I.

That the charged offences can be prosecuted as “other inhumane acts’’ under Article 7(i)
(k) of the Statute and the Prosecution has met its duty to establish with sufficient
evidence that there were substantial grounds to believe that the Defendant Dragone
Goodrider ordered the commission of such a crime under Article 25(3)(b) of the Statute:

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the defendant’s charge is fit to be
prosecuted for “other inhumane acts” under article 7(i) (K) of the statute and the
prosecution believes that it has met its duty to establish sufficient grounds and evidences
to show that the defendant ordered the commission of such crime under Article 25(3) (b)
under following grounds: 1.1. The defendant is responsible under Article 25(3)(b) for his
conduct in question. 1.2. The defendant had absolute control over conduct in question.
1.3. The elements required for Article 7(i)(k) are present.

1.1. The defendant is responsible under Article 25(3) (b) for his conduct in question –
That it is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that , a person shall be
criminally responsible and liable for punishment for a crime within the jurisdiction of
the Court if that person he/she Orders, solicits or induces the commission of such a
crime which in fact occurs or is attempted1; It is relevant to quote that “soliciting a
crime means, inter alia, to command, encourage, request or incite another person to
engage in specific conduct to commit it2, while to "induce" means to enticement of
another person to commit a crime.3 Inducing is a broad enough term to cover any
conduct which leads another person to commit a crime, including solicitation.

1.1.1. That the defendant induced and ordered the commission of

1
Article 25(3) (b)
2
Black (ed.), Black Law Dictionary (1999), 1398
3
Black (ed.), Black Law Dictionary (1999), 779
 that .The person giving the order uses his or her authority to cause
another person to commit a crime. 4 The event of ordering can be
clearly inferred from the minutes of the meeting where the
defendant clearly said to bury the spread of pandemic and also that
he doesn’t care about Essos. The conduct of the defendant comes
well within the ambit of ordering requires that the person giving
the order intended for the crime to be committed or that he or she
at least was aware of the ‘substantial likelihood’ that the
commission of the crime shall result from his or her conduct 5.
Article 25(3)(b) have in common that a person who does not
commit the crime himself or herself causes another person’s
decision to do so by exercising influence on this person through
ordering, inducing or soliciting.6
The prosecution thus believes that the defendant’s actions and
intentions of inducing and ordering the manhandling of the
pandemic and willful negligence towards the civilian population of
Eassos and Wessos resulted in mass spread of the pandemic and
subsequently led to more than 25,000 deaths alone in Eassos as
mentioned in the WHO report, and thus should be charged under
Article 25 (3) (b) of the ICC Rome Statute.

1.2. The defendant had absolute control over the conduct in question:
That it is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that, the defendant willfully
ordered the commission of crime and he had full control over it. It is well
established by the ICTR in the Akayesu judgment that “ordering implies a
superior-subordinate relationship” whereby a person the person in a position of
authority uses it to convince another to commit an offence. 7It is also relevant to
mention that, it requires a “position of authority” to instruct for the commission of

4
Kordic¤ and C›erkez Appeals Judgment, supra note 50, x28; Semanza Appeals Judgment, supra note 10, x361.
5
Blas›kic¤ Appeals Judgment, supra note 44, x42; Kordic¤ and C›erkez Appeals Judgment, supra note 50, x30
6
Individual Criminal Responsibility in Article 25 in ICC Statute by Gerhard Werle
7
Prosecutor vs. Akayesu
 crime and the defendant is vested with the authority to take such decisions 8 and
order his other ministers. The minutes of the meeting whose authenticity has been
allegedly challenged by the defendant indicates that he clearly instructed his
ministers not to spread the news of the pandemic and ordered to handle it secretly
in the name of “common flu”. It is relevant to mention that as per the email dated
01.03.2020 the defendant was informed by the institute that the same disease
H5N8 Avian Influenza had caused the death of two scientists and had infected the
other lab members and the former’s families. Therefore, the defendant keeps a full
control over the conduct in question which led to the death of number of civilians
in the territory of Eassos.
1.3. The elements required for Article 7(i) (k) are present:
It is humbly submitted that "crime against humanity" means any of the following
acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against
any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack and Other inhumane acts of
a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body
or to mental or physical health.9The acts must be widespread or systematic 10
directed towards the civil population11. The trial chamber in the case of Tadic has
stated that the act must cause injury to a human being in terms of physical or
mental integrity, health or human dignity.
The defendant’s conduct directly had an impact on the civilian
population of Essos and he willfully allowed to let it happen12
The International Law Commission’s 1991 draft code also made
‘systematic or mass violations’ as mandatory part of crime against
humanity and thus it becomes a crime that can be carried by the
leadership only. 13
The pattern of crime in the sense of non-accidental repetition of
similar criminal conduct on regular basis amounts to a systematic

8
Moot Proposition paragraph 2
9
Article 7 (i) (k)
10
Otto Triffteror, Kai Ambos- The Rome Statute of the ICC also, mn 18-22
11
Ibid.
12
Moot proposition, Minutes of the meeting
13
1991 ILC Draft Code, Article 21, Part 2
 transaction.14It is relevant to mention that the defendant ignored all
the warning from the institute and his ministers and ordered to
bury the hatchet. He voluntarily gave instructions of not informing
about the outbreak to the Republic of Essos and the rest of the
world.
It has been held that if enough individuals were targeted in the
course of an attack, it would amount to an attack directed against
any civilian population,15 and the same has been contended in the
case of Katanga’s case.16 It is relevant to mention that, this
outbreak cost more than 250,000 lives17 in the Republic of Essos
with a population of just 7 million 18 bringing the mortality rate to
34.5%. The phrase “other inhumane acts” includes acts which
severely damage physical or mental integrity, health or human
dignity, such as mutilation and severe bodily harm. 19 The
defendant’s act in the present case resulted in severe bodily harm
resulting in the death of nearly 2,50,000 populations of Essos and
infecting a large part of the population. Therefore, the conduct in
question meets with all the essential elements given under Article
7(i)(k) of the Rome Statute.

14
ICTY: Kordic (Appeal Chamber Judgement)
15
ICTY Appeal Chamber: Prosecutor vs. kunarac
16
Prosecutor vs. Katanga
17
Appendix B, WHO Report, paragraph 3
18
Moot proposition paragraph 3
19
1996, ILC Draft Code, Article 18(k)