Count 1

With respect to the use of Project Hawk targeting software in RAF armoured vehicles
resulting in the killing of 140 and wounding of 50 civilians gathered at Mooseville Plaza in
Mooseville on 21 December 2022:

On the basis of individual criminal responsibility for aiding and abetting or otherwise assisting
the commission of the crime, pursuant to Article 25(3)(c) Rome Statute

The war crime of intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or
against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities in Article 8(2)(e)(i) of the Rome
Statute:

According to article 8(2)(e) of Rome statute, “war crimes” means serious violations of the laws and
customs applicable in armed conflicts not of an international character. 1 One of the mentioned war
crime falls under article 8(2)(e)(i) which is intentional attack on the civilian population and can
be committed by providing means to facilitate the commission of the crime. 2 Article 8(2)(e)(i) is
a reflection of the principle of distinction in attack in a non-international armed conflict. Whilst
the principle is enshrined in Article 13(2) of Protocol (II) Additional to the Geneva Conventions
of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non International Armed
Conflicts. It is also of customary nature 3 as Rule 1, 2, 11 of Customary international
Humanitarian law prohibits to attack on civilians indiscriminately for the purpose of spreading
terror as “Acts of terrorism” are specified as war crimes. 4 Galić Appeal Judgement held that the
acts or threats of violence constituting terror need not be limited to direct attacks on civilians or
threats thereof, but may include indiscriminate or disproportionate attacks. 5 In instance case
the indiscriminate attack has been occurred which qualifies to be act to spread terror among
civilian population. TachAnon in the case at hand had committed said war crime and violated
Customary IHL by providing the software indiscriminate in nature. In order to find, whether the
crime is committed, article 21 of ICC statute stipulates that the court at first place will apply the
elements of crime. Prosecution submits fulfillment of following Elements of the crimes based
on substantial grounds.

1. The perpetrator directed an attack.

Establishment of an attack

1
Article 8 of Rome statute
2
Article 25 of Rome Statute accessorial liability , principal liability 25 3 c arguments
3
Jean-Marie Henckaerts and Louise Doswald-Beck, Customary International Humanitarian Law, vol. 1, International
Committee of the Red Cross, 2009, Rule 1 (https://www.legaltools.org/doc/78a250/); ICTY, Prosecutor v. Galić,
Appeals Chamber, Judgement, 30 November 2006, IT-98-29-A, para. 87 (‘Galić, 30 November 2006’)
4
International humanitarian law database by ICRC rule 2
5
Prosecutor v. Galić Appeal Judgement, (ICTY), 30 November 2006. para. 102.
ICC has interpreted the term “attack” referred to in this Elements of Crimes in light of article
13(2) of Protocol II. Attack is now understood not only under the meaning of an act but the
consequences of such an act as in Ntaganda judgment the International Criminal Court has
spelled out that in order to characterise a certain conduct as an attack it is important to look at
the intended and foreseeable consequences. the Chamber is of the view that the definition of
“attack” does not exhaustively list which underlying acts of violence can be considered for the
purpose of the war crime of attacking civilians under article 8(2)(e)(i) of the Statute. In
characterizing a certain conduct as an “attack”, what matters is the consequences of the act,
and particularly whether injury, death, damage or destruction are foreseeable consequences
thereof.6 In instant case the killing of 140 persons, injury of 50 civilians proves that the attack
had been occurred which resulted in such causalities.

Threshold of “directed by the perpetrator”:

the perpetrator need not be personally present during the commission of the offence. 7 The
accessory may provide assistance to the principal perpetrator or intermediary perpetrator. 8 As
current charge is under article 8(2)(e)(i) within the meaning 25(3)(c) of Rome statute. It does
not require the direct perpetration but an accessorial. 9 This requires the causal link to prove
that the attack was directed by perpetrator. In Abu Garda judgment, it was held that there
must be a causal link between the perpetrator’s conduct and the consequence of the attack and
in Ntanga judgment the ICC has manifested in clear words that “the use of weapons that have
inherently indiscriminate effects in an area where civilians are present may constitute an attack
directed at the civilian population or individual civilians. 10 Relying on these judgments,
prosecution submits that the conduct of TechAnon providing the software (Project Hawk) is the
only reason of civilian causalities occurred on the day of Rally and that had foreseeable results
that it can cause causalities when malfunction. As the facts suggest that the software had
analyzed the target wrongly and they automatically opened fire, killing 140 people and
wounding 50 more. The causal link between the perpetrator’s conduct and the consequence of
the attack can be elaborated as if Techanon would not provide such software for vehicles, the
causalities would not occur.(With that the first element proved.)

2. The object of the attack was a civilian population as such or individual civilians not
taking direct part in hostilities.

6
Prosecutor v. Ntaganda International criminal court Trial Chamber II 9 June 2014, para. 46).
7
ICTR prosecutor v. Akayesu Trial Judgment, para. 484 ICTY, Mrkšić and Šljivančanin Appeals Judgment, para.
81;
8
SCSL, prosecutor v, Sesay et al. Trial Judgment, para. 278.
9
Commentary to rome statute , Article 25 (3)(c)
10
Prosecutor v. Ntaganda International criminal court Trial Chamber II 9 June 2014 judgment of 2008 para 921
ICC in Bemba stated “the requirement that the attack be directed against the civilian
population however means that the civilian population must be the primary, as opposed to an
incidental, object of the attack.11 According to Martić Trial Judgment, Incidental loss is a result
of the Primary legitimate attack and a direct attack on civilians may be inferred from the
indiscriminate character of the weapon used. 12 In instant case the casualities were not result of
the attack on Rebillion member but a saperate attack so it can not be considered as an
incidental loss. The civilian population was the primary object of attack as the attack was
directly done on civilian without making any discrimination. Further they were not doing DPH
because in accordance with the Prosecutor v. Bagosora, Trial chamber clarified that “There is
evidence that the refugees at Nyundo Parish used traditional weapons to defend themselves
against the attacks by militiamen. The Chamber is not satisfied that the use of rudimentary
defensive weapons changes the status of the victims and the fact that one of the Belgians was
able to obtain a weapon and use it for self-defence during the course of the attack does not
alter their status. Therefore, the Chamber finds beyond reasonable doubt that the victims of the
alleged violations of the Statute were not taking active part in the hostilities. 13 Similarly in this
case the civilians cannot be considered as civilians taking direct part in hostilities only for the
reason that they had iron balls and stones in their hands. ICTY in Kordić and Čerkez Appeal
Judgment further elaborated that the presence within a civilian population of some members
of an armed force or civilians directly participating in hostilities does not deprive it of its civilian
character.14 So the presence of Rebellion members does not deprive other civilian’s character.
(With that second element is proved.)

3. The perpetrator intended the civilian population as such or individual civilians not
taking direct part in hostilities to be the object of the attack.

Knowledge

The crime must be committed with intention and knowledge, as indicated in Article 30 ICC
Statute.15 In the Lubanga Dyilo case. Pre-Trial Chamber I of the ICC stated that the volitional
element appearing in Article 30 ICC Statute includes also: situations in which the suspect (a) is
aware of the risk that the objective elements of the crime may result from his or her actions or
omissions, and (b) accepts such an outcome by reconciling himself or herself with it or
consenting to it.16 In the present case similar circumstantial facts shows that TechAnon was

11
Prosecutor v. Bemba Trial Judgment, 18 September 2009 para. 154
12
ICTY, Martić Trial Judgment 12 June 2007, para. 471.
13
ICTR, Prosecutor v. Bagosora et al., Trial Chamber I, Judgement and Sentence, 18 December 2008, ICTR-98-41-T,
paras. 2238–2239
14
See Article 50(3) of Additional Protocol I, which the Chamber considers to be equally applicable to situations of
non-international armed conflict; and ICTY, Kordić and Čerkez Appeal Judgment, para. 50.
15
Article 30 of Rome Statute
16
Prosecutor vs Lubanga, ICC 29 January 2007, para. 352(ii)).
aware of risk that if he provides such software to the RAF, it can cause civilian causalities
because he has himself asserted that Softwarer can malfunction due to increased data
processing.17 In spite of that he had consented and made agreement with RAF and posed the
lives of civilians at risk. It also shows that he had accepted such an outcome.

Intent

Where knowledge is proved, the accused’s intention is irrevelant 18 Intention required under
article 8(2)(e)(i) within the meaning of 25(3)(c) in accordance with Seromba and blaskic
judgment’s jurisprudence does not require the aider and abettor to share the intent of the perpetrator
to commit the crime, whereas the aider and abettor must act with the purpose of facilitating the
commission of that crime. 19 It was then noted by ICC in Mbarushimana judgment that the person
act with the purpose to facilitate the crime20 meaning thereby with knowledge he must has to
act with the purpose of facilitating the crime in order to establish the intent. Existence of intent
and knowledge can be inferred from relevant facts and circumstances. 21 Instant case manifests
that Project Hawk was given to RAF in order to attack on civilians because the software
provided was not in line with the principle of distinction. It was only the planning of showing
that TechAnon has made it for distinction. TechAnon has also not required any financial support
in lieu of this software; even they created a designated workspace located in the RAF
intelligence survice.22 It shows that TechAnon willingly facilitated the crime by providing means
to RAF.

4. The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an armed conflict
not of an international character:

The chapeau element of this crime given under article 8(2)(f) of Rome statute provides that the
crime must be committed with an armed conflict not of an international character within the
meaning of common article 3.23 ICTY Appeals Chamber in Katanga judgment gave Following
requirements to be fulfilled24

Organization of the group Rebellion:

17
Para 25
18
Prosecutor v. Tadic case No IT-94_1 para 248-52
19
ICTR, Appeals Chamber, Prosecutor v. Seromba, "Judgement", 12 March 2008, ICTR-2001-66-A, para. 56; ICTY,
Appeals Chamber, Prosecutor v. Blaskic, "Judgement", 29 July 2004, IT-95-14-A, paras 45-46;
20
ICC, Prosecutor v. Mbarushimana, Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, 16 December
2011, ICC-01/04-01/10-465-Red,
21
Mario Čerkez, Case No. IT-95-14/2-A, Judgement (AC), 17 December 2004, para. 311
22
Fact sheet para 23
23
Commentary to Rome statute and (Ntaganda, 9 June 2014)
24
ICTY, Tadić Trial Judgment, para. 562; ICTR, Akayesu Trial Judgment, para. 620; ICTY, Kordić and Čerkez Appeal
Judgment, para. 341. See also Bemba Trial Judgment, para. 137; Katanga Judgment, para. 1187; and Lubanga Trial
Judgment, para. 534.
It can be inferred from the above mentioned definition that the group must be organized.
Among others in Tarčulovski Trial Judgment the chamber stated that it shall consider the
factors and indicators: (i) the existence of a command structure; (ii) the military (operational)
capacity of the armed group, which may be shown by, for example, the ability to define a
unified military strategy, the use of military tactics, (iii) ability to move troops around and to
recruit and train personnel; (iv) and (v) the group’s ability to speak with one voice, indicated,
for example, by the capacity of the leadership to act on behalf of its members in political
negotiations and to conclude agreements. These factors and indicators are not individually
determinative, and a group may be sufficiently organized if only some of them are present. 25 In
instant case the Rebbellions were organized as it had command structure under the command
of Frida Lahlo26 had headquarters from where they were operating and using military strategies
for organizing attacks.27 Rebellion members deployed two drones armed with precision-guided
missiles to bomb a RAF military storage facility 28 it proves that they had well military
equipments and also have done operational strategies. They had also ability to recruit the
personnel as mentioned under fact sheet. 29 The group had also ability to speak with one voice
as many political statements and agreements had been done by their leader on behalf of whole
group.30 They had control over territory as well for the reason that had autonomy of Rosebud
province31

Intensity Threshold

Intensity threshold requires (i) the seriousness and frequency of attacks and armed clashes; (ii)
the type of weapons used; (iii) whether those fighting considered themselves bound by IHL; and
(iv) the effects of the violence on the civilian population, including the extent to which civilians
left the relevant area, the extent of destruction, and the number of persons killed. 32 The
circumstances of the present case shows that it fulfills the intensity threshold as the attacks
done by the Rebellions were of serious nature as firstly hundreds of rebellion members clashed
with Rufus and attacked on the Rufus governments in protests, in that 50 people died, 120
injured, many vehicles and buildings had been damaged. 33 After that, they carried arms on 20

25
Bemba Trial Judgment, para. 134; Katanga Judgment, paras 1172-1187; and Lubanga Trial Judgment, paras 537-
538. As identified in Boškoski and Tarčulovski Trial Judgment, paras 194 to 203, and the Boškoski and Tarčulovski
Appeal Judgment, paras 19 to 24.
26
Fact sheet para 29
27
Fact sheet para 34
28
Ibid para 35
29
Para 34
30
Para 32 and 48, 49
31
Para 5
32
Lubanga Trial Judgment, para. 538; Katanga Judgment, para. 1187; and Bemba Trial Judgment, para. 137. See
also Boškoski and Tarčulovski Trial Judgment, paras 177-178 and Boškoski and Tarčulovski Appeal Judgment, paras
19 to 24.
33
Fact sheet para 18
December 2022 in rally which then after attacks by RAF vehicles caused several causalities,
killing 140 people injured 50.34 The attention of UN and other international organization has
also been sought and reports by them have also been published. 35 The parties involved such as
Kingdom of Rufus is bound by IHL and Rebbellion group has also been organize which is also
bound by IHL. Civilian causalities has also been occurred. 36 On 15th October 2022 the NIAC has
been started which continued to be till 14 April 2023. 37 This crime had been occurred on 21
December 2022 which shows that the crime has been committed in the context of NIAC. With
that 4rth element has been proved.

5. The perpetrator was aware of factual circumstances that established the existence of an
armed conflict:

Dario Kordić and Mario Čerkez judgment opines that the words awareness of the factual
circumstances that is implicit in the terms "took place in the context of and was associated
with" seem to suggest that the perpetrator needs only to know the nexus between his/or acts
and an armed conflict.38 Furthermore, it was also agreed that the mental contextual element
for each crime would use "aware of factual circumstances" instead of "aware of the factual
circumstances." The omission of the word "the" underlined that such awareness would not
have to relate to the whole complexity of facts determining the existence of an armed conflict,
but rather that only some facts should be known by the perpetrator, sufficient for him or her to
be aware of the existence of some sort of armed conflict. This delicate compromise reached my
be interpreted as indicating that the Prosecutor will normally not have to provide any additional
proof on the knowledge of the perpetrator of the factual circumstances that relate to the
existence of an armed conflict. If the Prosecutor provides the proof that is required to create a
relationship between the conduct of the perpetrator and the armed conflict, this element will
generally be satisfied39 in instant case the circumstances and facts shows that TechAnon firstly
was aware of the clashes between Government of Rufus and Rebellion group as he had
disseminated information on Techtalk in the favour of Rufus government. 40 He has also granted
the data to government with respect to protests by Rebellion members. 41 It shows that
TechAnon has knowledge of everything which is posted on Techtalk being creator of such
website. So he was also aware of the armed conflict which has been started on 15 October
2022 in which 50 people have been died and 120 were injured because this event was

34
Fact sheet para 31
35
Ibid para 9 and 10
36
Ibid para 18 and 31
37
Para 18 to 49
38
Prosecutor v. Dario Kordić and Mario Čerkez, Case No. IT-95-14/2-A, Judgement (AC), 17 December 2004, para.
311
39
ibid
40
fact sheet para 15
41
Para 17 para 17
discussed on techtalk, reported by RAF intelligence. Finally the government had contacted to
TechAnon in order to make the software to distinct civilians and rebellion members which
clarifies the concept that he was aware of the armed conflict. Karera Appeals Judgment states
that it is not necessary for the accessory to know the precise offence which was intended and
which in the specific circumstances was committed, but he or she must be aware of its essential
elements.42 This essntial element is that, TechAnon was at least aware of the existence of
armed conflict. (With that the 5th element has been proved.)

TecAnon is individually responsible under article 25(3) (c) for committing the
crime under 8(2)(e)(i):
It is universally accepted that a person shall be held individually responsible when it is
established and proved that a concerned crime has been committed. 43 TechAnon is individually
responsible under Article 25(3)(c) of the Statute as it has been established and proved that the
crime under article (8)(2)(e)(i) has been committed by TechAnon in above mentioned
submissions. ICC in Bemba had opined that Article 8(2)(e)(i) establishes accessorial liability,
holding responsible a person who assists the principal perpetrator of an offence. As the plain
wording of Article 25(3)(c) of the Statute makes clear, criminal responsibility under Article 25(3)
(c) of the Statute is dependent on the commission or at least attempted commission of an
offence by the principal perpetrator. However, establishing accessorial liability is independent
of whether the principal is identified, charged or convicted. 44 The accessorial perpetrator under
Article 25(3)(c) of the Statute does not exercise the control over crime but merely contributes
to or otherwise assists in an offence committed by the principal perpetrator. 45 Lubanga Appeals
Judgment affirms that when compared to Article 25(3)(a) of the Statute, the assistance form of
liability under Article 25(3)(c) of the Statute implies a lower degree of blameworthiness. 46 In
instant case the TechAnon has accessorial liability for Aiding the RAF.

Establishment of the “Aiding”

The International Criminal court finds that ‘aiding’ implies the provision of practical or material
assistance. It is recalled that Article 25(3)(c) of the Statute specifically mentions a typical form
of providing assistance in the form of providing the means for the commission of a crime
within the jurisdiction of the Court. In this regard, the term ‘aid’ overlaps with the term

42
Similarly, for example, ICTR, Karera Appeals Judgment, para. 321; ICTY, Blaškić Appeals Judgment, para 50;
Kvočka Trial Judgment, para. 255; Mrkšić at al. Trial Judgment, para. 556; SCSL, Sesay et al., Trial Judgment, para.
280
43
Prosecutor v. Tadic, Case No. IT-94-1-AR 72, Decision on the defence motion for interlocutory appeal on
jurisdiction, 2 Oct. 1995, paras. 128–137 (134):)
44
Prosecutor v. Bemba ICC No.: ICC-01/05-01/13Date: 19 October 2016. Para 84
45
Ibid para 85
46
Prosecutor v. Lubanga Appeals Judgment, ICC 13Date: 19 October 2016 para. 462
‘otherwise assists’ within the meaning of Article 25(3)(c) of the Statute. 47 In the present case
TechAnon aided in sense of providing means for commission of the crime which was the
software for armoured vehicles to RAF by which the principal-perpetrator had committed the
crime.

Substantial contribution requirement:

According to Mbarushimana judgement ‘a substantial contribution to the crime may be

contemplated48 and Trial Chamber I in Lubanga determined that Article 25(3)(c) of the Statute
required a ‘substantial’ contribution on the part of the accessory. 49 “Substantial" means that
the contribution has an effect on the commission; in other words, it must in one way or another
have a causal relationship with the result. 50 Acts of assistance by words or acts that lend
encouragement or support are substantial51 This position was confirmed by a Trial Chamber in
"Celebici judgment" and more recently in Naletilic & Martinovic. The Appeals Chamber
stressed that the aiding and abetting must have a substantial effect on the main act. 52 It
requires that the assistance must have an effect on the commission of the offence. 53 ICC further
elaborated that even though the contribution of the accessory need not be conditio sine qua
non to the commission of the principal offence, the assistance must have furthered, advanced
or facilitated the commission of such offence.54 Aiding by TechAnon was substantial in the
sense that the software provided by him was a sole reason to civilian causalities. It has the
nexus between the act of providing the software and due to which the crime has been
facilitated and committed by the RAF military. The fact that he had not taken any financial
support from king Rufus IV also proves that he just wanted to facilitate him for commission of
such a crime. Since it has been proved that TechAnon has aided such means due to which the
commission of the crime has become possible and it has substantial effect on crime. Facts also
mention that TecAnon has given his significant contributions to the RAF’s war efforts to date. 55

Hence it has been proved that TechAnon is liable for individual criminal responsibility for
committing the crime under article 8(2)(e)(i) under accessorial liability to facilitate the crime
in a substantial manner.

47
Bemba ICC No.: ICC-01/05-01/13 Date: 19 October 2016. Para 88
48
Prosecutor v. Lubanga Trial Judgment, para. 997
49
Ibid (Confirmation Decision, para. 35. ).
50
(Prosecutor v. Tadic, Case No. IT-94-1-T, Trial Chamber, 7 May 1997, para 688)
51
Ibid
52
Supra note 90, Prosecutor v. Delalic et al., paras. 325–9. 104 Supra note 24, Prosecutor v. Naletilic & Martinovic,
para. 63, see also supra note 24, Prosecutor v. Blagojevic & Jokic, para. 726
53
ibid
54
Bemba ICC No.: ICC-01/05-01/13 Date: 19 October 2016. para 94
55
Fact sheet para 40