Tuesday, January 28, 2014

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: 1^st and 12^thplace

ii. Hearing 1 – Team for the Defence: 2^nd and 11^th place

iii. Hearing 2 – Team for the Prosecution: 3^rd and 10^th place

iv. Hearing 2 – Team for the Defence: 4^th and 9^th place

v. Hearing 3 – Team for the Prosecution: 5^th and 8^th place

vi. Hearing 3 – Team for the Defence: 6^th and 7^th 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: 1^st, 3^rd and 6^th place

ii. Team for the Prosecution: 2^nd, 4^th and 5^th 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

Counsel Registration Number:

The Commonwealth ICJ Moot Problem

The Moot Problem

IN THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT

PREAMBLE

1. This is the final stage of the trial before a Trial Chamber of the International Criminal Court (“ICC”). The Presiding Judge has declared that the submission of the evidence is closed, and the parties are now to make their closing statements in accordance with Rule 141 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the ICC. At this stage, both the Prosecution and the Defence agree that the evidence supports the facts as set out below, and there is no longer any issue of fact in dispute between them. In their closing statements, the Prosecution and Defence are therefore addressing disputed issues of law only.

2. Teams acting for the Prosecution will be known as the “Prosecution”. Teams acting for the Accused, Mr Jupiter, will be known as the “Defence”.

3. Teams should confine themselves to the facts supplied. The facts are entirely fictitious.

4. Teams may be assisted by looking at case law of the International Criminal Court, the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, and the Special Court for Sierra Leone. Other pronouncements from regional Tribunals and Bodies, along with National Constitutional Courts, might also be relevant.

5. The problem is not intended to raise questions of procedure before the ICC. Procedural questions should be ignored.

6. Although issues of admissibility and jurisdiction are not normally dealt with in ICC proceedings in closing statements at the end of a trial, counsel should in this instance address issues regarding either the admissibility or the jurisdiction.

7. Counsel are advised to consider not only the Rome Statute of the ICC, but also the Elements of Crimes adopted under Article 9 of the Statute.

8. The Commonwealth Secretariat (“the Secretariat”) shall be receiving requests for clarifications on the problem question up to Friday 21^st March 2014. The Secretariat shall circulate all the questions put to the Secretariat as well as any replies which it has given to all the participants through the National Coordinator.

THE BACKGROUND

The accused, Mr Jupiter (also known as ‘the Colonel’), is a citizen of Botaland, a state which signed the Rome Statute on 13 October 2007 and has not yet ratified it. Moreover, Botaland is one of the 49 United Nations member states which are not party to the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. From November 2003 Botaland has been the theatre of an armed conflict.

Historically, Botaland was a colony of the Kingdom of the Night which responded to any tensions within the territory of Botaland with the use of armed force against the local population. When Botaland gained independence from the Kingdom of the Night in 1977, the Moonies, the largest religious group, came to power. While the Moonies constitute around 75% of the population, the remainder are Sundaes (20%), and followers of other denominations (5%). However, in Melancholia, a region of Botaland very rich in oil and other natural resources, the Sundaes constitute the largest group within the territory (90%), while the Moonies constitute just 10% of the regional population. In Sun Town, the capital of the region, and also the part of Melancholia with the highest concentration of oil, the majority of the population is Moony. The central government, in compliance with a number of agreements signed during the decolonization period, has allowed Multinational Corporations to exploit the natural resources in return for significant benefits for the Moony communities across Botaland. The Sundaes, who were not consulted during the talks preceding the agreements and have no formal connections with the transnational corporations acting in the region, are excluded from any benefits.

In October 2003 a group of Sundae soldiers within the Botaland army decided to form an independent armed force and founded the so-called Army for the Independence of Melancholia (AIM). The main purpose of AIM was to take control over the natural resources concentrated in Sun Town. The members of AIM organised themselves according to the structure of the national army, therefore, from the very beginning they had an organised hierarchical structure, which mirrored the chain of command of the national armed forces.

On 13 November 2003, the day on which the Sundaes celebrate the anniversary of the victory against the Moonies in the famous 1005 battle, AIM committed a series of attacks on Sun Town, where a great number of Moonies lived in peace, practising their religion and cultivating their own lands. After this attack, the Botaland central government decided to send a special military unit to the region for the purpose of re-establishing order. The governmental forces faced serious difficulties in maintaining control over Sun Town, which is the area where all the crimes relevant for this case were committed. Unfortunately, the military conflict between the two sides has continued since then and has been determined to constitute a non international armed conflict.

The accused, one of the founders of AIM, used to be a soldier within the Botaland army for 20 years. He was one of the chief architects in the establishment of AIM’s military structure and his significant military expertise contributed substantially to AIM’s advancement. Mr Jupiter was very well known and respected within the Sundae community and, having a prominent role in AIM, was referred to as ‘the Colonel’. He was responsible for the establishment of AIM’s headquarters, which were situated in a valley 50 miles outside Sun Town. All accommodation for high-ranking military officials, including the accused, as well as the soldiers’ barracks was situated at the headquarters. Mr Jupiter also contributed to the setting up of military training facilities in Mount Venus, close to the headquarters.

Following a month of planning, at sunrise on 13 November 2003 he directed the attacks on Sun Town. After this attack, a detailed military plan for the future was drawn up. In particular, in order to achieve the goals of AIM, the strategic plan included arrangements for a recruitment drive for the army, a training programme, obtaining funds and resources, as well as the overall preparation for the military operations aimed at taking over Sun Town.

On 20 November 2003, Mr Jupiter was a special guest of the radio programme ‘Good Night Mr Sun’ together with the religious Chief of the Sundae community. The programme was held on Wonder 100, a radio station that is officially broadcast in the neighbouring Sundae state of Wonderland but which is picked up by the airwaves in Melancholia. The factual record does not, however, indicate where the broadcast was recorded. The programme discussed the situation unfolding in Sun Town and what the Sundaes could do to support their community. The religious Chief claimed that the Goddess of the Sun was displeased with the Sundaes for failing to protect Her Holy Land from contamination. He stressed the importance of religious homogeneity in the region, in order to please the Goddess and achieve personal salvation. At a certain point in the discussion, Mr Jupiter intervened and suggested that a possible way of achieving these aims was to extract the Moony children from their evil community and convert them in the name of the Goddess of the Sun. In particular, he stated that “Moony children are not evil by nature; they become wicked by contamination after years of evil indoctrination. Therefore, there is still a chance to ensure their salvation and it is the responsibility of each Sundae to contribute to this cause”.

The day after the programme aired, Sundae civilians from cities surrounding Sun Town started carrying out random attacks on moony families in Sun Town, in order to abduct Moony children and raise them as Sundaes. The UN Commission of Enquiry in the region of Melancholia estimated that, between 21 November and 7 December 2003, around 20,000 children under the age of 15 were abducted by members of the Sundae community. Photo and video evidence taken by independent observers and presented before the Trial Chamber clearly showed that a number of AIM soldiers belonging to Colonel Jupiter’s unit, who were identifiable by the sun and axe tattoos on their arms, provided armed protection to the civilians carrying out the acts. During these two weeks, no orders were given by Colonel Jupiter in relation to these acts.

As the conflict had intensified by late January 2004, a more detailed military plan was considered to be necessary. On 22 January, AIM’s chief military command – including the accused - met at the headquarters to discuss the way forward. As a result of this meeting, ‘Operation Strength 2004’ was drawn up. The main purpose of the operation was to significantly increase the military power of AIM in order to conduct large-scale military operations in Melancholia and permanently establish their control over Sun Town. It was decided that a large number of civilians needed to be conscripted as soldiers into the army. In order not to waste strong adults in performing other required tasks, it was decided that children were needed both at the headquarters and at the training camps to support non-military operations. At the meeting, the chiefs also discussed difficulties which civilians were having in controlling the older children who had been extracted from the Moony population since they had already developed a strong sense of identity which was proving difficult to overcome. It was therefore decided that any of these children above the age of 10 be housed near the headquarters in order to ensure that they did not instigate any disorder within the sundae communities.

There is undisputable evidence that from the beginning of February 2004, children between the ages of 10 and 15 were present at the Sundae training camps and headquarters. They had been recruited as part of “Operation Strength 2004” through a door-to-door operation in which children were collected from their houses and taken to the headquarters and training camps. The accused did not physically carry out the recruitment operation himself. Under threat of punishment, the children were forced to carry out a number of activities to support the army. Young girls aged 10 - 13 performed most of the domestic chores, including all the cooking for the armed forces both at the headquarters and the training camps. They were responsible for ensuring that AIM’s forces were fed and fit for combat. They also accompanied units of soldiers to the front lines of the hostilities in order to provide them with food and medical care. Many of the young girls were also required to perform sexual services for the soldiers although, in accordance with the teachings of the Sundae sacred Book, no penetration occurred. The girls were also regularly forced to take off their clothes and dance naked in front of the soldiers.

Boys aged 10 - 15 generally guarded the headquarters, the training camps and other military posts. Many commanders had two to three boys permanently assigned to them. The boys would guard their commanders’ houses and would accompany them in their jeeps around the camps. AIM also set up special group of young boys whose job was to covertly follow Moony military personnel in order to obtain sensitive military information. Since the boys were small and agile, they could carry out these tasks more easily and with a lower risk of being caught than adults. None of the children were involved in direct combat with the Moonies.

Some girls became the ‘wives’ of commanders and high-ranking soldiers of AIM, while subordinates and soldiers in the lower ranks of the army were not allowed to have wives. The wives were expected to obey their husbands, to cook for them, wash their clothes, endure forced pregnancy, and to care for and bring up children of the “marriage”. Although not physically constrained, a “wife” who did not perform the conjugal duties demanded of her was deemed disloyal and could be disciplined. In return, the “husband” provided food, clothing and protection to his “wife”, including protection from rape by other men.

The gravity and seriousness of the crimes perpetrated in Melancholia since November 2003 led the United Nations Security Council to set up a Commission of Inquiry on Melancholia on 5 November 2005. Following the submission of the Commission’s report in January 2006 (S/2006/6000), the UN Security Council adopted resolution 9090 on 2 February 2006, which determined the Botaland situation to constitute a threat to international peace and security in accordance with Chapter VII of the UN Charter. The same resolution referred the situation in Botaland to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court as provided for by article 13.1(b) of the Rome Statute. The UN Security Council resolution also provided for a minimum sentence of 20 years for the crime of sexual slavery. This paragraph was inserted as a result of significant lobbying at the UN Headquarters by a number of feminist organisations. The Prosecutor decided to initiate an investigation during which three warrants of arrest against suspected military leaders of AIM –including Mr Jupiter- were authorized by Pre-Trial Chamber II. Following a decision of Pre-Trial Chamber II in February 2009 - which confirmed the charges against Mr Jupiter - he is now accused before Trial Chamber I of having committed a number of crimes within the jurisdiction of the ICC.

THE CHARGES

Mr Jupiter is accused of:

· Count 1: GENOCIDE, punishable under Articles 6(e) and 28(1) of the Rome Statute.

· Count 2: GENOCIDE, punishable under Articles 6(e) and 25(3)(e) of the Rome Statute.

· Count 3: CONSCRIPTING CHILDREN INTO ARMED GROUPS, a WAR CRIME, punishable under Articles 8(2)(e)(vii) and 25(3)(a) of the Rome Statute.

· Count 4: USING CHILDREN TO PARTICIPATE ACTIVELY IN HOSTILITIES, a WAR CRIME, punishable under Articles 8(2)(e)(vii) and 25(3)(a) of the Rome Statute.

· Count 5: RAPE, a CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY, punishable under Articles 7(1)(g) and 25(3)(a) of the Rome Statute.

· Count 6: SEXUAL SLAVERY, a CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY, punishable under Articles 7(1)(g) and 25(3)(a) of the Rome Statute.

· Count 7: RAPE, a WAR CRIME, punishable under Articles 8(2)(e)(vi) and 25(3)(a) of the Rome Statute.

· Count 8: SEXUAL SLAVERY, a WAR CRIME, punishable under Articles 8(2)(e)(vi) and 25(3)(a) of the Rome Statute.

· Count 9: COMMITTING OUTRAGES UPON PERSONAL DIGNITY, IN PARTICULAR HUMILIATING AND DEGRADING TREATMENT, a WAR CRIME, punishable under Articles 8(c)(ii) and 25(3)(a) of the Rome Statute.

· Count 10: PERSECUTION, a CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY, punishable under Articles 7(1)(h) and 25(3)(a) of the Rome Statute.

On 5 August 2009, Trial Chamber I issued a decision setting the commencement date of the Trial against Mr Jupiter for 1 February 2010. The Prosecution and Defence presented their case between February 2010 and February 2011. In May 2012, the Judges of Trial Chamber I visited Botaland. They travelled to Melancholia to visit Sun Town as well as the locations where AIM’s training camps and headquarters were housed on Mount Venus and in the valley below respectively. The judicial site visit provided the Chamber with the opportunity to visit the location of the crimes and visibility for the Court’s work among local communities.

On 10 September 2012, Trial Chamber I held a Status Conference pursuant to Regulation 54(a) of the Regulations of the Court where it established the modalities of the closing arguments under the terms of Rule 141(2) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.

In the same Status Conference, it was decided that the Defence and Prosecution should limit their written and oral submissions to the following issues:

1. Genocide;

2. The active use of girls in hostilities;

3. Sexual slavery;

4. All jurisdictional issues.

In view of the exceptional nature of the UN Security Council’s inclusion of the crime of sexual slavery, the Court noted that the parties may wish to speak to the issue of the sentencing provision in the UN Security Council resolution during their closing arguments.

Tuesday, January 14, 2014

2014 Uganda Christian University

Intra-University Moot Competition

Student Notice

The preliminary oral rounds of the Intra-University Moot will take place on Thursday the 6th of February of 2014.

You can access this year’s moot problem by going to: ugandamoot.blogspot.com or ucumoots.blogspot.com

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 both the Appellant and the Respondent side by Friday the 31st of January 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:

http://www1.chr.up.ac.za/index.php/moot-documents.html

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 winning team from the Intra-University Moot will represent UCU at the first ever Uganda National Constitutional Moot that will take place at St. Augustine University (Kampala) on the 14th of February, 2014.

The Moot Problem for the UCU Intra-University Moot and the Uganda Constitutional Law Moot

UGANDA INTER-UNIVERSITY

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW MOOT COURT PROBLEM

Get Ready Uganda and One Other v. the Attorney General

The following case was brought under Article 137 of the Uganda Constitution.

The lead Petitioner in the Case is “Get Ready, Here I Come! Uganda” (Hereinafter “Get Ready”). Get Ready is a Ugandan corporation and a registered Non Governmental Organisation. Get Ready is dedicated to the promotion of the health of unborn children.

The other petitioner is Nakato Joan as legal representative of Jangu Adam. Adam is a 7 month-old fetus that Nakato Joan is carrying.

Get Ready Uganda has chosen not to include any born human petitioners in this case. Some argue that Get Ready is merely using this issue as a back door means of establishing the personhood of the unborn in Uganda. Get Ready is largely funded by the American pro-life organization Focus on the Faith.

Get Ready filed a petition seeking the provision of folic acid to all women of childbearing age in Uganda. Adequate folic acid intake during the preconception period (which is the time right before and just after a woman becomes pregnant) helps protect against a number of congenital malformations, including neural tube defects. Neural tube defects are severe abnormalities of the central nervous system that develop in babies during the first few weeks of pregnancy resulting in malformations of the spine, skull, and brain; the most common neural tube defects are spina bifida and anencephaly. The risk of neural tube defects is significantly reduced when supplemental folic acid is consumed in addition to a healthy diet before conception and during the first month after conception.

Uganda’s Ministry of Health decided to adopt a programme for the provision of folic acid to pregnant mothers and women seeking to become pregnant in 2007. However, every year since 2007 the budgetary allocation for folic acid has been cut. The only folic acid provided to pregnant mothers and women seeking to become pregnant since that time has been offered through donor funds or has been purchased by individuals. The Ministry of Health said that it has had to make the decision to cut the folic acid programme each year due to a reduction in the funds it has received from the Central Government. It reasons that it must cut costs associated with the purchase of medicines and medical equipment because it must use all allocated funds on staff and building maintenance in order to avoid staff layoffs and to ensure proper upkeep of existing facilities.

The Petitioners assert that all of the unborn in Uganda have the right to have their mothers provided with folic acid. This is based on an alleged right to health. They assert that the unborn have a heightened right to government health provision as they are not in the position to provide for themselves.

Get Ready is seeking a variety of forms of relief which include the requirement that folic acid supplements be added to all flour in Uganda, that folic acid tablets be provided to all women of childbearing age, that women of child bearing age be provided with a government sponsored supplement to defray the cost of folic acid tablets, that the Ministry of Health be forced to make other budget cuts that do not directly effect health to the same extent as cutting the folic acid programme that the Ministry of Health adopted in 2007, or any other form of relief that the court can order which would improve the availability and provision of folic acid to women of child bearing age.

The Constitutional Court heard the case. They struck down the petition. In a one sentence holding the Constitutional Court held that the petition was barred by the political question doctrine citing their recent decision in Centre for Health Human Rights and Development (CEHURD) and Three Others v. Attorney General, Constitutional Petition No. 16 of 2011, UGCC, available at http://www.ulii.org/ug/judgment/constitutional-court/2012/4.

Get Ready filed a timely appeal with the Supreme Court of Uganda. The Supreme Court has set the matter down for immediate oral argument along with the pending CEHURD case. Counsel for Get Ready will argue the case for the Petitioners and the Office of the Attorney General will argue the case for the Respondent

The Supreme Court has asked the petitioners to offer oral argument on the following issues:

1. Are the petitioners proper parties to bring a petition under Article 137?

2. Is there a right to health in Uganda?

3. Is the right to health judicially enforceable?

4. Do the unborn have a right to health in Uganda?

5. Is the forced purchase and/or provision of folic acid a judicial remedy that the Court is empowered and authorised to grant?

Note this problem is subject to revision by the moot organizers. This draft is dated 9 November 2014.

Tuesday, January 28, 2014

Rules of Procedure

Article 4 - Organisation

Article 5 - Structure

Article 6 - Participation

Chapter 3: Administrative Provisions

Article 7 - Registration

Article 8 - Participant Registration Number

Chapter 3: Written Phase - the Memorials

Article 9 - Submission of the Memorials

Article 10 - Identification in Memorials

Article 11 - Memorial Format

Article 12 - Word Limit

Article 13 - Order of Content

Article 14 - Front Cover Requirements

Article 15 - Scoring of Memorials

Article 16 - Selection of Participants Proceeding to the Hearings

Article 17- Notification of Participants Proceeding to the Hearings

Article 18 - Late Delivery of Memorials

Article 19 - Plagiarism

Article 20 - The Hearings: General Provisions

Article 21 - Round 1 – Structure

Article 22 - Round 1 – Team Composition

Article 23 - Progression to Round 2

Article 24 - Round 2 – Structure

Article 25 - Round 2 – Team Composition

Article 26 - Progression to Round 3

Article 27 - Round 3 – Structure

Article 28 - Round 3 – Team Composition

Article 29 - Appearance

Article 30 – Speaking before the Bench

Article 31 - Communication

Article 32 - Speaking Time

Article 33 - Bench Composition

Article 34 - Bench Decision

Article 35 - Role of Assessor

Article 36 - Role of the Bench Clerk/Bailiff

Article 37 - Scoring of the Hearings

Article 38 - Respect for the Court and Penalisation of Inappropriate Behaviour

Article 39 - Scouting

Article 40 - Grounds for Disqualification

Article 41 - Categories of the Awards

Annex 1

COMMONWEALTH MOOT COURT COMPETITION

Tuesday, January 14, 2014

Followers

Blog Archive

About Me