Professional Documents
Culture Documents
3rd element, that the perpetrator knew that such attack would lead to
excessive damage. Y.E, in the Galic case, decided by ICTY in the year of
2003, an attack is consdered unlawful if it was launched with
corroborating evidence that such attack would lead to excessive
damage. Deriving this principle, the defendant clearly has access and
awareness over the evidence provided by the National inteligence
Agency, that such attack would cause excessive damage. This is
supported by his own statement that, *if i may quote, that colllateral
damages cannot be avoided. The defendant has full knowledge that
the target is located in civilian area, and the other target, baing a
civilian residence. His chosen method of the attack, which was using a
lethal and exaggerative weaponries also provide clear evidence that
the attack would cause excessive damage. Hence the third element is
fulfilled.
responsiblity, Actus rheus, and Mens Rhea. Actus rheus being the
actual conduct of the perpetrator, while mens rhea, being the mental
intention of the perpetrator. In this case, the defendant clearly fulfills
the elements. firstly, the defendant is the one planning and approving
the operation, with full knowledge of casualties and advantages
expected. This shows that he had full knowledge and consciousness of
the method and pupose of such conduct, fulfilling the mental element.
Secondly, the defendant was in fact the one conducting, planning, and
more importantly launched the attacks. Referring to the judgment of
case blabla, such conduct is sufficient to be considered as an actual
conduct, fulfilling the physical element.
Y.E, with that said, we submit that the defendant clearly held individual
responsible over launching operation thunderstorm.
Y.E, this concludes our first submission, i would now like to proceed to
our next submission
On the second submission, we submit that the defendant is
responsible for directing an attack towards a protected building,
We have 2 arguments to support this submission,
First argument, we submit that the attack towards the hospital violates
ihl
Y.E, under IHL, attacking a protected building is prohibited. There are 5
elements to be cumulatively satisfied.
1 element, that the perpetrator directed an attack.
Y.E, pursuant to the judgment of case blabla, decided by court blabla,
in the year of blabla, directing an attack is defined as blablabla.
Derivng the principle to the present case, the defendant ordered his
subordinates to assault a municipal hospital alleged to shelter
combatants that pose as threat. Quoting his statement pursuant to
paragraph blabla of the compromi, he stated to eliminate the potential
threat within the hospital..
these fact clearly shows the the defendant indeed launched and
executed the attack, thus fulfilling the first element.
2 element, is that object the attack is portected under ihl, and is not a
military objective.
Y.E, for the 4th and 5th element, the prosecutor would like to repeat our
submission that the violation occurs in time of an international armed
conflict and that the perpetrator is aware of such nature.
Y.E, the prosecutur has proved all elements beyond reaonable doubt, i
will now proceed to the second argument
On the 2nd argument, we submit that the defendant is individually
responsible for the attack towards the hospital.
Repeating our submission above, under the requirements to fulfill 2
elements, actus rheus and mens rhea, we submit that the defendant
fulfills both elements by planning the attack towards the hospital, and
that the defendant is aware of such protection applicable to the
hospital.
Y.E i have fininished delivering my arguments, if there are no other
questions, i would like to return to my seats.