THE TRIAL CHAMBER

SITUATION IN SAROZULA SUBCONTINENT

IN THE CASE OF THE PROSECUTOR v. Z. KARMONIC

1
 ISSUES

I. WHETHER MR. Z. KARMONIC IS GUILTY OF THE CRIME OF

GENOCIDE UNDER ARTICLE 6 (a) OF THE ICC STATUTE FOR
ALLEGEDLY CAUSING THE KILLING OF FOLLOWERS OF ROKUM
RELIGION ON NIGHT OF 25MAY 2021.

II. WHETHER MR. Z. KARMONIC IS GUILTY OF COMMITING WAR

CRIME UNDER ARTICLE 8(2)(b)(ii) FOR INTENTIONALLY
DIRECTING ATTACK AGAINST NUCLEAR ENERGY PLANTS OF
ROKUMBA.

III. WHETHER MR. Z. KARMONIC IS GUILTY OF COMMITING WAR

CRIMES UNDER ARTICLE 8(2)(b)(iv) FOR INTENTIONALLY
LAUNCHING AN ATTACK AGAINST THE NUCLEAR ENERGY
PLANTS OF ROKUMBA, WITH THE KNOWLEDGE AND INTENTION
OF CAUSING INCIDENTAL LOSS OF LIFE AND INJURY TO
CIVILIANS AND WIDESPREAD, LONG-TERM AND SEVERE DAMAGE
TO THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT THAT IS EXCESSIVE TO THE
CONCRETE AND DIRECT MILITARY ADVANTAGE ANTICIPATED.

2
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. WHETHER MR. Z. KARMONIC IS GUILTY OF THE CRIME OF

GENOCIDE UNDER ARTICLE 6 (a) OF THE ICC STATUTE FOR
ALLEGEDLY CAUSING THE KILLING OF FOLLOWERS OF ROKUM
RELIGION ON NIGHT OF 25MAY 2021.

The Defence contends that the genocide charge against Mr. Z. Karmonic is
unfounded in both law and fact, emphasizing the absence of credible evidence
linking him to the killings of Rokum individuals on 25 May 2021. The charge's
reliance on Mr. Karmonic’s alleged role in managing a Facebook page fails to
establish his participation in or intent to commit genocide. While acknowledging
the victims' religious identity, the Defence argues there is no proof of specific
intent to destroy the Rokum group, as required under international jurisprudence
such as Krstić and Akayesu. A single provocative post made during national unrest
does not demonstrate a pattern of conduct or genocidal purpose. Therefore, the
Defence asserts that the high threshold for proving genocidal intent has not been
met and urges the dismissal of the charge.

II. WHETHER MR. Z. KARMONIC IS GUILTY OF COMMITING WAR

CRIME UNDER ARTICLE 8(2)(b)(ii) FOR INTENTIONALLY
DIRECTING ATTACK AGAINST NUCLEAR ENERGY PLANTS OF
ROKUMBA.

The Defence challenges the charge against Mr. Karmonic, arguing that the
attribution in cyber operations is inherently complex, and the evidence, primarily
circumstantial and lacking forensic clarity, fails to directly link Mr. Karmonic to
the attack. The Defence questions the civilian status of the targeted nuclear
facilities due to their dual-use nature and asserts that Mr. Karmonic neither had
operational control nor knowledge of strategic targeting. While the context and
awareness of an armed conflict are admitted, legal standards from international
jurisprudence; therefore, the Defence argues that the case against Mr. Karmonic
should be dismissed due to insufficient evidence.

3
III. WHETHER MR. Z. KARMONIC IS GUILTY OF COMMITING WAR
CRIMES UNDER ARTICLE 8(2)(b)(iv) FOR INTENTIONALLY
LAUNCHING AN ATTACK AGAINST THE NUCLEAR ENERGY
PLANTS OF ROKUMBA, WITH THE KNOWLEDGE AND INTENTION
OF CAUSING INCIDENTAL LOSS OF LIFE AND INJURY TO
CIVILIANS AND WIDESPREAD, LONG-TERM AND SEVERE DAMAGE
TO THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT THAT IS EXCESSIVE TO THE
CONCRETE AND DIRECT MILITARY ADVANTAGE ANTICIPATED.

The Defence argues that Mr. Karmonic should not be held criminally liable for the
cyber incident, emphasizing a lack of intent and foresight regarding the grave
consequences. They contest his involvement in launching the attack, citing
insufficient evidence for attribution, and assert that any harm must be assessed
against the backdrop of ongoing military conflict, potentially justifying the
strategic objectives. Furthermore, the defence argues that Mr. Karmonic lacked
the knowledge necessary to foresee the excessive collateral damage, such as
radiation leaks.

4
 WRITTEN ARGUMENTS

I. WHETHER MR. Z. KARMONIC IS GUILTY OF THE CRIME OF

GENOCIDE UNDER ARTICLE 6 (a) OF THE ICC STATUTE FOR
ALLEGEDLY CAUSING THE KILLING OF FOLLOWERS OF ROKUM
RELIGION ON NIGHT OF 25MAY 2021.

A. The perpetrator killed one or more persons.

Your Excellences, The Defence respectfully submits that the genocide charge
brought against Mr. Z. Karmonic lacks a foundation in both law and fact. There is
an absence of compelling evidence, either direct or circumstantial, that ties the
accused to the killings of Rokum individuals on 25 May 2021. These deaths
occurred amid widespread unrest and turmoil, and the link between Mr. Karmonic
and these events does not meet the legal standard required to establish genocidal
intent or causation. A one-night incident without evidence of planning or pattern
does not demonstrate genocidal intent. There was no sustained or coordinated
conduct on the part of Mr. Z. Karmonic shown.
The defence affirms about the Facebook account created by Mr. Z. Karmonic as
seen in paragraph 24.1 The act of posting does not clearly show whether he had
intention of committing a crime. It was a political motivation and expression
about unification of the religious groups. There is inconsistency in the post seen in
paragraph 35, “should Rokums be taught in their own ways all over Sarozula
immediately”.

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

or religious group.

C. The perpetrator intended to destroy, in whole or in part, that national,

ethnical, racial or religious group, as such.

1
Paragraph 24.

5
 Your Excellences, Genocidal intent, or dolus specialis, must be proven beyond
reasonable doubt. As highlighted in Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstić, Case No. IT-
98-33-T2, this element requires a specific and purposeful intent to destroy a group.
The post cited by the prosecution, "Should Rokums be taught in their own
ways…" may be provocative, but it lacks the precision and severity required to
constitute genocidal intent. At most, it represents politically charged rhetoric in a
volatile moment.

D. 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
such destruction.

II. WHETHER MR. Z. KARMONIC IS GUILTY OF COMMITING WAR

CRIME UNDER ARTICLE 8(2)(b)(ii) FOR INTENTIONALLY
DIRECTING ATTACK AGAINST NUCLEAR ENERGY PLANTS OF
ROKUMBA.

A. The perpetrator directed an attack.

Your Excellences, directing an attack in this context means to instruct as a

superior and aim at something. Article 28 of the Rome Statute 3 provides
responsibility of commanders and other superiors. The military commanders in
the context were the superiors of the Sohulwa government. They instructed Mr. Z.
Karmonic who is professional in computer engineering to respond to the
Rokumba’s cyber-attacks as seen in paragraph 38. Herein, he was under legal
obligation to follow orders from them as he was appointed as the head of cyber
cell in the Sohulwa’s armed forces. This is supported by Article 33(1) stating
superior orders and prescription of law that, the fact that a crime within the
jurisdiction of the Court has been committed by a person pursuant to an order of a
Government or of a superior, whether military or civilian, shall not relieve that
person of criminal responsibility unless: the person was under a legal obligation to
2
Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstić, Case No. IT-98-33-T, This case was the first conviction for genocide by the
ICTY. The Trial Chamber found Krstić guilty of aiding and abetting genocide, and the Appeals Chamber
adjusted the conviction accordingly.
3
The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

6
 obey orders of the Government or the superior in question; the person did not
know that the order was unlawful; and the order was not manifestly unlawful.
Therefore, the Sohulwa government as seen in paragraph 38 appointed Mr. Z.
Karmonic and made him the head of cyber cell in Sohulwa armed forces, hence
unwillingly executed the cyber-attack in both nuclear energy plants of Rokumba.

B. The object of the attack was civilian objects, that is, objects which are not
military objectives.

Your Excellences, Article 8(2)(b)(ii) of the Rome Statute4 criminalizes:

intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects, that, objects which are not
military objectives. A nuclear energy plant is generally considered a civilian
object, but this status can change based on the military use.
Article 52(2) of Additional Protocol I5 provides that objects can be military
objectives if they make an effective contribution to military action and their
destruction offers a definite military advantage. Paragraph 39 clearly shows that
on 15 July, 2021, armed forces of Rokumba crossed river R2 where the nuclear
energy plants were established. The defence herein contend that the act of
Rokumba armed forces to pass river R2 changed the status of the energy plants to
be of military action as the had temporary domicile in that place. It was by
Sohulwa armed forces believe that the plant was a succession to Rokumba’s
armed forces path.

C. The perpetrator intended such civilian objects to be the object of the

attack.

Your Excellences, Article 31(1) of the Rome Statute6 clearly underlines that a
person shall not be criminally responsible if, at the time of that person’s conduct,
it was caused by duress resulting from a threat of imminent death or of continuing
or imminent serious bodily harm against that person or another person, and the
person acts necessarily and reasonably to avoid this threat, provided that the

4
Ibid.
5
ICRC Customary Law.
6
The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

7
 person does not intend to cause a greater harm than the one sought to be avoided.
Such a threat may either be: made by other persons; or Constituted by other
circumstances beyond that person’s control. The defence submits that Mr. Z.
Karmonic obeyed orders of responding to the cyber activities of Rokumba (as
seen in paragraph 38)7 because he was facing threat of causing imminent bodily
harm from the Sohulwa’s government detention forces; at that moment, he had no
knowledge that the object was civilian, thus had no intention to execute an attack
against it as directed by the Sohulwa government.

D. The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an
international armed conflict.

Your Excellences, the defence admits that it was indeed an international armed

conflict as explained in the case of Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu

Ngudjolo Chui (ICC-01/04-01/07),8 the chamber particularly referred to

Common Article 2 of the Geneva Conventions and stated:

“An international armed conflict exists whenever there is resort to armed force
between States, it can also arise in cases of occupation, even if such occupation
meets no armed resistance.”
The conduct of sudden blasts in both nuclear energy plants of Rokumba as seen in
paragraph 39 was a response attack directed by the Sohulwa’s government whilst
ordering Mr. Z. Karmonic to execute it but not that he wished for the attack to
happen.
The Defence emphasizes that Mr. Karmonic’s position, assuming it was
operational at all, did not entail control over strategic targeting decisions. There is
no indication he chose or even knew the targets.

E. The perpetrator was aware of factual circumstances that established the

existence of an armed conflict.

7
Paragraph 38.
8
(ICC-01/04-01/07).
8
 Your Excellences, Article 32(2) of the Rome Statute9 provides for mistake of law,
that, a mistake of law as to whether a particular type of conduct is a crime within
the jurisdiction of the Court shall not be a ground for excluding criminal
responsibility. A mistake of law may, however, be a ground for excluding criminal
responsibility if it negates the mental element required by such a crime. Mr. Z.
Karmonic while under duress as provided under Article 31(1)(d) of the Rome
Statute,10 was awareness that attacking such a facility in those circumstances
would constitute an armed conflict, but it was not his will to do the act.

III. WHETHER MR. Z. KARMONIC IS GUILTY OF COMMITING WAR

CRIMES UNDER ARTICLE 8(2)(b)(iv) FOR INTENTIONALLY
LAUNCHING AN ATTACK AGAINST THE NUCLEAR ENERGY
PLANTS OF ROKUMBA, WITH THE KNOWLEDGE AND INTENTION
OF CAUSING INCIDENTAL LOSS OF LIFE AND INJURY TO
CIVILIANS AND WIDESPREAD, LONG-TERM AND SEVERE DAMAGE
TO THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT THAT IS EXCESSIVE TO THE
CONCRETE AND DIRECT MILITARY ADVANTAGE ANTICIPATED.

A. The perpetrator launched an attack.

Your Excellences, launching an attack means to start on a mission or project;

putting it into operation. The defence disputes that Mr. Z. Karmonic started the
mission or started the operation of blasting the two nuclear energy plants of
Rokumba as referred in paragraph 39. The Defence rejects the allegation that Mr.
Karmonic orchestrated a cyberattack on civilian nuclear infrastructure. Attribution
in cyber operations is a notoriously complex process. Sohulwa’s government
began the operation of responding to cyber-attack that disrupted the military
capabilities of the Sohulwan army as seen in paragraph 37.
Article 33(1) of Rome Statute11 provides for relieve from criminal responsibility
of a person under superior orders and prescription of law. After being pardoned by
the Sohulwan government, he was made the head of the cyber cell of the

9
The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
10
Ibid.
11
The Rome Statute of International Criminal Court.

9
 Sohulwa’s armed forces and tasked to respond to Rokumba’s cyber activities. 12
Mr. Z. Karmonic was under legal obligation of executing the plan of an attack put
into mission by the Sohulwan government. He was under legal obligation to obey
orders of the Sohulwan government due to his acquired profession in computer
engineering as seen in paragraph 24.
Article 31(1) of the Rome Statute13 clearly underlines that a person shall not be
criminally responsible if, at the time of that person’s conduct, it was caused by
duress resulting from a threat of imminent death or of continuing or imminent
serious bodily harm against that person or another person, and the person acts
necessarily and reasonably to avoid this threat, provided that the person does not
intend to cause a greater harm than the one sought to be avoided. Such a threat
may either be: made by other persons; or Constituted by other circumstances
beyond that person’s control. The defence submits that Mr. Z. Karmonic obeyed
orders of responding to the cyber activities of Rokumba because he was facing
threat of causing imminent bodily harm from the Sohulwa’s government detention
forces; and in abiding to the command, he meant to avoid the threat. This is
observed in the way that he was initially arrested by Sohulwa government as in
paragraph 2514, then reported missing from custody as in paragraph 29. 15 The
defence holds that the Sohulwa government still searched for him and detain him
immediately. as they alleged him for his propaganda.
Henceforth. The defence contends to the court that Mr. Z. Karmonic involuntarily
accepted the appointment of being the head of the cyber cell of Sohulwa’s armed
forces and was under legal obligation to respond to the Rokumba’s cyber-attack.

B. The attack was such that it would cause incidental death or injury to
civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and
severe damage to the natural environment and that such death, injury or
damage would be of such an extent as to be clearly excessive in relation to
the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated.

12
See paragraph 38.
13
The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
14
Paragraph 25.
15
Paragraph 29.

10
 Your Excellences, Article 32(1) of the Rome Statute16 provides for the mistake of
fact that, a mistake of fact shall be a ground for excluding criminal responsibility
only if it negates the mental element required by the crime. The defence herein
affirms that there were effects of the attack as seen in paragraph 39 17 but instills
that it was the attack was a direct order from the Sohulwa government and not Mr.
Z. Karmonic.
The defence proceed to dispute that there is no evidential link of the ten super
computers in an underground room in a village near Sohulwa’s capital. 18 This is in
the solid reason that Mr. Z. Karmonic is not seen in the area and no forensic
evidence to justify the assumptions stated by the technical committee.

C. The perpetrator knew that the attack would cause incidental death or
injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term
and severe damage to the natural environment and that such death,
injury or damage would be of such an extent as to be clearly excessive in
relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated.

Your Excellences, The defence herein affirms that there were effects of the attack
as seen in paragraph 3919 but instills that Mr. Z. Karmonic, who was under legal
obligations, genuinely believed that the target of both nuclear energy plants of
Rokumba was lawful in respect to crossing of armed forces of Rokumba in river
R2 – that he expected not to cause excessive damage. There is no indication Mr.
Karmonic could foresee the scale of collateral damage, including radiation leaks
and environmental harm. While the consequences of the cyber incident were
undoubtedly grave, the Defence maintains that Mr. Karmonic neither foresaw nor
intended these results.

D. The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an
international armed conflict.

16
The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
17
Paragraph 39.
18
As seen in paragraph 43.
19
Paragraph 39.

11
 Your Excellences, according to Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu

Ngudjolo Chui (ICC-01/04-01/07),20 in its decision on the Confirmation of

charges on 30 September 2008, the chamber particularly referred to Common

Article 2 of the Geneva Conventions and stated:

“An international armed conflict exists whenever there is resort to armed force
between States, it can also arise in cases of occupation, even if such occupation
meets no armed resistance.”
The ruling emphasized that the classification depends not on the intensity of the
conflict, but on the status of the parties involved. The defence accepts that the
conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international
armed conflict because there was a conflict between Sohulwa and Rokumba. The
war was associated between the government of both nations. The officials
commanded their subordinates in the armed forces to retaliate in whatever ways
possible.

E. The perpetrator was aware of factual circumstances that established the

existence of an armed conflict.

Your Excellences, Article 32(2) of the Rome Statute21 provides for mistake of law,
that a mistake of law as to whether a particular type of conduct is a crime within
the jurisdiction of the Court shall not be a ground for excluding criminal
responsibility. A mistake of law may, however, be a ground for excluding criminal
responsibility if it negates the mental element required by such a crime. Mr. Z.
Karmonic as he responded to the command in order to avoid threat from the
Sohulwa’s government, lacked critical reason that attacking the two nuclear
energy plants would constitute a war crime. Cases such as Prosecutor v. Pavle
Strugar, Case No. IT-01-42-T22 and Prosecutor v. Jadranko Prlić et al., Case

20
(ICC-01/04-01/07).
21
The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
22
General Pavle Strugar was convicted for attacks on civilians and destruction or willful damage to institutions
dedicated to religion, charity, education, the arts, and historic monuments during the shelling of Dubrovnik in
1991.

12
 No. IT-04-74-T23 underscore that liability hinges on proven knowledge and intent,
especially regarding excessive harm.

 Victims Belonged to a Religious Group: While it is accepted that the victims were
of the Rokum faith, there is no proof that the accused intended to target them based on
their religious identity.
 Intent to Destroy the Group:

I.3 Jurisprudence
In Akayesu, the ICTR clarified that not every instance of inflammatory speech amounts to
genocide. Likewise, Al-Bashir reinforces the high bar for proving genocidal intent,
particularly in political contexts.

I.4 Conclusion
The evidence does not meet the high burden of proof required to support a genocide charge.
The Defence requests that this charge be dismissed in its entirety.

PRAYER
The Defence respectfully asks this Honourable Court to:
1. Dismiss all charges against Mr. Z. Karmonic due to a lack of credible and conclusive
evidence;
23
This case involved six high-ranking Bosnian Croat leaders, including Jadranko Prlić, who were convicted of
crimes including murder, persecution, unlawful deportation and transfer, destruction of property, and other
inhumane acts committed during the armed conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

13
 2. Order his immediate release under Article 60(2) of the Rome Statute;
3. Uphold all due process guarantees throughout the remainder of these proceedings.
Respectfully submitted,
Counsel for the Defence

14