Under article 51 of AP 1, attacks that may cause excessive incidental

death or damage are prohibited. Such prohibition is only justifiable

under the existence of a definite military advantage. If i may refer the
attention of the court to the case of Gotovina, decided by ICTY, in
2012. In that case, the court decided that proportionality should be
assesed by comparison between military advantage and the resulting
damage. On the attack towards BAS factory, there are no military
advantage, as the factory is a civilian factory and held no military
advantage whatsoever.
Similarly, the attack towards the civilian residence on the following
day, the attack was clearly lacking of military advantage, since it was
conducted towards a civilian residence, which causes enormous
amount of innocent victim.
Y.E, it bears
the military
result while
submit that

noting that none of the attacks above succeeded in gaining

advantage. Since it does not achieve any the intended
causing enormously high casualties. Consequently, we
the second element is fulfilled.

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.

2nd argument, we submit that the defendant is individually responsible

over the attacks of operation thunderstorm.
Y.E, under article 25 3 a of this courts own statute, a person shall be
cirminally responsible over a crime commited whether individually or
through another entity. As provided by the kayishema case, decided by
the ictr in the year of 2001, there are 2 elements of individual

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.

IHL regulates several specific object and buildings to be under the

protection in times of armed conflict. Such protection is aimed to
preserve its purpose and values from any harmful conducts amidst an
armed conflict.
article 18 of GCIV deepens the scope of protection by providing
distinctive emblems to signify that object carrying such emblems are
not to be harmed in any way.
If i may refer your excellencies attention to the case of Galci, decided
by ICTY, in the year of 2003, where the court affirms that hospitals
cannot be regarded as military objective, as long as it still enjoy the
protection by serving its medical purpose.
In the present case, the hospital displayed a large red crystal emblem
listed under the AP III as a distinctive emblem. As a matter of fact, the
hospital is known to accept sick and wounded Bethuis soldiers, clearly
serving its medical purpose. It bears noting that the alleged threat
stated by the defendant does not include the Ventures guard, acting as
picket guard of the hospital.
Pursuant to the fact delivered, we submit that the hospital still serves
its purpose as medical facility and still enjoys protection under IHL,
hence does not constitute as military objective.
3rd element, is that the perpetrator intended to attack such protected
object.
Pursuant to the AKayesu case,decided by ICTR in 1998 that any order
that has vague or broad meaning that may instigate others to commit
unlawful conduct is attributable to the perpetrator.
Y.E, in this case, the defendant might argue that he did not intended to
attack the hospital but rather the combatants within the hospital, his
explicit order to eliminate the potential threat gives a broad meaning
that may be interpreted to conduct unlawful conducts. Pursuant to the
judgment of akayesu case mentioned earlier, we urge this court to
weigh this order from the defendant as a form of instigation, hence
attributable to the defendant. Moreover, the defendant had full
knowledge that the alleged threat is residing in a fully functioning
hospital, serving none other than its medical purposes, Consequently,
we submit that the perpetrator intended to attack the hospital under
the protection of IHL.

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.