation of the Anti-Pornography Act. In July 2014, the Anti-Pornography Commission commissioned a sample review of Blue Uganda internet subscribers. The resulting forensic and statistical analysis based on this review indicated that Blue Uganda subscribers have used Blue Internet services to access pornographic material, as defined in the Anti-Pornography Act, over 982 Million times. Based on a fine of 2000 currency points per violation this results in Blue Uganda owing up to 4M UGX per violation for a total possible fine of nearly 4 Quadrillion UGX. The Anti-Pornography Commission sent Blue Uganda a letter on 3 October 2014 demanding that it pay a fine of 500 Billion UGX in order to avoid the filing of formal criminal charges.
The demand letter also indicated that Blue Uganda had the right to challenge the fine by submitting a filing a written complaint within ten days of the receipt of the letter. Blue Uganda submitted a timely letter challenging the fine on the grounds that it amounts to a violation of human rights and questioning the forensic analysis. Officials from the Anti-Pornography Commission conducted a hearing on 1 November 2014 that was attended by Blue Uganda and their legal representatives. As a result of the hearing, the fine was reduced to 400 Billion Uganda Shillings. However, the Anti-Pornography Commission also ordered the immediate seizure of Blue Uganda’s network, offices and all other equipment located in Uganda.
Blue Uganda is aware of similar fines and seizures that have been assessed each of the six largest Internet Service Providers in Uganda.
On 15 November 2014 the Anti-Pornogrpahy Commission sent a letter to Blue Uganda indicating that it took ownership Blue Uganda’s network in Uganda as partial payment of the fine issued for the violation of the Anti-Pornography Act. According to the letter Blue Uganda will receive a credit of 300 Billion Uganda Shillings for their network in Uganda leaving a balance of 100 Billion Uganda Shillings on the assessed fine. The letter states that the Blue Uganda network is now the property of Crested Internet Services which purchased the network from the Government of Uganda for 300 Billion Uganda Shillings.
Crested Internet Services is a State owned telecommunications company launched in July of 2014. It has quickly acquired the network capacity of the Internet Service Providers that have been the subject to fines and seizures. At this time Crested Internet Services has become the leading internet service provider in Uganda and has the fastest and most reliable network of any provider.
The Chinese Government has provided Crest Internet Service complementary access to its Internet filtering technology and has provided a team of experts to enable Crest Internet Services to develop a filtering service that will enable Crest to successfully keep material that can violate the Anti-Pornography Act. Most notably the filtering service will block access to all photographic images, all GIFs and all video image content. In announcing this initiative, the Chinese foreign minister to Uganda announced “China joins Uganda in its concern over the Internet’s capacity to damage the collective will and purpose of its people though base distractions and harmful rabble rousing. The people of China a happy to offer its expertise to Uganda as it seeks to keep the benefits offered by the Internet while limiting the Internet’s capacity for harm.”
Spokespeople for liberal democracies around the globe have spoken out against the actions of the Ugandan Government with respect to private internet providers and the consolidation of Internet services under Crest Internet Services. At a recent press conference in Pretoria, Secretary of State John Kerry seemed to be referring to Uganda when he asserted that ‘when governments aggressively control the channels of information and speech they cripple democracy and slouch towards despotism.’ Queen Maxima of the Netherlands decried the actions taken against Blue Uganda as ‘an unfortunate violation of the human rights of the royal family of Belgium.’
Officials at Blue Uganda believe that the Ugandan Government is seeking to take control of all Internet providers in order to control Internet access and communication during the time leading up to the 2016 Elections. While they do not have any direct proof to support their beliefs they do know that all of the six largest private Internet service providers in Uganda have had their networks seized by the Ugandan government.
Blue Uganda and Mahesh Patel have brought this petition under Article 137 of the Ugandan Constitution claiming violation of their constitutional rights.
Blue Uganda and Mahesh Patel claim the following:
There is a right to Internet Access in Uganda based on the Ugandan Constitution, applicable and binding international treaties and customary international law and the actions of the Government of Uganda amount to a violation of that right.
Provisions of the Anti-Pornography Act and the Public Order Management Act are inconsistent with or in contravention of provisions of the Uganda Constitution and the binding international instruments that inform the Constitution.
The Anti-Pornography Act as applied against Blue Uganda amounts to a violation of the Constitution of Uganda and the binding international instruments that inform the Constitution.
The Public Order Management Bill as applied against Blue Uganda amounts to a violation of the Constitution of Uganda and the binding international instruments that inform the Constitution.
Blue Uganda is also seeking compensation for the seizure of their networks, offices and equipment.
The Government of Uganda opposes all of the claims asserted above.
Friday, October 10, 2014
Links to Helpful Videos and Audio Files that Can Help You Become a Better Mooter
Here are some links that you might find helpful as you prepare for international and regional moot competitions:
Here are some good links to Video and Audio files that can make you a better mooter:
Sir Christopher Greenwood Explains the Sources of International Law
Scott Shapiro gives you a historically informed and entertaining treatment of the 'Law of the World'
Teaching Clips on Good Mooting Techniques from Past Jessup Competitions
Listen to the Oral Argument Phase in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld
Here are some good links to Video and Audio files that can make you a better mooter:
Sir Christopher Greenwood Explains the Sources of International Law
Scott Shapiro gives you a historically informed and entertaining treatment of the 'Law of the World'
Teaching Clips on Good Mooting Techniques from Past Jessup Competitions
Listen to the Oral Argument Phase in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld
Saturday, March 15, 2014
2014-15 Moot Teams Named
Please click on the link below to access UCU's 2014-15 Moot Court team assignments:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwrZvLBJBLhwWFpmeV93cFc2Q1k/edit?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwrZvLBJBLhwWFpmeV93cFc2Q1k/edit?usp=sharing
Tuesday, January 28, 2014
Rules of Procedure for the Commonwealth ICJ Moot
Commonwealth
Moot Court on International Criminal Justice June 2014
Rules
of Procedure
Chapter
1: General Rules
Article
1 - Object
a. The
present rules (hereinafter ‘Rules’) govern the 2014 Commonwealth Moot Court Competition on international criminal
justice (hereinafter ‘Competition’), organised by the Commonwealth Secretariat (hereinafter
‘the Secretariat’).
b. All
phases of the Competition shall be held in the English language.
Article
2 - The Rules
a. All
participants shall be subject to the Rules. The Secretariat reserves the right to interpret and
amend the provisions contained in the Rules whenever necessary.
b. Any amendments
to the Rules will be communicated to the Coordinators through email by the Secretariat.
Article
3 - Aim of the Competition
Through
this Competition, the Secretariat endeavours to promote and advance students
and young lawyers (participants)’ understanding and knowledge of international criminal
law and the procedures of the International Criminal Court and other international
tribunals.
The
Competition also seeks to strengthen the scope and features of international criminal justice
by introducing participants to international criminal law, its case law and its institutions.
Article
4 - Organisation
a. Each participating country
will nominate a national coordinator (hereinafter ‘the Coordinator’) who will
be the contact point for the Secretariat.
b. The
Competition will be held in London, United Kingdom, under the auspices of the
Secretariat.
c. The Secretariat may delegate particular
responsibilities related to the organisation of the Moot Court.
d. The Secretariat shall appoint the selection panel
for the memorials and the judges and assessors for the hearings of the
Competition. Any decision taken by the Secretariat is final and
without appeal
Chapter
2: General Structure of the Competition
Article
5 - Structure
Participants shall act as parties in a hypothetical
case before the International Criminal Court by presenting written memorials
and arguing the closing statements. The Competition shall have two (2) separate
and consecutive phases: a written phase (the memorials) and an oral phase (the hearings).
Each shall be marked independently. The memorials and oral pleadings shall reflect
each participant's knowledge of international criminal law, as well as relevant
case law of the International Criminal Court and other international tribunals.
Selection of participants for the oral presentation (the
hearings) is determined by the selection panel based on the assessment of the
memorials
Article
6 - Participation
a.
The
following countries are entitled to participate in the first phase of the
Competition and to nominate six (6)
students each to participate in the memorials phase: Botswana, Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria,
Sierra Leone, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia.
b.
For
the purposes of the memorials, each country must nominate six (6) students, three (3) of which will submit memorials for
the Prosecution and three (3)
to submit memorials for the Defence.
c.
Only
undergraduate and postgraduate law students who are, as of the date of opening
of registration as set out in Article 7(a), actively enrolled on a full-time basis
at a recognised university in their respective nominating countries referred to
in sub-Article (a) of this article are eligible to participate.
Chapter
3: Administrative Provisions
Article
7 - Registration
a.
Registration for
the Competition will open at 9:00 a.m. London time on Monday 27 January 2014.
b. Participants shall register by
sending a confirmation e-mail to the Coordinator of their respective countries from
Monday 27 January 2014 at 9:00 a.m. London time.
c. For administrative purposes, the registration
particulars shall include the following:
1. Name;
2. University;
3. Year of study;
4. Contact details (telephone)
(email) (postal address);
5. Country of origin;
6. Proof of full-time
enrolment in a law programme in a recognised university in their country.
Article
8 - Participant Registration Number
a.
Each participant shall be assigned an anonymous number (hereinafter ‘Registration
number’) by the Secretariat
prior to submission of their memorial. The participants’ personal details shall not, in any instance, be
revealed to the selection panel of the memorials or the judging panel of the hearings
before the end of the Competition, when the results of all awards are
finalised.
b.
The allocated Registration
number shall be communicated to each participant by the Secretariat through the Coordinator.
c.
Each participant
shall be identified by the Registration number throughout the Competition.
Chapter
3: Written Phase - the Memorials
Article
9 - Submission of the Memorials
a.
All participants must submit their memorials
to their Coordinator by Friday 28 March
2014.
b.
The Coordinators
will submit the participants’ memorials to the Secretariat as soon as they
receive them but no later than Friday 4 April 2014.
Article
10 - Identification in Memorials
a.
Each
participant should only include their unique Registration number provided by
the Secretariat in accordance with
Article 8.
b.
The following information
should not be included in the memorials:
i. The name of the participant;
ii. The country of the participant;
iii. University of the participant.
c.
In
the interests of fairness, the Secretariat shall delete any references to
participants’ details other than the Registration number before the memorials
are sent to the selection panel.
Article
11 - Memorial Format
a.
The document of
the memorial must be submitted in accordance with the following requirements:
i. In electronic format on A4 pages;
ii. Each page margin shall be of at least
2 cm on each side;
iii. The pages must be continuously numbered, with the
exception of the front cover which shall have no number.
b.
The main body
text of the memorials should be presented in the following format:
i. In Times New Roman font style, size 12.
ii. The text of the memorial must be 1.5 spaced;
iii. Headings and subheadings of more than one line in
length must be single spaced.
c.
The footnote
text of the memorial should be presented in the following format:
i. In Times New Roman font style, size 10;
ii. The spacing in each footnote must be single. The
spacing between footnotes must be 1.5;
iii. Participants can select a referencing style of their
choice, however, the style should be consistent throughout the memorial;
iv. All sources referred to in the footnotes must be
included in the index of authorities;
v. The footnotes must clearly identify the source
documents and should only include the citation itself. Sources may be abbreviated
within the footnotes, but they need to be elicited in full, either in the
footnote itself or in the index of authorities.
Article
12 - Word Limit
a.
Memorials must not exceed a maximum length of ten thousand (10,000) words, inclusive
of footnotes, statement of facts,
issues, summary of arguments, submissions
and any optional annexes.
The front cover, title page, table of contents, list of abbreviations
and index of authorities are also included in the word limit.
b.
Any words that exceed the limit in Article 12(a) will be ignored by the
judges.
Article
13 - Order of Content
a.
Memorials must be presented in the following order:
i. Front cover;
ii. Title page;
iii. Table of contents;
iv. List of abbreviations;
v. Index of authorities (list of sources);
vi. Statement of facts;
vii. Issues;
viii.
Summary of
arguments;
ix. Written arguments;
x. Submissions;
xi. Optional: Annex (maximum two (2) pages); and
xii. Back cover
b.
Each violation
of this article shall be sanctioned with two (2) penalty points.
Article
14 - Front Cover Requirements
a.
The front cover
shall comply with the sample provided in Annex 1 of these Rules.
b.
Violations of
this article shall be sanctioned with a maximum of three (3) penalty
points.
Article
15 - Scoring of Memorials
a.
A selection panel
appointed by the Secretariat shall score the participants’ memorials.
b.
Scores are
awarded out of a maximum of one hundred (100) points.
c.
As determined
by the Secretariat, scores are awarded for:
i. Understanding of the facts and identification of the
relevant legal principles
ii. Articulate analysis of the issues
iii. Use of authorities and citations
iv. Clarity
v. Persuasiveness
vi. Logic and reasoning
vii. Grammar and style
Article
16 - Selection of Participants Proceeding to the
Hearings
a.
The memorials with the two
(2) highest
scores per country shall be selected to proceed to the hearings. The scores are
based on the criteria set out in Article 15.
b.
The selection shall be based entirely on the score obtained. It is
irrelevant whether the participants submitted a memorial for the Defence or the
Prosecution in accordance with Article 6(b).
c.
In the event that less than two
(2) memorials
from each country meet the minimum standards of quality, the provisions of sub-Article (d) of this Article shall apply.
d.
In the event provided for in sub-Article (c), the next highest scoring participant, irrespective of their nominating country,
shall proceed to the hearings.
e.
In the event that a selected participant withdraws from the competition
between the memorials and the hearings, the next highest scoring participant
from the same country shall be selected as a replacement. Where the next highest participant cannot be
selected due to the circumstances foreseen in sub-Article (c) of this Article, selection
of a replacement participant shall proceed on the basis of the procedure
established in sub-Article (d) of this Article.
Article
17- Notification of Participants Proceeding to the
Hearings
a.
Each participant selected in the memorials shall be notified by the Secretariat
through the Coordinator of the time of participating in the hearings
and other essential information.
b.
The Secretariat, through the Coordinator, shall also inform the
participants of their team configuration for the first round of the hearings in
accordance with the provisions of Article 21 and Article 22, and shall provide the
contact details of their team members. Team members may communicate
with one another.
Article
18 - Late Delivery of Memorials
a.
Should a
memorial be submitted after the allocated deadline for submission, it will not
be considered for the purposes of the Competition.
b.
Participants
will not be permitted to revise their memorial once the deadline has passed.
Article
19 - Plagiarism
Plagiarism in memorials will be sanctioned with
disqualification of the participant.
Chapter
4: Oral Phase: the Hearings
Article 20 - The
Hearings: General Provisions
a.
The hearings of the Competition shall take place in London.
b.
The hearings shall have three
(3) rounds.
c.
The schedule for the rounds shall be communicated to the participants by
the Secretariat through the Coordinator as early as is practicable.
d.
During the hearings, participants shall compete as part of a team but
shall be judged on an individual basis, in accordance with the provisions of Article 21, Article 22 and Article 37.
e.
The hearings shall be judged by a panel of judges (hereinafter ‘the Bench’).
Article 21 - Round
1 – Structure
a.
In the first round, three (3) hearings shall take place before the Bench,
one round for each of the groups identified in Article 22(a). The teams in each group shall argue the
case against each other.
b.
Although the participants shall present their case in teams, each
participant shall be marked on an individual basis according to the criteria
set out in Article 37.
c.
Teams are expected to present a cohesive case and points shall be
allocated for the coherent presentation of the whole case in accordance with
Article 37(b) (viii).
Article
22 - Round 1 – Team Composition
a.
Following the selection of the participants for the hearings by the
selection panel, the Secretariat shall, subject to article 16, place the participants
into the following three (3) groups of six (6) persons each:
i. Group 1: Ghana, Nigeria,
Sierra Leone
ii. Group 2: Kenya, Tanzania,
Uganda
iii. Group 3: South Africa,
Botswana, Namibia
b.
The Secretariat shall further divide the participants in each group into
two (2) teams; the first team of three (3) participants shall act for the Prosecution
and the second team of three (3) participants shall act for the Defence.
c.
Participants may be required to argue for the opposing side to that for
which they submitted the memorial.
d.
In the event described in Article 16(c), the Secretariat
shall place the participant selected in accordance with Article 16(e) in the
group of the country which they are replacing and not in the group of the
original nominating country.
e.
The participants shall be notified who their team members are and which
side they will be representing in the first round immediately upon notification
of selection in accordance with Article 16. They are encouraged to enter into communication with their teammates in
order to prepare for Round 1 of the hearings phase.
Article
23 - Progression to Round 2
a.
Participants shall be judged by the Bench according to the scoring
criteria established in Article 37.
b.
The twelve
(12) participants with the highest individual scores
shall proceed to Round 2 of the hearings.
Article
24 - Round 2 – Structure
a.
In the second round, three (3) hearings shall take place before the Bench
in accordance with the pairing structure identified in Article 25 (b).
b.
Although the participants shall present their case in teams, each
participant shall be marked on an individual basis according to the criteria
set out in Article 37.
c.
Teams are expected to present a cohesive case and points shall be
allocated for the coherent presentation of the case in accordance with Article 37 (b) (viii).
Article
25 - Round 2 – Team Composition
a.
In the second round of the hearings, the participants shall argue before
the Bench in teams of two (2).
b.
The pairing of the teams shall be carried out according to ranking of
scores in the first round as follows:
i. Hearing 1 – Team for the
Prosecution: 1st and 12th place
ii. Hearing 1 – Team for the
Defence: 2nd and 11th place
iii. Hearing 2 – Team for the
Prosecution: 3rd and 10th place
iv. Hearing 2 – Team for the
Defence: 4th and 9th place
v. Hearing 3 – Team for the
Prosecution: 5th and 8th place
vi. Hearing 3 – Team for the
Defence: 6th and 7th place
Article
26 - Progression to Round 3
a.
Participants shall be judged by the Bench according to the scoring
criteria established in Article 37.
b.
The
six (6) participants
with the highest individual scores shall proceed to Round 3 of the hearings.
Article
27 - Round 3 – Structure
a.
In the third round,
one (1) hearing
shall take place before the Bench.
b.
Although the participants shall present their case in teams, each
participant shall be marked on an individual basis according to the criteria
set out in Article 37.
c.
Teams are expected to present a cohesive case and points shall be
allocated for a coherent presentation of the case in accordance with Article 37(b).
Article
28 - Round 3 – Team Composition
a.
In the third round of the hearings, the participants shall present their
case in teams of three (3).
b.
The grouping of the teams shall be carried out on the basis of the ranking of scores in the second
round as follows:
i. Team for the Defence: 1st,
3rd and 6th place
ii. Team for the Prosecution: 2nd,
4th and 5th place.
Article
29 - Appearance
a.
Each
team may appear before the Bench for up to fifteen (15) minutes before the
start of the scheduled hearing time.
b.
At
the scheduled time of the hearing, should any of the sides fail to appear, the hearing
will proceed on an ex parte basis.
c.
In
the event that an individual participant fails to appear at the scheduled time
of the hearing, the participant’s team shall be permitted to present their case
before the Bench in the absence of the missing team member.
d.
The
fact that a participant is absent from the hearing shall not, in itself,
prejudice the other team members. The team is, however, expected to address the
key issues in the case irrespective of the fact that a team member may not be
present.
Article
30 – Speaking before
the Bench
a.
Each
participant will speak according to the time allocated under Article 32.
b.
Verbatim
reading of the memorials during the hearings is strictly prohibited and will be
penalized.
Article
31 - Communication
a.
During the
hearings, any form of communication between the participants and third parties
is strictly prohibited.
b.
Violations of sub-Article
(a) shall be sanctioned with twenty
(20) points penalty.
Article
32 - Speaking Time
a.
The speaking
times allocated to the participants shall be as follows:
i. Presentation by the Prosecution: up
to fifteen (15) minutes each
ii. Presentation by the Defence: up to
fifteen (15) minutes each
iii. Rebuttal by Defence Counsel: up to ten (10) minutes each
iv. Rebuttal by the Prosecution: up to ten (10) minutes each
b.
Each
member of the teams should speak for an approximately equal period of time. It
is each team's responsibility to organise their presentations accordingly.
c.
In order to ensure that individuals are not prejudiced by team members
who may over-run their allocated presentation time, teams shall inform the
Bench of the speaking time which has been allocated to each member of the team
at the beginning of the presentation.
d.
Upon the termination of the
determined speaking time for each individual speaker, the participant may
request the Bench for additional time in order to finalise their argument. If
additional time is granted by the Bench, this will not impact on the speaking
time of other members of the team.
Article
33 - Bench Composition
a.
The
Bench in the first and second rounds of the hearings shall be composed of one
(1) judge.
b.
The
Bench in the third round of the hearings shall be composed of three (3) judges.
c.
The
judges shall be appointed by the Secretariat and shall have knowledge and
experience in the fields of international criminal law, international human
rights law, public international law, and/or criminal law. All Bench members
will be fully briefed on the issues presented.
d.
Bench members should
not express any individual opinion about the participants or the arguments during the period of the Competition.
e.
During the hearings,
the Bench shall ensure respect for the Rules.
f.
The Bench shall
assess the participants on the basis of the criteria laid out in Article 39. The Bench members are encouraged to intervene during
the hearings with questions intending to assess the knowledge and the
preparation of the participants.
g.
The Bench will
follow its own rules of procedure within the framework of accepted norms of
judicial practice.
h.
The Bench shall
have the power to rule on any questions of doubt or dispute in the procedure in
the hearings.
i.
The Bench shall
determine any points of fact that may arise during the hearings on the basis of
the elements established and set out in the case problem.
j.
To facilitate a
ranking of the participants and avoid the situation of a tie, the grades given
to each participant by the Bench during the hearings shall not be the same.
Article
34 - Bench Decision
a. Where
the Bench is composed of more than one member, every decision will be taken by
majority vote.
b. All
decisions of the Bench shall be final and without appeal.
c. The
Bench shall mark the oral arguments in accordance with the scoring criteria
provided for in Article 37.
Article
35 - Role of Assessor
The Bench for each round is composed of one (1) or three
(3) judges as set out in Article 35 and they may be assisted by an assessor.
Article 36 -
Role of the Bench Clerk/Bailiff
a.
The Bench clerk/bailiff is nominated by the Secretariat.
b.
The Bench clerk/bailiff is responsible for:
i.
Collecting
of the score sheets and delivering them to the Secretariat;
ii. Briefing and advising the Bench on
the Rules of Procedure contained herein;
iii. Maintaining order during the hearings;
iv. Timekeeping.
Article 37 -
Scoring of the Hearings
a.
Scores
are awarded out of a maximum of one hundred (100) points.
b.
As
determined by the Secretariat, scores are allocated for:
i.
Knowledge
of facts and legal principles
ii.
Articulate
analysis of the issues
iii.
Use
of authorities and citations
iv.
Response
to Questions
v.
Clarity
and ability to summarise
vi.
Persuasiveness
vii.
Logic
and reasoning
viii.
Team
work and coherence of case presentation
ix.
Eye
contact, appearance and mannerisms
x.
Voice
projection and confidence
xi.
Observation
of time limits
Article
38 - Respect for the Court and Penalisation of Inappropriate
Behaviour
a.
Each participant shall maintain the fullest dignity
and decorum not only in the courtroom but during the entire Competition.
b.
Each participant shall dress in a manner appropriate
for a formal courtroom.
c.
Each participant shall address the Bench in a
respectful manner.
d.
Inappropriate behaviour displayed by any observers of
the Competition will result in being escorted out of the Competition venue.
Article
39 - Scouting
a.
Scouting is forbidden at all times during the
Competition.
b.
Scouting comprises the following acts:
i. Where participants
attend a hearing in which they are not participants;
ii. Where participants or
spectators discuss with or pose questions of substantive issues of
international criminal law to the judges.
c.
Violations of this article may result in disqualification of the
participants knowingly involved. A participant’s disqualification is final and
irrevocable.
Article
40 - Grounds for Disqualification
a.
Plagiarism at
any stage of the Competition will result in the immediate disqualification of the
participant. This rule shall apply even where plagiarism is discovered after
the completion of a particular round where the participant has been successful.
b.
Scouting with the
collusion or prior knowledge of the participant shall result in the
participant’s immediate disqualification.
c.
Inappropriate
behaviour or blatant disregard for the procedures may result in the
disqualification of
a participant
d.
Failure to
appear at the scheduled time of hearing may result in the immediate disqualification of the
participant.
e.
The Secretariat
reserves the right to disqualify a participant who engages in any other form of
gross misconduct.
f.
The decision to
disqualify shall be taken by the Secretariat and shall be final and without
appeal.
Chapter
5: The Awards
Article
41 - Categories of the Awards
a.
Awards will be given by the Secretariat after the final
round of the hearings to the three individuals who have received the highest
scores.
b.
Each participant shall receive a certificate of
participation.
Annex 1
COMMONWEALTH MOOT COURT COMPETITION
ON INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE
2014
THE
SITUATION IN THE CASE OF
THE
PROSECUTOR v. JUPITER
WRITTEN
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF
THE
PROSECUTION/THE DEFENCE
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)