PART 1: SHORT ANSWER QUESTIONS
(30 points in total; 3 points per question)
REMINDER: Your answers should be concise, precise and effective. Refer to relevant legal
provisions and case law of international criminal courts and tribunals whenever possible. Provide
examples when helpful.
1. “Article 21(3) of the ICC Statute can properly be relied upon to interpret definitions of
crimes in the Statute expansively or by analogy.” Do you agree with this statement and
why (not)? Refer to legal provisions.
2. In what situations can torture be prosecuted before the ICC?
3. What criteria should an act of aggression satisfy in order to constitute an objective
element of a crime of aggression?
4. Would an isolated genocidal act fall within the ICC jurisdiction?
5. What is the mens rea of Joint Criminal Enterprise III?
6. Under the latest status of ad hoc tribunals’ jurisprudence, is ‘specific direction’ a
requirement for aiding and abetting liability?
7. Is the ICC availed of a pre-defined set of rules governing the conduct of trial process?
Refer to legal provisions.
8. Can civil parties seek individual and monetary reparations at the ECCC? Refer to legal
provisions.
9. What is a ‘Completion Strategy’ and why was it adopted?
10. There are three ways in which the ICC jurisdiction can be triggered. When is the
authorization by the Pre-Trial Chamber required for the ICC Prosecutor to open an
investigation?
(turn over for Part II)
, PART II: OPEN QUESTION
(35 points in total)
REMINDER: Answer this question as directly, concisely, and completely as possible. Identify
the applicable law and apply it to the facts provided in the problem below. General/irrelevant
discussion is not encouraged. Refer to the relevant legal provisions and case law of international
criminal courts and tribunals whenever possible.
***
The members of a religious and ethnic minority Loringya residing in the territory of Durma, the
ICC State Party, are driven out of their areas of residence and forced to seek refuge in the
neighboring states. Loringyas’ homes are systematically burnt down to prevent their return and in
the process of expulsion many of the members of the Loringya community are murdered, gravely
injured, and subjected to sexual violence and slave labour. The Durman government denies
citizenship to the people of Loringya and considers them hostile intruders who ‘don’t belong in
Durma’.
A. What crime(s) within the ICC jurisdiction may the treatment of Loringyas amount to and
why? (15 points)
B. What elements need to be established to secure a conviction for the crime(s) in
accordance with part A above? (15 points)
C. An additional evidence came into possession of the ICC Prosecutor – the classified policy
paper authored by the Durman President’s office and entitled “The Final Solution of the
Loringya Question: Assimilate or Disappear” as well as the minutes of a governmental
meeting in which this policy was approved and adopted. What impact, if any, would this
evidence have on the legal qualification of the treatment of Loringyas (5 points)
(turn over for Part III)
, PART III: PROBLEM QUESTION
(35 points in total)
REMINDER: Answer this question as directly, concisely, and completely as possible. Identify
the applicable law and apply it to the facts provided in the problem below. General/irrelevant
discussion is not encouraged. Refer to the relevant legal provisions whenever necessary.
***
Since May 2013, a violent conflict has been taking place in the Republic of Quarat, a state not
party to the Rome Statute. In October 2014, the situation in Quarat was referred by the UNSC to
the ICC Prosecutor in accordance with Article 13(b) of the Statute.
The relevant paragraph of the UNSC resolution states: “…Decides that the Government of Quarat
and all other parties to the conflict in Quarat, shall cooperate fully with and provide any
necessary assistance to the Court and the Prosecutor pursuant to this resolution and, while
recognizing that States not party to the Rome Statute have no obligation under the Statute, urges
all States and concerned regional and other international organizations to cooperate fully…” The
resolution did not specify what ‘full cooperation’ entailed.
In March 2015, the Prosecutor decided to open an investigation into the Situation in Quarat. Soon
thereafter, she charged the President of Quarat, Mrs. Stern, with multiple counts of crimes against
humanity and genocide. In accordance with the Prosecutor’s request, Pre-Trial Chamber IV
issued an arrest warrant against Mrs. Stern on 1 November 2015. The government of Quarat was
defiant and declared that because Quarat is not a party to the Rome Statute, it would never
cooperate with the Court.
Despite the notification to all States Parties of the request for the arrest and surrender of Mrs.
Stern, the arrest warrant remained unenforced. Ever since the issuance of the warrant, Mrs. Stern
freely visited a number of States Parties to attend summits, conferences and inaugurations but the
authorities of the receiving States failed to apprehend her and transfer her to the Court.
As an associate legal officer assigned to the ICC Pre-Trial Division, you are expected to provide
legal advice to the judges with regard to the following matters:
A. What immunities under international law, if any, accrue to Mrs Stern as a sitting Head of
State in foreign courts; what is their scope; and are they subject to any exception? (10
points)
B. The Pre-Trial Chamber has held a series of hearings on the matter of non-compliance with
the Court’s requests for arrest and surrender of Mrs. Stern under Article 87(7) and
received submissions by the relevant States Parties. The States argued that they were
under no obligation to arrest and surrender Mrs. Stern to the Court as she was the
, incumbent President of a State not Party to the Rome Statute; Article 98(1) of the Statute
therefore applied. Based on the ICC’s previous jurisprudence, propose the strongest
rationale to refute this position and justify your choice. (15 points)
C. On 2 January 2018, Mrs Stern was finally arrested while on a private visit to Serenistan, a
state that has always been very supportive of the ICC, and flown to The Hague. Soon after
the first appearance, Mrs. Stern raised a jurisdictional challenge arguing that her
immunity barred the exercise of jurisdiction by the ICC. Should this argument be
accepted? Refer to legal provisions. (10 points)
