University of Gondar Internal Moot Court

Memorial Submitted on The Behalf of The

Applicant

The Coalition of Victims' Associations

Vs.
The Democratic Republic of Mongo

Team No; 03

January, 2025
 Table of Contents
List of Abbreviations.................................................................................................................. 2
Summary of Argument ............................................................................................................... 3
I. The establishment of a Special Court is not in the best interest of victims ....................... 3
II. Unlawful Amnesty for Senior Leaders Violates Victims’ Rights to Effective Remedies
Under Regional and International Laws .................................................................................... 4
II. A. The Obligation to Prosecute Grave Violations of International Law ......................... 4
II. B. Prohibition of Amnesty for International Crimes ....................................................... 5
III. The Symbolic and Collective Measures clearly Denies the Victims of Sexual and
Gender-Based Violence and Forced Displacement Their Right to Effective Remedies ............ 5
III. A. Legal Obligation to Provide Adequate and Effective Remedy ................................... 5
III. B. Financial Constraints Do Not Justify Violating International Standards .................... 6
IV. The Exclusion of Victims from Transitional Justice process is a Breach of The victims
Right to Meaningful Participation and Engagement in accordance with the regional and
international standards. .............................................................................................................. 6
PRAYER FOR RELIEF ............................................................................................................. 7

1
List of Abbreviations
1. ACHPR – African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights
2. AUTJP – African Union Transitional Justice Policy
3. CEDAW – Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women
4. DRM – Democratic Republic of Mongo
5. ICC – International Criminal Court
6. ICCPR – International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
7. SGBV – Sexual and Gender-Based Violence
8. TRC – Truth and Reconciliation Commission
9. UN – United Nations

2
Summary of Argument
The appellant argues that accountability for human rights violations in the Democratic
Republic of Mongo (DRM) requires an impartial international mechanism like the ICC, as
DRM’s judicial system is plagued by political interference, lack of independence, and
inadequate capacity to prosecute senior officials. Granting amnesty to these officials violates
international law, which guarantees victims the right to justice and prohibits amnesty for crimes
like genocide and war crimes.

Reparations in DRM, limited to symbolic measures, fail to meet international standards.

Victims, especially survivors of sexual and gender-based violence, need individualized
reparations such as financial compensation and rehabilitation. The exclusion of victims from
the transitional justice process further undermines its legitimacy.

The appellant concludes that ICC intervention is crucial to address DRM’s shortcomings,
uphold international legal standards, and ensure justice and accountability for victims.

I. The establishment of a Special Court is not in the best interest of victims

The African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (African Charter), guarantees victims’ right
to access impartial justice.1 African Union Transitional Justice Policy (AUTJP): Emphasizes
that post-conflict justice mechanisms must be impartial and address power imbalances,
particularly in cases involving senior officials.

Domestic mechanisms in the Democratic Republic of Mongo are likely inadequate due to
systemic challenges such as political interference, lack of judicial independence, and the
entrenched influence of senior officials implicated in the crimes.

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) recognizes the principle of
complementarity, allowing the ICC to exercise jurisdiction when national courts are unwilling
or unable to prosecute.2 The unwillingness of the Mongo government to prosecute senior
officials who committed gross crimes undermines justice and warrants referral to an
international mechanism. And incapacity to handle the cases genuinely. Such conditions are
prevalent in post-conflict states like Mongo, where senior political and military leaders
implicated in atrocities often influence domestic courts.

The other reason is Lack of Capacity: The Special Court lacks the infrastructure, expertise, and
neutrality required to handle complex cases involving high-ranking officials accused of

1
African charter on Human and people’s rights, article 7.
2
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Article 17.

3
orchestrating crimes against humanity. International courts, such as the ICC, are designed to
fill these gaps.3

The involvement of the ICC in Mongo ensures that accountability is free from political
interference, upholds victims' rights, and strengthens global efforts against impunity.

II. Unlawful Amnesty for Senior Leaders Violates Victims’ Rights to Effective
Remedies Under Regional and International Laws
Granting amnesty solely on the basis of testimony before the TRC is arbitrary and contravenes
the UN Updated Set of Principles for the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights Through
Action to Combat Impunity states that amnesties must not apply to crimes under international
law, ensuring accountability for senior leaders4, and also it prohibits amnesty for crimes such
as genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.5 This measure not only undermines
victims' trust in the justice process but also erodes the legitimacy of the transitional justice
framework.

ICCPR, obligates states to ensure effective remedies for victims of human rights violations,
including investigation, prosecution, and reparations. Blanket amnesty denies victims access
to justice and accountability.6

The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights has ruled in “Commission Nationale
des Droits de l'Homme et des Libertés v Chad” that amnesty laws granting immunity for gross
human rights violations are incompatible with the Charter.7 Also, African Charter on Human
and Peoples' Rights, Guarantees the right to a fair trial and effective redress for violations.
Granting amnesty to perpetrators undermines this obligation.8

II. A. The Obligation to Prosecute Grave Violations of International Law

Under the Geneva Conventions (1949) and their Additional Protocols, states have a duty to
investigate and prosecute individuals responsible for grave breaches. The violations
documented in DRM, including the targeting of civilians, destruction of property, and
obstruction of humanitarian aid, constitute breaches of international humanitarian law.

3
Prosecutor v. Charles Taylor (Special Court for Sierra Leone): Demonstrated the importance of international
mechanisms in prosecuting heads of state and military leaders.
4
UN Updated Set of Principles for the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights to Combat Impunity,
Principle 19
5
UN Updated Set of Principles for the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights to Combat Impunity,
Principle 24
6
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 2(3).
7
Commission Nationale des Droits de l'Homme et des Libertés v Chad, African Commission on Human and
Peoples’ Rights, Communication No. 74/92.
8
African Charter on Human and People’s Rights, Article 7(1)(a).

4
II. B. Prohibition of Amnesty for International Crimes
Rome Statute states that international crimes, including crimes against humanity and war
crimes, are not subject to statutes of limitations or amnesty.9

The government may argue that amnesty promotes reconciliation or ensures stability. However,
UN Basic Principles on Reparation (2005): Reconciliation cannot come at the expense of
justice. True reconciliation requires holding perpetrators accountable. Amnesty in Mongo,
therefore, violates the rights of victims, undermines accountability, and sets a dangerous
precedent of impunity.

III. The Symbolic and Collective Measures clearly Denies the Victims of Sexual and
Gender-Based Violence and Forced Displacement Their Right to Effective Remedies
The prioritization of symbolic and collective reparations ignores the specific needs of victims
of sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) and forced displacement, contrary to the Basic
Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation (UN, 2005).

The UN Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation emphasize
that reparations must be adequate, effective, and proportional to the gravity of the violation.10

III. A. Legal Obligation to Provide Adequate and Effective Remedy

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) obligates states to ensure victims
have access to an effective remedy, including restitution, compensation, and rehabilitation.11
Symbolic reparations, while meaningful, are insufficient to meet this requirement.

CEDAW General Recommendation No. 30: The Committee on the Elimination of

Discrimination against Women stresses that reparations for sexual and gender-based violence
(SGBV) must include financial compensation, rehabilitation, and psychosocial support.
Collective measures fail to address the unique harm SGBV survivors endure.12

African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (ACHPR): Article 7 guarantees victims the
right to redress, including reparations proportional to the harm suffered.13 Limiting reparations
to symbolic actions ignores individual needs, particularly those of forcibly displaced persons
and SGBV survivors.14

9
Rome Statute, Article 29
10
UN Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Rights to a Remedy and Reparation, Principle 19.
11
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 2(3).
12
CEDAW General Recommendation No. 30.
13
African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (ACHPR), Article 7.
14
Case of González et al. ("Cotton Field") v. Mexico (Inter-American Court of Human Rights, 2009).

5
Judicial decisions from international courts affirm that reparations must be individualized to
address the harm suffered. Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo (ICC, 2012): The ICC
mandated both collective and individualized reparations for victims must reflect the specific
harm suffered by individuals and ensure their dignity and rehabilitation.15

III. B. Financial Constraints Do Not Justify Violating International Standards

While states may face financial constraints, international law emphasizes that victims' needs
must remain a priority: The UN Basic Principles on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation
(2005) require that reparations be proportional to the gravity of the harm suffered and tailored
to victims’ specific circumstances. Symbolic reparations alone do not meet these criteria.

Principle 15 of the same document highlights that states must explore innovative solutions,
such as partnerships with international organizations, to ensure effective reparations.16
Financial hardship does not exonerate states of their obligations under international law.

IV. The Exclusion of Victims from Transitional Justice process is a Breach of The
victims Right to Meaningful Participation and Engagement in accordance with the
regional and international standards.
African Union Transitional Justice Policy (AUTJP): Mandates the meaningful participation of
victims, including marginalized groups such as women, displaced persons, and persons with
disabilities, in all transitional justice processes. the African Union Transitional Justice Policy
underscores the importance of victim participation and inclusivity in transitional justice
processes.17

The UN Guidance Note of the Secretary-General on Democracy and Transitional Justice

highlights the necessity of meaningful victim engagement to ensure legitimacy and
effectiveness.18 It also Stresses that victim participation is essential to ensuring the legitimacy,
transparency, and fairness of transitional justice mechanisms.

Women and SGBV Survivors: Women disproportionately suffer during armed conflicts,
particularly through SGBV. Their exclusion denies them an opportunity to voice their unique
needs, undermining the principle of gender-sensitive justice.19

15
Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, (International Criminal Court, 2012).
16
UN Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Rights to a Remedy and Reparation, Principle 15.
17
African Union Transitional Justice Policy, Article 8.
18
UN Guidance Note of the Secretary-General on Democracy and Transitional Justice, March 2010.
19
Case of González et al. v. Mexico ("Cotton Field"): Highlighted the importance of victim inclusion,
particularly women, in addressing systemic SGBV.

6
CEDAW General Recommendation No. 30: Emphasizes that transitional justice mechanisms
must address the specific needs of women, particularly survivors of SGBV, and ensure their
inclusion in decision-making processes.20 Hence, In Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum v
Zimbabwe, the African Commission emphasized the importance of victims’ participation in
seeking justice and accountability.21

The exclusion of victims from the transitional justice process in Mongo violates international
norms and undermines the legitimacy of the process.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

In light of the above arguments, the appellant respectfully requests that this honorable court:

A. Declare that DRM’s domestic mechanisms are inadequate to ensure justice due to
systemic flaws.
B. Hold that the blanket amnesty for senior officials violates international human rights
laws.
C. Refer accountability for gross human rights violations to impartial international
mechanisms, such as the ICC.
D. Direct that reparations be adequate, proportional, and inclusive of the needs of
survivors, particularly of SGBV and forced displacement.
E. Mandate the meaningful participation of victims in all transitional justice processes.

Respectfully submitted,

CEDAW General Recommendation No. 30.

20

Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum v Zimbabwe, African Commission on Human and People’s Rights,
21

Communication No. 245/02.