Original: English Date: 15th November 2021

No.: ICC-01/__________

ICC TRIAL CHAMBER

At The Hague

SITUATION IN THE STATE OF ANDALASIA

IN THE CASE(S) OF

THE PROSECUTOR v. MR. RICHARD ALEXANDER CASTLE

PUBLIC DOCUMENT

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES……………………………………………………………………....i

TABLE OF CASES………………………………………………………………………………iii

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION………………………………………………………………v

STATEMENT OF FACTS……………………………………………………………………….vi

ISSUES RAISED………………………………………………………………………………..vii

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS………………………………………………………………....viii

PLEADINGS……………………………………………………………………………………...1

I. MR. RICHARD ALEXANDER CASTLE IS LIABLE FOR COMMITTING THE

CRIME OF GENOCIDE BY KILLING, UNDER ARTICLE 6(a) OF THE
INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT STATUTE……………………………....1
1) The perpetrator killed one or more persons……………………………………….1
a) Mr. Richard Alexander Castle is the perpetrator of the “Genocide by
killing”…………………………………………………………………….1
b) Mr. Richard Alexander Castle was a perpetrator in the killing of more than
one person. ……………………………………………………………….2
2) The persons killed belonged to the Targaryen ethnicity which is a particular ethnic
group………………………………………………………………………………2
3) The perpetrator intended to destroy, in whole or in part, the Targaryen ethnical
group, as such……………………………………………………………………...2
a) Intention to destroy Targaryen ethnical group ( Dolus Specialis)………...2
b) The Intention to destroy ‘In whole or in part’……………………………..5
4) The conduct took place in the context of a manifest pattern of similar conduct
directed against Targaryen ethnical group………………………………………...5
II. MR. RICHARD ALEXANDER CASTLE IS LIABLE FOR COMMITTING THE
WAR CRIME OF WILFUL KILLING UNDER ARTICLE 8(2)(a)(i) OF THE
ROME STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT……….........6

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

 1) The perpetrator killed one or more person………………………………………..7
a) Mr. Richard Alexander Castle is the perpetrator of the killings…………..7
b) More than one person was killed………………………………………….8
2) Such persons were protected under one or more of the Geneva Conventions of
1949………………………………………………………………………………..8
a) Distinction Between Civilians and Combatants…………………………..8
b) Persons Protected by the Geneva Conventions……………………………9
3) The perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established that
protected status…………………………………………………………………….9
4) The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international
armed conflict……………………………………………………………………10
a) An Armed Conflict is in Existence………………………………………10
b) The Armed conflict is an International Armed Conflict………………....11
5) The perpetrator was aware of factual circumstances that established the existence
of an armed conflict……………………………………………………………...13
III. INDIVIDUAL CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY OF MR. RICHARD ALEXANDER
CASTLE………………………………………………………………………………...14
1) Individual Responsibility………………………………………………………...14
2) Superior Responsibility…………………………………………………………..15
a) Effective Responsibility and Control of the Superior……………………16
b) The Superior either Knew or had reasons to know………………………16
c) Failure to Take Necessary Steps…………………………………………17
PRAYER………………………………………………………………………………………….ix

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES, CONVENTIONS AND OTHER PRIMARY DOCUMENTS

1. Convention (III) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Geneva,
12 August 1949…………………………………………………………………………9
2. Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Geneva,
12 August 1949…………………………………………………………………………9
3. Elements of Crimes, Rome Statute of the ICC, UN doc. PCNICC/2000/1/Add.2
(2000)………………………………………………………………….………...….1,6,7
4. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court……………………...1,2,6,7,14, 15,17
5. Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda
6. Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia

BOOKS

1. Claude Pilloudet al., Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the
Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 (Geneva: Nijhoff, 1987)…………………….17
2. Ilias Bantekas, & Susan Nash, International Criminal Law (London: Routledge
Cavendish, 2007)………………………………………………………………………..3

3. J. Pictet, (ed.), ICRC Commentary on Convention (IV) Relative to the Protection of

Civilian Persons in Time of War, 12 August 1949 (Geneva: International Committee of
the Red Cross, 1958)…………………………………………………………………..13

4. Knut Dormann, Elements of War Crimes under the Rome Statute of the International
Criminal Court: Sources and Commentary (London: Cambridge University Press,
2003)…………………………………………………………………………………7,13
5. Marco Sassoli and Antoine A. Bouvier, How Does Law Protect In War; Volume 1;
(Geneva: International Committee of the Red Cross, 2006)……………………………8
6. Mohamed C. Othman, Accountability for International Humanitarian Law Violations:
The Case of Rwanda and East Timor (Berlin: Springer, 2005)………………………...8
7. W. Michael Reisman and Chris T. Antoniou, The Laws of War: A Comprehensive
Collection of Primary Documents on International Laws Governing Armed Conflicts

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

 (UK: Vintage Books, 1994)……………………………………………………………..6
8. William A. Schabas, An Introduction to the International Criminal Court (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2007)…………………………………...……….........3,4,5
9. Wilmshurst (ed.), International Law and the Classification of Conflicts (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2012)…………………………………………………….11,12

ARTICLES

1. C. Byron (2001), “Armed Conflicts: International or Non-International”, Journal of

Conflict and Security Law, 6(1): 63-90………………………………………………..12
2. Tournaye Cecile (2003), “Genocidal Intent Before the ICTY”, International and
Comparative Law Quarterly, 52: 447-46……………………………………………….3
3. PayamAkhavan (2005), “The Crime of Genocide in the ICTR Jurisprudence”, Journal
of International Criminal Justice, 3(4): 989- 1006……………………………………..3
4. Tom Farer (1971), “Humanitarian Law and Armed Conflicts: Toward the Definition of
International Armed Conflict”, Columbia Law Review, 71(1): 37-72...........................11

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

 TABLE OF CASES

1. Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, ICJ Advisory Opinion of 8 July
1996, ICJ Reports, 1996………………………………………………………………….9
2. Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v United States
of America),ICJ Reports, 1986…………………………………………………………12

3. Prosecutor v Al Bashir,ICC-02/05-01/09, Decision on the Prosecution's Application for

a Warrant of Arrest against Al Bashir, (4 March, 2009)………………………………..3
4. Prosecutor v. Aleksovski, IT-95-14/1-A, ICTY Appeals Chamber, Judgment, (24
March, 2000)…………………………………………………………………………..15
5. Prosecutor v. Akayesu, ICTR-96-4-T, ICTR Trial Chamber, Judgment (2 September,
1998)……………………………………………………………………..…………10,14
6. Prosecutor v. Bagilishema, ICTR-95-1-A-T, ICTR Trial Chamber (7 June, 2001)……..3
7. Prosecutor v. Blaskic, IT-95-14-A, ICTY Trial Chamber (3 March, 2000)……..14,15,16
8. Prosecutor v. Brdjanin, IT-99-36-T, ICTY Trial Chamber, (1 September, 2004)………5
9. Prosecutor v. Delalic, IT-96-21-T, ICTY Trial Chamber, (16 November, 1998)…..16,17
10. Prosecutor v. Imanishimwe&Ntagerura, ICTR-99-46-T, ICTR Trial Chamber III, (1
December, 2000)………………………………………………………………………..17
11. Prosecutor v. Jean de DieuKamuhanda, ICTR-96-4-T, ICTR Trial Chamber, (2,
September,1998)………………………………………………………………………17
12. Prosecutor v. Jelisic, IT-95-10-T, Trial Chamber, Judgment, (14 December, 1999)……4
13. Prosecutor v Jelisic, IT-95-10-A, ICTY Appeal Chamber, (5 July, 2001)………………3
14. Prosecutor v. Kambanda, ICTR-97-23-S, Judgment and Sentence, (4 September,
1998)……………………………………………………………………………………...3
15. Prosecutor v. Katanga and Ngudjolo, ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Pre- Trial Chamber I, (26,
September, 2008)……………………………………………………………………10,16
16. Prosecutor v. Kayishema and Ruzindana, ICTR-95-1, Judgment,
(21 May, 1999)……………………………………………………………………..7,16
17. Prosecutor v. Kordic and Cerkez, IT-95-14/2-A, ICTY Appeals Chamber, (17
December, 2004)…………………………………………………………………….14,15

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

18. Prosecutor v. Krstic, IT-98-33-T, ICTY Trial Chamber, Judgment, (2 August, 2001)….5
19. Prosecutor v. Kunarac, IT-96-23/1-A, ICTY Appeals Chamber, (12 June, 2002)…….16
20. Prosecutor v. Lubanga, ICC-01/04-01/06-803, Pre-Trial Chamber I, (14 March,
2012)…………………………………………………………………………………….10
21. Prosecutor v. Musema, ICTR 96-13-A, ICTR Appeals Chamber I, (November 16,
2001)………………………………………………………………………………...4,7,14
22. Prosecutor v. Muvunyi, ICTR/00/55A-A, ICTR Trial Chamber, Judgment……………..4
23. Prosecutor v. Ndindabahizi, ICTR-01-71-A, ICTR Appeals Chamber, Judgment (16
January, 2007)……………………………………………………………………………7
24. Prosecutor v. Niyitegeka, ICTR-96-14, ICTR Trial Chamber, (16 May, 2003)…………4
25. Prosecutor v. Rutaganda, ICTR-96-3, ICTR Trial Chamber, Judgment, (6 December,
1999)…………………………………………………………………………………..3,14
26. Prosecutor v. Semanza, ICTR-97-20-T, ICTR Trial Chamber,(15
May, 2003)…………………………………………………………………...3,5,14,15,17
27. Prosecutor v. Serashugo, ICTR-98-39-S, ICTR Judgment and Sentence, (2 February,
1999)……………………………………………………………………………………...3
28. Prosecutor v. Stakic, IT-97-29-T, ICTY Trial Chamber, (31 July, 2003)……………..3,5
29. Prosecutor v. Tadic, IT-94-1-T, ICTY Trial Chamber II, Opinion & Judgment (7 May,
1997)…………………………………………………………………………………….12
30. Prosecutor v. Tadic, IT-94-1-AR72, ICTY Appeals Chamber, Decision on the Defence
Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction (2 October, 1995)………………...10,11
31. United States v. Von Leeb[(Nuremberg 1948) - Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals,
The United Nations War Crimes Commission, Volume XII, London, HMSO, 194]…..17

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Honorable International Criminal Court (ICC) can exercise its jurisdiction under Article 5
of the Rome Statute of the ICC (hereinafter Rome Statute), which has been invoked subsequent
to the proceedings in pursuance of Article 13(c) of the Rome Statute initiated by the Prosecutor
under Article 15 of the Rome Statute. The Prosecutor most humbly and respectfully submits to
the jurisdiction of the Honorable International Criminal Court.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Mr. Richard Alexander Castle, belonging to Lannister ethnicity, was the Prime Minister of
Andalasia from 1982 till June 2019. After the Democratic Front won the 2019 general elections,
Mr. Ryan, belonging to Targaryen ethnicity, was elected as the Prime Minister of Andalasia.
The new Government alleged that Mr. Castle had entrusted government funded infrastructure
projects to his supporters flouting rules. Mr. Castle went into hiding fearing arrest and it was
suspected that he fled to neighbouring country Shire as he always had friendly relations with
the Prime Minister of Shire, Mr. Esposito who also belongs to Lannister ethnicity.

On 01 August 2019, Mr. Castle spoke to the media asking for the support of every Lannister
person to prevent the Ryan government from politically and economically incapacitating the
Lannisters. On 12 September 2019, the newspaper reported that an armed political group was
formed with the name Salazer Resistance Forum (SRF), their strategy being to pursue their
agenda through armed resistance against Andalasian Government and their aim was to
overthrow the Ryan Government and restore Mr. Castle as the Prime Minister of Andalasia.

On 02 March 2020 Mr. Ryan in his address to the nation stated that some neighbouring
countries were interfering in the internal affairs of Andalasia to which Shire’s Prime Minister
replied on 05 March 2020 stating that it was their international responsibility to accommodate
refugees. After the blasting of oil pipeline on 25 March 2020, innocent civilians ranging from
540 to 660 from across the Stormsland and Nikkoni provinces who were returning to their
respective villages and towns after participating in a rally in support of the government and
condemning violence of the SRF were abducted on 30 March 2020. Although, ten days after
the incident, 221 abducted civilians, mainly elderly men and women were released, there was

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

no information, however, about the rest even four months later and as per the report of the
National Human Rights Commission of Andalasia they were suspected to have been killed by
the abductors.
On 29 May 2020, Andalasian armed forces engaged in firing with nearly 100 civilian clothed
weapon wielding people in Stormsland and on 31 May 2020, chief of Andalasian army
informed that the 14 people killed were Andalasian citizens and also that they were coming
from Shire after their military training and carried weapons manufactured in Atoria, wherefrom
Shire also buys its military equipment and weapons.

Throughout the night of 05 June 2020, nearly 500 plain clothed armed men blocked the Naropa
locality. The armed men went to the houses searching for young men, dragged them out of their
houses and warned other family members not to get out of their houses. Next day morning,
when the paramilitary and armed forces reached the locality, they encountered fierce armed
resistance from the armed men which led to the killing of 26 armed men, out of which 9 were
Shire’s Citizens, and 23 police and armed personnel and by evening, 379 dead bodies were
found in different parts of the locality. Another 178 people were killed, along with incidents of
sexual violence and incidents of rape of 15 women on 7 June 2020. The violence continued
during the month of June and on 1 July 2020, Winterfell City Targaryen Welfare Society
claimed that more than 1000 Targaryen ethnicity people had been killed.
At the request of the Prosecutor of the ICC, who made two charges against Mr. Castle under
Rome Statute i.e., war crime of ‘willful killing‟ under Article 8(2)(a)(i) and crime of
genocide of “killing members of the group‟ under Article 6 (a), the pre- trial chamber of the ICC
issued the trial arrest warrant against Mr. Richard Alexander Castle. On 04 March 2021, Mr.
Castle was arrested by the police forces of Andalasia and was surrendered to the ICC on 31
March 2021.
Hence the present matter before this Honorable Court

ISSUES RAISED

I. Whether Mr. Richard Alexander Castle is guilty of the crime of genocide of killing
members of the group for the acts of killing of people in and around the Stormsland
province from 05 June 2020 till the end of June 2020, under article 6(a) of the Statute of

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

 the International Criminal Court?

II. Whether Mr. Richard Alexander Castle is guilty of the war crime of wilful killing of
civilians who were abducted on 30 March 2020 in the province of Stormsland under
article 8(2)(a)(i) of the Statute of the International Criminal Court?

III. Whether Mr. Richard Alexander Castle has Individual Criminal Responsibility for
commission of these crimes under Article 25(3) of the Rome Statute of the ICC?

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS

I. MR. RICHARD ALEXANDER CASTLE IS LIABLE FOR COMMITTING THE

CRIME OF GENOCIDE BY KILLING UNDER ARTICLE 6(a) OF THE ROME
STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT
The main element of the crime of genocide by killing is the intention to destroy in whole or a
part of a national, racial, ethnical, or religious group as such. The persons killed during the
month of June 2020 belonged to the Targaryen ethnical group. Mr. Castle had the dolus
specialis (Special Intent) to destroy the Targaryens as such and more than a 1000 people were
killed in a manifest pattern of similar conduct directed against the Targaryens. Hence, Mr.
Castle is responsible for committing the act of genocide by killing.

II. MR. RICHARD ALEXANDER CASTLE IS LIABLE FOR COMMITTING THE

WAR CRIME OF WILFUL KILLING UNDER ARTICLE 8(2)(a)(i) OF THE ROME
STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT
The people abducted on 30 March 2020 were protected under Geneva Convention IV as they
were innocent civilians, not participating in any hostilities directly or indirectly, and Mr. Castle
was aware of the same. They are deemed to have been killed after abduction. The crime took
place in the context of an international armed conflict as the existing armed conflict between the
Andalasian government and the SRF was internationalized by the intervention of Shire on the
side of the SRF and Mr. Castle was aware of the existence of an armed conflict. Hence, Mr.
Castle is responsible for committing war crime of wilful killing.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

III. INDIVIDUAL CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY OF MR. RICHARD ALEXANDER
CASTLE
Further, Mr. Castle is individually liable under Article 25(3) of the Rome Statute of the ICC for
committing, ordering or inducing to commit, and instigating the commission of the crime.
Moreover, he being the supreme leader of the SRF is liable under Article 28 of the Statute due
to conscious disregard of available information and failure to take the necessary and reasonable
measures to prevent commission of crime in a superior subordinate relationship.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

 PLEADINGS

I. MR. RICHARD ALEXANDER CASTLE IS LIABLE FOR COMMITTING THE

CRIME OF GENOCIDE BY KILLING, UNDER ARTICLE 6(a) OF THE
INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT STATUTE
In the present matter, Mr. Castle has committed the crime of genocide by killing members of
the group for the acts of killing of people in and around the Stormsland province from 05 June
2020 till the end of June 2020, under article 6(a) of the Statute of the International Criminal
Court.
The “Elements of Crimes”1 to be proved to constitute a crime of Genocide are:
1. The perpetrator killed one or more persons

2. Such person or persons belonged to a particular national, ethnical, racial or religious

group.

3. The perpetrator intended to destroy, in whole or in part, that national, ethnical, racial or
religious group, as such.
4. The conduct took place in the context of a manifest pattern of similar conduct directed
against that group or was conduct that could itself effect destruction.2

1. The perpetrator killed one or more persons

a. Mr. Richard Alexander Castle is the perpetrator of the “Genocide by killing”.

To be punished for the act of “Genocide by killing”, the perpetrator need not participate in the act
of killing physically. He may commit such crime, whether as an individual, jointly with another
or through another person.3 It is important to stress at the outset that certain conduct related to
the direct perpetration of acts of genocide are also deemed to be criminal. These are: conspiracy
to commit genocide; direct and public incitement to commit genocide; attempted genocide and
complicity in genocide. Thus, an individual may be sentenced for “direct and public incitement

1
Elements of Crimes, Rome Statute of the ICC, United Nations Doc. PCNICC/2000/1/Add.2 (2000).
2
Elements of Crimes for Article 6(a), Rome Statute of the ICC, UN doc. PCNICC/2000/1/Add.2 (2000).
3
Article 25 (3) (a), Rome Statute of the ICC.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

to commit genocide” even if no act of genocide has been committed by himself.4

In the present matter, Mr. Castle, the perpetrator, being the supreme leader of the SRF5, had
control of every aspect of the organized armed political group. The speech made by him to the
media on 1 August 2019 where he stated that he would strive for politically and economically
establishing Lannisters “through all possible means”6 clearly portrays that he indeed directly
and publicly incite the commission of the crime.
b. Mr. Richard Alexander Castle was a perpetrator in the killing of more than one person.
In the present matter, 379 people were killed on 5 June 2020 and another 178 people were
killed on 7 June 2020 as stated by the Chief of Winterfell city police. Further, on 01 July 2020,
Winterfell City Targaryen Welfare Society also claimed that more than one thousand people
belonging to Targaryen ethnical group were killed during the month of June in and around
Winterfell city.7 Thus, it is evident that a substantial number of people were killed.

2. The persons killed belonged to the Targaryen ethnicity which is a particular ethnic
group.
It should be noted that, in the present matter, there is no instance of crime against the Lannister
ethnicity or any other ethnicity. With regard to the incidents of 5 June 2020, the violence took
place in the Naropa locality mainly inhabited by Targaryen people8 and it was the houses of
the Targaryens which were attacked. In the following days, young Targaryen men and women
were targeted and destruction of property belonging to Targaryen ethnical group
continued.9All of these show that all the attacks were carried out against the Targaryen
ethnical group and hence, were a clear case of Genocide.

3. The perpetrator intended to destroy, in whole or in part, the Targaryen ethnical

group, as such

4
Common Article 3 of 4 Geneva Conventions of 12 August, 1949; see also Article 25(3)(e) of Rome Statute of the
ICC.
5
That Mr. Castle is the supreme leader of SRF will established in this memorial. See, Section II(1)(a) of this
Memorial.
6
Moot Proposition, ¶ 5
7
Moot Proposition, ¶ 18, 19.
8
Moot Proposition, ¶ 17.
9
Moot Proposition, ¶ 19.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

 a. Intention to destroy Targaryen ethnical group ( Dolus Specialis)

The term “to destroy” in this element of genocide manifests itself in three dimensions viz.
physical, biological and cultural destruction of a particular group.10 In the present matter, there
was physical and biological destruction of the Targaryen ethnical group. The Targaryens were
physically destroyed by the means of killing of young men and women; molestation, sexual
violence and rape of women; and destruction of property belonging to them11. Biological
destruction comprises acts of imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
such as sexual mutilation, the practice of sterilization, forced birth control, separation of the
sexes and prohibition of marriages.12 In the present matter, there was killing of Targaryen
young men, a systematic destruction of the male members of the group which was intended to
cause detrimental consequences for the physical survival of the group as a whole,13 resulting in
biological destruction of the Targaryen ethnical group.

The crime of genocide is considered to be the most serious and most aggravated type of crime
against humanity, and “the crime of crimes” among other international crimes.14 The specific
nature of the crime of genocide does not lie in nature of the act itself but in the specific
intention (dolus specialis) behind its perpetration.15Specific intent means that the perpetrator
must intend that his actions will result in the destruction, in whole or in part, of a protected
group.16 Existence of intent and knowledge can be inferred from relevant facts and

10
William A. Schabas, An Introduction to the International Criminal Court (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2007), p. 94; see Georges A. N. Rutaganda, ICTR-96-3-T, Trial Chamber Judgment, 6 December 1999; In his
dissenting opinion in the Al Bashir case, Judge Ušacka opined that in order to show genocidal intent, there must be
intent to destroy the group in a biological or physical sense.
11
Moot Proposition, ¶ 18, 19.
12
Payam Akhavan (2005), “The Crime of Genocide in the ICTR Jurisprudence”, Journal of International Criminal
Justice, 3(4): 989- 1006, p. 1004.
13
Krstic, Appeals Chamber Judgment, ¶ 28.
14
Kambanda(ICTR-97-23-S), Judgment and Sentence, 4 September 1998, ¶ 16; Serashugo(ICTR-98-39-S),
Sentence, 2 February 1999, ¶ 15; Stakic´ (IT-97-29-T), Decision on Rule 98 bisMotion for Judgment of Acquittal,
31 October 2002, ¶ 22.
15
Prosecutor v Jelisic, IT-95-10-A (Appeal Chamber, 2001); see also Article 4 of the ICTY Statute; see also Article
2 of ICTR Statute; see also Article II and III of the Genocide Convention; see also Article 6 of Rome Convention ;
see also Prosecutor v. Bagilishema, Case No.ICTR-95-1-A-T (Trial Chamber), June 7, 2001, ¶ 55.
16
IliasBantekas, & Susan Nash, International Criminal Law (London: Routledge Cavendish, 2007), p. 388

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

circumstances.17

Dolus specialis i.e. specific intent requires that the perpetrator “clearly intended the result
“signifying’ a psychological nexus between the physical result and the mental state of the
perpetrator”.18 Assessed to be “puzzling words” “as such” was interpreted by the Chamber of
the ICTR to mean that the act must be committed against an individual only because of the
reason that the individual was a member of a specific group, so that the victim is the group
itself, not merely the individual himself.19 Also, the groups are defined to be national, ethnical,
racial or religious according to the attitudes of those who persecute them rather than pursuant to
some scientifically verifiable list of parameters.20 Thus, it is enough for the perpetrators to kill
the victims because they perceive them to be of a certain ethnical group to constitute genocide.
In the present matter, the intention of SRF was not to kill an individual belonging to the
Targaryen ethnical group in particular but the Targaryen ethnical group “as such” to which the
people killed belonged to.21Specific intent is often deduced from circumstantial evidence
including the actions and words of the perpetrator, or from the behaviour of others, as long as it
is the only reasonable inference from the totality of the evidence.22

Several facts establish the dolus specialis of the perpetrator to destroy the Targaryen ethnical
group, as such. As soon as he was overthrown by Mr. Ryan, who belonged to the Targaryen
ethnical group, Mr. Castle tried his best to incite the people of Lannister ethnicity which was
clear from his very first speech before the media on 1 August 2019 where he stated that Mr.
Ryan was targeting the Lannister ethnicity peoples so that there would not be any challenge to
Targaryen domination in Andalasia.23Also, although the SRF in its leaflets found on 15
September 2019 clearly said that the Ryan government does not represent the will of the
majority people of Andalasia showing that it was concerned for all the citizens of Andalasia, it,

17
Tournaye Cecile (2003), “Genocidal Intent Before the ICTY”, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 52:
447-462; see also, Prosecutor v. Semanza, ICTR-97-20, (Trial Chamber, 2003), ¶ 313. The tribunal held that a
perpetrator`s Mensrea might be inferred from his actions.
18
Musema, ¶ 166
19
Prosecutor v. Niyitegeka, ICTR-96-14 (Trial Chamber), May 16, 2003; Muvunyi, Trial Chamber Judgment, ¶
485.
20
William A. Schabas (2007), p. 97.
21
That the persons killed belonged to the Targaryen ethnical group has been established in this memorial. See,
Section I(2)of this Memorial.
22
The Trial Chamber at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in the Jelisićcase
held that genocidal intent may be inferred from prior statements and acts of the defendant, Prosecutor v. Jelisić,. IT-
95- 10-T, ICTY Trial Chamber Judgment, 14 December, 1999, ¶ 73;
23
Moot Proposition, ¶ 5.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

however, appealed only to the people of Lannister ethnicity to rise to the occasion which would
lead to the annihilation of others.24 Violence continued right from November 2019 till the end
of June 2020, resulting in the killing of thousands of people, only a few of which were from the
Lannister ethnicity, the rest from the Targaryen community. All this clearly shows that the
intention of the SRF and their supreme leader Mr. Castle was to destroy the Targaryen ethnical
group, as such.
b. The Intention to destroy ‘In whole or in part’.
The words “in whole or in part‟, indicates a quantitative dimension. Although there is no numeric
threshold of victims necessary to establish genocide,25the numeric size of the targeted part of
the group can help determine whether it is a “substantial” part of the group as a whole.26The
quantity contemplated must be significant and where only part of a group is destroyed, it must
be a “substantial” part.27 It is established that „in part‟ means the crime may be committed in a
very small geographic area against a group defined by its borders. 28The reference to quantity is
in the description of the mental element of the crime, and what is important is not the actual
number of victims, rather that the perpetrator intended to destroy a substantial number of
members of the group.29 Although most authorities require intent to destroy a substantial
number of group members, but an individual criminal may be guilty of genocide even if he kills
only one person, so long as he knew he was participating in a larger plan to destroy the group.30

In the present matter, 379 people were killed on 5 June 2008 and another 178 people were
killed on 7 June 2020 as stated by the Chief of Winterfell city police. Further, on 01 July 2020,
Winterfell City Targaryen Welfare Society also claimed that more than one thousand people
belonging to Targaryen ethnical group were killed. All the killings took place in and around
Winterfell city.31 Thus, it is evident that a substantial number of members of the Targaryen
ethnical group were killed.

24
Moot Proposition, ¶ 7
25
Semanza, ICTR Trial Chamber Judgement, ¶ 316; Stakic, ICTY Trial Chamber Judgement of 31 July, 2003, ¶
522.
26
Krstic, Appeals Chamber Judgement, ¶ 12, 14; RadoslavBrđanin, IT-99-36-T, ICTY Trial Chamber Judgement of
1 September, 2004, ¶ 702.
27
Jelesic, IT-95-10-T, Trial Chamber Judgment of 14 December, 1999, ¶ 82.
28
Krstic, IT-98-33-T, Trial Chamber Judgment of 2 August, 2001, ¶ 590.
29
William A. Schabas (2007), p. 95.
30
Gregory H. Stanton, What is Genocide? Available on the Web, accessed on 8 th November, 2021, URL:
http://www.genocidewatch.org/genocide/whatisit.html.
31
Moot Proposition, ¶ 18, 19.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

 4. The conduct took place in the context of a manifest pattern of similar conduct directed
against Targaryen ethnical group:

The Targaryen ethnical group was a victim of systematic violent conduct from the very
beginning of the violence. The facts clearly establish the manifest pattern of similar conduct
directed against the Targaryen ethnical group. The ordinary meaning (or plain meaning) as
provided under Article 31(1) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of the term
“manifest pattern” refers to a systematic, clear pattern conduct in which the alleged genocidal
conduct occurs. On the night of 05 June 2020, in Naropa locality mainly inhabited by
Targaryen people nearly 500 armed men in plain clothes blocked the main road that goes
toward the Naropa locality and also by lanes of the locality that connect it with other parts of
the city, not allowing anyone to go towards the Naropa locality.

Throughout the night, they went to as many houses as possible searching for young men,
dragged them out of their houses and warned other family members not to get out of their
houses. Next day, 379 dead bodies were found in different parts of the locality.32 Further, on 7
June 2020 business establishments and many houses of Targaryens were targeted young men
were being caught and killed and a total of 178 people were killed in different parts of the
city, along with incidents of sexual violence and incidents of rape of 15 women. Targeting
young Targaryen men and women and destruction of property belonging to Targaryen ethnical
group continued during the month of June 2020.33

II. MR. RICHARD ALEXANDER CASTLE IS LIABLE FOR COMMITTING THE

WAR CRIME OF WILFUL KILLING UNDER ARTICLE 8(2)(a)(i) OF THE ROME
STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT
International law condemns war crimes as violations of the laws of war by a military or
civilian person.34 The Rome Statute makes the offence of “Wilful Killing” a war crime35 In the
instant matter, Mr. Richard Alexander Castle has committed a war crime of wilful killing of

32
Moot Proposition, ¶ 17, 18.
33
Moot Proposition, ¶ 19.
34
W. Michael Reisman and Chris T. Antoniou, The Laws of War: A Comprehensive Collection of Primary
Documents on International Laws Governing Armed Conflicts (UK: Vintage Books, 1994), p. 317.
35
Article 8(2) (a) (i), Rome Statute of the ICC. All the Four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 categorizes
wilful killing as a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

 civilians which were abducted on 30 March 2020 while they were returning to their respective
villages and towns after attending a major rally in Winterfell. Mr. Castle is, thus liable under
Article 8(2)(a)(i) of the Rome Statute. To constitute the crime of wilful killing, the elements as
per the “Elements of Crimes”36have to be proved.37 The “Elements of Crimes” for “Wilful
Killing” are as follows:

1. The perpetrator killed one or more persons;

2. Such person or persons were protected under one or more of the Geneva Conventions
of 1949;

3. The perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established that protected
status;

4. The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international
armed conflict;
5. The perpetrator was aware of factual circumstances that established the existence of an
armed conflict.38

1. The perpetrator killed one or more person

a. Mr. Richard Alexander Castle is the perpetrator of the killings

Mr. Castle is the perpetrator of the act of willful killing as he was the supreme leader of the
SRF and hence, had complete control on every action of the armed group. He caused death of
the civilians abducted on 30 March 2020 through the members of the SRF. Hence, he is
criminally responsible and liable for wilful killing as a War crime.

To be punished for the act of “Wilful Killing”, the perpetrator need not physically
participate39in the act of killing.40 He may commit such crime as an individual, jointly with

36
Elements of Crimes, Rome Statute of the ICC, United Nations Doc. PCNICC/2000/1/Add.2 (2000).
37
Art 9, Rome Statute of the ICC.
38
Elements of Crimes for Article 8 (2) (a) (i), Rome Statute of the ICC, UN doc. PCNICC/2000/1/Add.2 (2000).
39
Prosecutor v. Rugatanda, ICTR-96-3-T, ICTR Trial Chamber Judgment of 6th December 1999, ¶ 81; Prosecutor
v. Musema,ICTR-96-13-T, ICTR Trial Chamber Judgment of 27 th January 2000, ¶ 219.
40
Emmanuel Ndindabahizi v.Prosecutor, ICTR-01-71-A, ICTR Appeals Chamber Judgment of 16 th January 2007, ¶
122.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

another or through another person.41An act of war crime of wilful killing includes participation
in the planning of these killings.42 Furthermore, the term Wilful Killing can be interchangeably
used with the term “caused death”.43 Several facts establish that Mr. Castle is the supreme
leader of the SRF and hence, is aware and responsible for all the activities of the SRF. SRF is
an armed political group evidently under the leadership of Mr. Castle as their main aim is to
restore Mr. Castle as the Prime Minister of Andalasia.44 Further, in the leaflets distributed by
SRF on 25 April 2020, it was stated that the leader of SRF was working to gain support from
other neighbouring countries which corroborates Mr. Castle’s earlier statement where he had
stated that Lannister people from other countries had promised their support to him.45 Also, his
statement to the media on 28 July 2020 in regard to the incidents that took place in Winterfell in
June 2020 stating that they were not the handiwork of the SRF shows that he indeed had the
knowledge of the activities of the SRF.46 Thus, it is undoubtedly established that Mr. Castle is
indeed the supreme leader of the SRF. It is essential to hold those in leadership positions
responsible because they had an additional duty to prevent the commission of such crimes.47
b. More than one person was killed

The fact that out of the 540 to 660 people who were abducted on 30 March 2020 only 221
elderly men and women were released and the rest were not, conclusively points towards a
tragic ending for the rest of them. Moreover, the fact finding report of the Westeros Human
Rights Union (WHRU) concluded that these people must have been taken across the border to
Shire where the refugee camps were set up. Report further pointed out that the places near the
refugee camps in Shire were used for mass burial and that they also found torn shirts, trousers
and foot wear were found scattered in the area around a kilometer away from the refugee
camps.48 Further, the report of the independent enquiry committee constituted by the NHRC of
Andalasia also said these abducted people were suspected to have been killed by the abductors

41
Article 25 (3) (a), Rome Statute of the ICC.
42
Prosecutor v. Kayishema, ICTR-95-1-T, ICTR Trial Chamber Judgement of 21 st May 1999, ¶ 146 [Hereinafter
“Kayishema”]; see Article 8(1), Rome Statute of the ICC.
43
Knut Dormann, Elements of War Crimes under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: Sources
and Commentary (London: Cambridge University Press, 2003), p. 365.
44
Moot Proposition, ¶ 7.
45
Moot Proposition, ¶ 5 and 11.
46
Moot Proposition, ¶ 21.
47
Mohamed C. Othman, Accountability for International Humanitarian Law Violations: The Case of Rwanda and
East Timor (Berlin: Springer, 2005), p. 161.
48
Moot Proposition, ¶ 16

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

as they had neither been released nor their families had any information about them for the last
five months. These facts sufficiently prove the actus reus of killings.49

2. Such persons were protected under one or more of the Geneva Conventions of
1949
a. Distinction Between Civilians and Combatants
The parties to the conflict have the duty to distinguish between civilians and combatants.50 The
parties, can only launch an attack on the combatants while the civilian population must always
be protected. This is known as the principle of distinction between civilians and combatants and
is codified in of Additional Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions. 51 In its advisory opinion in
the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons case, the International Court of Justice
stated that the principle of distinction was one of the “cardinal principles” of international
humanitarian law and one of the “intransgressible principles of international customary law”.52
b. Persons Protected by the Geneva Conventions

Article 50(1) of the Additional Protocol I defines civilians as persons who do not belong to one
of the categories referred to in Article 4 (A) (1), (2), (3) and (6) of the Geneva Convention III
which are: members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, members of other militias
who carry arms openly, and members of armed forces which have professed allegiance to
adversary.53 Geneva Convention IV grants protection to every person except for certain
categories, such as persons engaged in hostilities or those detained as a spy or saboteur.54
Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner
whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the
conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.55

49
Moot Proposition, ¶ 22.
50
Marco Sassoli and Antoine A. Bouvier, How Does Law Protect In War; Volume 1; (Geneva: International
Committee of the Red Cross, 2006), p.143.
51
Articles 48 and 51, Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the
Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977.
52
Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, ICJ Advisory Opinion of 8 July 1996, ICJ Reports, 1996, ¶ 78
and 79.
53
Article 4, Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949.
54
Articles 4 and 5, Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Geneva, 12
August 1949.
55
Article 4, Ibid.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

 In the present matter, the persons abducted on 30 March 2020, who were killed, do not belong
to any category enumerated as combatants in Geneva Convention III. They were innocent
civilians from across the Stormsland and Nikkoni provinces who were returning to their
respective villages and towns after participating in a rally in support of the government and
condemning violence of the SRF.56 The presence of elderly men and women further confirms
their status as civilians.

3. The perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established that protected
status
The perpetrator, in hostile situations, need not make a value judgment as to the protected status
of civilians57. Furthermore, combatants or armed groups have the ability to plan and carry out
military operations for a prolonged period of time.58 In the present case, the persons who were
abducted by the armed men did not have the requisite capability to carry out planned combat
operations. They were innocent civilians from across the Stormsland and Nikkoni provinces
who were returning to their respective villages and towns after participating in a rally in support
of the government and condemning violence of the SRF.59 Also, the presence of elderly men
and women itself confirms their protected status. Hence, it can be concluded that the perpetrator
was aware of the factual circumstances that established that protected status of these Innocent
civilians.

4. The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international
armed conflict
a. An Armed Conflict is in Existence
An armed conflict exists when there is a resort to armed force between States or protracted
armed violence between governmental authorities and organized armed groups or between such

56
Moot Proposition, ¶ 10.
57
The Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, ICC-01/04-01/07, Pre-Trial Chamber I,
Decision on the Confirmation of Charges of 30 th September, 2008, ¶ 305.
58
The Prosecutor v.Thomas LubangaDyilo, ICC-01/04-01/06-803-tEN, Pre-Trial Chamber I, ¶ 234.
59
Moot Proposition, ¶ 10.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

groups within a State60.
In the present case, the Salazer Resistance Forum (SRF) is an armed political group which has
an organized structure with Mr. Castle as its leader and Mr. Tom Riddle as its spokesperson
who issue leaflets and statements at regular intervals.61 Their strategy is to pursue their agenda
of establishing the supremacy of the Lannister ethnicity and restoring Mr. Castle as the Prime
Minister by overthrowing the Ryan led Government of Andalasia through armed resistance
against the Government of Andalasia.62 In the month of November 2019, in the adjacent
provinces of Stormsland and Nikkoni, several incidents of armed attack suspected to have been
committed by the SRF took place targeting the government property. SRF also did not deny the
allegations. Violence against government property continued in the month of May 2020 as well.
Further, On 29 May 2020, Andalasian armed forces engaged in firing with nearly 100 weapon
wielding people in civilian clothes in the province of Stormsland, near the Pamilian border
resulting in the death of 2 soldiers and 14 armed men. The SRF reacted to this by asking the
participation of Lannister people in their funeral procession. Thus, the conflict in the present
case amounts to an armed conflict where there is existence of armed violence between
governmental authorities of Andalasia and an organized armed group SRF within the State of
Andalasia.
b. The Armed conflict is an International Armed Conflict

It is indisputable that an armed conflict is international if it takes place between two or more
States.63 A non-international armed conflict exists “whenever there is . . . protracted armed
violence between governmental authorities and organized armed groups or between such groups
within a State.”64Making the distinction between international and non-international armed
conflicts is particularly difficult in cases where there is foreign intervention in a non-
international armed conflict.65An internal conflict becomes international if another State

60
Prosecutor vs. DuskoTadic, IT-94-1-AR72, ICTY‟s Appeals Chamber Decision on the Defence Motion for
Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction of 2 October 1995, ¶ 70 [Hereinafter “Tadic Jurisdiction”]; ICTR, Prosecutor
v. Akayesu,. ICTR-96-4, Judgement, ¶ 620 (Sept. 2, 1998) [Hereinafter “Akayesu”]
61
Moot Proposition, ¶ 7, 8, 11, 13, 21.
62
Moot Proposition, ¶ 7, 11
63
Prosecutor vs. DuskoTadic, IT-94-1-A, ICTY‟s Appeals Chamber Judgment of 15 July 1999, ¶ 84 [Hereinafter
“Tadic Judgement”].
64
Tadic Jurisdiction, ¶ 70.
65
DapoAkande, “Classification of Armed Conflicts: Relevant Legal Concepts”, in Wilmshurst (ed.), International
Law and the Classification of Conflicts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), p. 35.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

intervenes in that conflict.66

A foreign military intervention into conflicts taking place in the territory of another State has an
internationalizing effect on the non-international armed conflict taking place in that State.67
Whether foreign intervention in a non-international armed conflict transforms that conflict into
an international armed conflict or not depends on which side of the conflict the foreign State
intervenes.68 Where the forces of a foreign State intervene on the side of the rebel or non-state
group fighting against a State, there will be two opposing States involved in a conflict and,
therefore, an international armed conflict will ensue. However, in situations where a foreign
State intervenes on the side of non-state groups not by way of introduction of its forces but
rather through support given to non-state groups so that it is the non-state group who actually
does the fighting against the territorial State, the question that arises in such situations is what
level of involvement by the State supporting the non-state group is sufficient to internationalize
the conflict.69

In the Tadić case70 the ICTY Appeals Chamber held that there is an international armed conflict
between the foreign State and the territorial State only where the non-state group is considered
to be a de facto organ of the foreign State, thus, making the acts of the non- state group
attributable to the State under the law of State responsibility. The Appeals Chamber held that
the relevant test of attribution with regard to the responsibility of a State for the acts of non-
state organized armed groups is a test of “overall control‟. The “overall control” test would be
satisfied
when the State (or, in the context of an armed conflict, the Party to the conflict) has a role
in organizing, coordinating or planning the military actions of a military group, in
addition to financing, training and equipping or providing operational support to the
group. Acts performed by the group or members thereof may be regarded as acts of de

66
Tadic Judgement, ¶ 84; The Prosecutor v. Thomas LubangaDyilo, ICC-01/04-01/06-803-tEN, Pre-Trial Chamber
I decision, ¶ 209.
67
Tom Farer (1971), “Humanitarian Law and Armed Conflicts: Toward the Definition of International Armed
Conflict”, Columbia Law Review, 71(1): 37-72.
68
DapoAkande, “Classification of Armed Conflicts: Relevant Legal Concepts”, in Wilmshurst (ed.), International
Law and the Classification of Conflicts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), p. 36.
69
C. Byron (2001), “Armed Conflicts: International or Non-International”, Journal of Conflict and Security Law, 6
(1): 63-90.
70
Tadić Trial Judgment.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

 facto State organs regardless of any specific instruction by the controlling State
concerning the commission of each of those acts.71

Moreover, if a foreign State has used force against another State, albeit indirectly by supporting
a non-state group, there is an international armed conflict between the two States. The case law
of the International Court of Justice in the Nicaragua case72 and customary international law
shows that a State is taken to have used force against another State even where it has not
intervened with its own troops or, even where it has not used forces that are de facto its own
(e.g. by organizing and sending forces) but also where it arms and trains non-state forces.73

In the present case, several facts point towards the interference of Shire into the affairs of
Andalasia and the overall control that Shire exercised over the SRF. Shire is a country where
people of the Lannister ethnicity constitute majority of the population and the Prime Minister of
Shire, Mr. Esposito also belongs to the Lannister ethnicity. It was also suspected that Mr. Castle
who had always maintained good relations with Mr. Esposito was hiding in Shire fearing arrest
in Andalasia.74

Also, the recovery of weapons manufactured in Atoria , from the 14 Andalasian citizens killed,
who had engaged in firing with the Andalasian armed forces and the fact that Shire buys its
military equipments and weapons for the use by Shire armed forces from Atoria itself shows
that Shire was indeed intervening in the conflict by aiding, abetting, training and arming the
SRF.75 Furthermore, 9 out of 26 armed men who were killed in the Naropa locality on 6 June
2020 by the Andalasian paramilitary and armed forces were found to be citizens of Shire as per
the information given by the Chief of Winterfell City Police on 5 July 202076 also strengthens
the fact of Shire’s intervention. Moreover, Westeros Human Rights Union (WHRU), came with
a fact finding report which suspected that the people abducted on 30 March 2020 must have
been taken across the border to Shire where the refugee camps were set up for Andalasian

71
Tadić Jurisdiction, ¶ 139. The overall control test has also been approved by the ICC in the Lubanga Case. See,
Prosecutor v. Lubanga, Pre-Trial Chamber Decision on Confirmation of Charges, ¶ 210, 211 and Prosecutor v.
Lubanga, Trial Judgement, ¶ 541.
72
Military and Para-military Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v United States of America),ICJ
Reports, 1986, ¶ 219 [Hereinafter “Nicaragua”].
73
DapoAkande, “Classification of Armed Conflicts: Relevant Legal Concepts”, in Wilmshurst (ed.), International
Law and the Classification of Conflicts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), p. 43.
74
Moot Proposition, ¶ 4.
75
Moot Proposition, ¶ 12.
76
Moot Proposition, ¶ 18, 19

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

 refugees and that those places had been used for mass burial. Also, the refutal of allegations and
refusal of the Interior Ministry of Shire to conduct any enquiry further proves the point that the
SRF was acting on the behest of Shire and it was under total control of Shire.

Thus, all the above facts clearly establish that the test of overall control has been satisfied
thereby proving that the level of intervention by Shire internationalized the conflict. Hence,
there was existence of an international armed conflict.

5. The perpetrator was aware of factual circumstances that established the existence of an
armed conflict.
As per Article 2(1) common to the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, any difference arising
between two States and leading to the intervention of members of the armed forces is an armed
conflict, even if one of the Parties does not recognize or denies the existence of a state of
war.77 The standard of requirement of mental element as to awareness of these factual
circumstances is lower than the standard required under Article 30 of the Statute of ICC 78.

In the present case, Mr. Castle had all the requisite knowledge of the existence of the armed
conflict. There are several facts which throw light on the fact that Mr. Castle is the supreme
leader of the SRF and hence, is aware of all the activities of the SRF. SRF is an armed political
group evidently under the leadership of Mr. Castle as their main aim is to restore Mr. Castle as
the Prime Minister of Andalasia. Further, in the leaflets distributed by SRF on 25 April 2020 it
was stated that the leader of SRF was working to gain support from other neighbouring
countries which corroborates Mr. Castle’s earlier statement where he had stated that
Lannister people from other countries had promised their support to him.79 Also, his statement
to the media on 28 July 2020 in regard to the incidents that took place in Winterfell in June
2020 stating that they were not the handiwork of the SRF shows that he indeed had the
knowledge of the activities of the SRF.80 Thus, Mr. Castle was aware of factual circumstances
that established the existence of an armed conflict.

77
J. Pictet, (ed.), ICRC Commentary on Convention (IV) Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of
War, 12 August 1949 (ICRC, 1958), p. 20.
78
Knut Dormann, Elements of War Crimes under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: Sources
and Commentary (London: Cambridge University Press, 2003), p.362.
79
Moot Proposition, ¶ 5, 11.
80
Moot Proposition, ¶ 21.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

 III. INDIVIDUAL CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY OF MR. RICHARD ALEXANDER
CASTLE
1. Individual Responsibility
Article 25(3) of the Rome Statute of the ICC promulgates individual responsibility for persons
who commit, give orders or induces to commit, or instigate the commission of the crimes in
question.81
Article 25(3)(a) of the Statute establishes individual criminal responsibility for persons who
commits the crimes in question whether as an individual, jointly with another or through
another person. In the present case, the acts were carried out by the SRF and since Mr. Castle is
the supreme leader of the SRF82, he is responsible for the activities of the SRF which makes
him individually liable for the crime83 under Article 25(3) (b) of the Rome Statute of the ICC.84

Under Article 25(3)(b) of the Statute, ordering requires that the person giving the order must
have the required mensrea85. In the present matter, the perpetrator had the requisite mensrea86
and his inducement to commit the crime is evident from the speech made by him to the media
on 1 August 2019 where he stated that he would strive for politically and economically
establishing Lannisters “through all possible means”.87
The mental element for instigation requires that the accused wished to “provoke or induce” the
commission of the crime or that he or she was aware of the “substantial likelihood” that the
crime would be committed as a result of his or her conduct.88 In the present matter, the speech
made by him to the media on 1 August 2019 where he stated that he would strive for politically

81
Akayesu, ¶ 483; Rutaganda, ¶ 39; Musema, ¶ 121.
82
That Mr. Castle is the supreme leader of SRF has been established in this memorial. See Section II(1)(a) of this
memorial.
83
Prosecutor v. Kordic and Cerkez, IT-95-14/2-A (Appeals Chamber), 17 December, 2004, ¶ 28; Prosecutor v.
Semanza, ICTR-97-20- T, Trial Chamber Judgement of 15 May, 2003, ¶ 361, [Hereinafter “Semanza”]
84
Article 25(3) (b), Rome Statute of the ICC.
85
Blaskic,¶ s 44, 42; Kordic and Cerkez, ¶ s50, 30.
86
That Mr. Castle had mensrea to destroy has been established in this memorial. See, Section I(3)(a) of this
Memorial.
87
Moot Proposition, ¶ 5.
88
Prosecutor v. TihomirBlaskic, IT-95-14-T, Trial Chamber,3March, 2000 51, 278; [Hereinafter Blaskic], Prosecutor
v. Brdjanin, IT-99-36-T, Trial Chamber, 1 September, 2004, 269, [Hereinafter “Brdjanin”]; Kordic, ¶ 50, 32.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

and economically establishing Lannisters “through all possible means”89 clearly portrays that he
was instigating the commission of the crimes.

2. Superior Responsibility
According to Article 28 of the Statute, liability can be imputed against civilian superiors90 in
command position.91 Mr. Castle is the supreme leader of the SRF92 and hence, there is a
superior- subordinate relationship between the two. To hold a person criminally responsible
under the doctrine of superior responsibility for an international crime, after proving the
existence of Superior- Subordinate relationship, the prosecution must prove three elements:
a. The crimes concerned activities that were within the effective responsibility
and control of the superior;

b. That the superior knew or had reason to know or consciously disregarded

information which clearly indicated that the crime was about to be or had been
committed; and

c. That the superior failed to take the necessary and reasonable measures to
prevent the criminal acts or punish the perpetrators thereof.93

Effective Responsibility and Control of the Superior

Superior may incur criminal responsibility for failure to take measures to repress the
commission of crimes by his subordinates,94 or individuals whom he or she exercises effective
control over.95 Effective control means that the superior had the material ability to prevent or
punish the commission of crime by subordinates.96In establishing the elements that allow for
the criminal actions of subordinates to be attributed to their leaders, moreover, the Chamber
held that three factors must apply: (i) the leader must control the organization that is used as an

89
Moot Proposition, ¶ 5.
90
Semanza, ¶ 401, (“A superior-subordinate relationship requires a formal or informal hierarchical relationship
where a superior is senior to a subordinate.”)
91
Article 28, Rome Statute of the ICC.
92
Mr. Castle is the supreme leader of SRF has been established in this memorial. See, Section II(1)(a) of this
Memorial.
93
Article 28(b) of the Rome Statute of the ICC; See, Blaškić,Appeal Chamber Judgment, ¶ 484; Prosecutor v.
Aleksovski, IT-95-14/1-A, Appeal Chamber Judgment, 24 March, 2000 (“AleksovskiAppeal Judgment”).
94
Article 28 (b) (iii), Rome Statute of the ICC.
95
Prosecutor v. Delalic, IT-96-21-T, 16 November, 1998, [Hereinafter “Delalic”].
96
Prosecutor v. Kunarac, IT-96-23/1-A, [Hereinafter “Kunarac”].

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

instrument of the crime; (ii) the organization must be based on hierarchical relations between
superiors and subordinates, while composed of a sufficient number of subordinates to
guarantee that the superiors‟ orders will be carried out, if not by one subordinate, then by
another;97 and (iii) authority within the organization must be such that the leader‟s orders will
be complied with automatically, in an almost mechanical manner, since the actual executioner
of the order is a replaceable “gear in a giant machine” or is otherwise so brutalized by intensive,
strict, and violent training regimens that the leader can ensure automatic compliance with his
orders.98
In the present matter, Mr. Castle is the supreme leader of the SRF99 and there is a superior-
subordinate relationship between the two. Thus, by virtue of his position, it is obvious that he
exercised effective control over the SRF and their activities.
The Superior either Knew or had reasons to know

The superior can be criminally responsible if he either knew, or consciously disregarded

information indicating100 that the subordinates were committing or about to commit such
crimes.101 As he is the leader of SRF102, by virtue of his position, Mr. Castle ought to know
about the atrocities caused by his men, which outweighs the assumption of lack of
communication103 if alleged and it leads to a presumption of knowledge.104Further, the
interview given by Mr. Castle where he emphasized that the incidents of June 2020 were not the
handiwork of the SRF but reflection of desperation and popular sentiment of the Lannister
people105 clearly indicates that he knows or has reason to know about the activities of the SRF.
Failure to Take Necessary Steps
The superior can be criminally responsible if he failed to take all necessary and reasonable

97
Katanga &Ngudjolo, ICC-01/04-01/07-717, ¶ 513, 514.
98
Ibid, ¶ 518.
99
Mr. Castle is the supreme leader of SRF has been established in this memorial. See, Section II(1)(a) of this
memorial.
100
Blaskic, ¶ 336; Kayishema, ¶ 92.
101
Article 28(b)(i) of Rome Statute of the ICC.
102
Mr. Castle is the supreme leader of SRF has been established in this memorial. See, Section II(1)(a) of this
Memorial.
103
United States v.Von Leeb, [(Nuremberg 1948) - Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, The United Nations
War Crimes Commission, Volume XII, London, HMSO, 1949].
104
Prosecutor v. Delalic, IT-96-21-T, Trial Chamber, 16 November, 1998, ¶ 385.
105
Moot Proposition, ¶ 21.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

measures106 to prevent or repress the commission of the offence107 or to submit the matter to the
competent authorities for investigation.108 The absolute inaction on the part of Mr. Castle makes
him criminally responsible for wilful killing.

106
Prosecutor v. Imanishimwe&Ntagerura, ICTR-99-46-T, ICTR Trial Chamber III, (1 December, 2000), ¶ 630;
Semanza, ¶ 406.
107
Prosecutor v. Jean de DieuKamuhanda, ICTR-96-4-T, Trial Chamber, 2 September, 1998, ¶ 606; Claude
Pilloudet al., Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August
1949 (Geneva: Nijhoff, 1987), p.1036
108
Article 28(b), Rome Statute of the ICC.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

 PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of the facts stated, issues raised, authorities cited and arguments
advanced, it is most humbly prayed before this Honorable Court that it may be pleased to
declare:
a. That Mr. Castle is liable for the crime of genocide of killing members of the group
for the acts of killing of people in and around the Stormsland province from 05
June 2020 till the end of June 2020, under Article 6(a) of the Rome Statute of the
International Criminal Court.
b. That Mr. Castle is liable for the war crime of willful killing of civilians who were
abducted on 30 March 2020 in the province of Stormsland under Article 8(2)(a)(i)
of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
And pass any other order that it deems fit. All of which is respectfully submitted.

Date: 15th November, 2021 S/d 1. ……………

Place: The Hague, Netherlands 2. ……………

(Counsels for the Prosecution)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION