NOTE IN MIND: Terms like “incitement” or “hatred” must be replaced with phrases such

as “defense of sovereignty” or “call for unity.”

QUESTION FORMAT SPEECH

The Rwanda and Congo situations have some similarities, particularly with respect to
ethnic tensions and violence, which may seem comparable to those during the Rwandan
genocide. Both regions have seen intense ethnic conflicts involving groups like the Hutu
and Tutsi in Rwanda and similar tensions across various Congolese ethnic groups,
compounded by political instability. However, while Rwanda’s situation in 1994 was a
highly organized genocide driven by a central government agenda and propaganda
machine (e.g., Radio Télévision Libre des Milles Collines inciting widespread violence),
Congo's tensions in the late 1990s were more fragmented and related to complex
regional conflicts and civil wars, without the same clear, top-down genocidal campaign
structure.

The history of atrocities committed by Belgium in the Democratic Republic of the Congo is a dark
chapter that demands our attention. The roots of this tragic narrative can be traced back to the
late 19th century, when King Leopold II of Belgium claimed the Congo Free State as his personal
possession. Under his rule, which lasted from 1885 to 1908, millions of Congolese people suffered
unimaginable horrors. Forced labor, brutal punishments, and widespread killings were rampant as
Leopold sought to exploit the region's vast resources—particularly rubber.

The international community largely turned a blind eye during this period, allowing these
atrocities to persist unchecked. It wasn't until reports began to surface about the horrific
conditions faced by Congolese people that public outrage forced Belgium to annex the territory in
1908, transitioning it into a Belgian colony. However, even after this change in governance,
exploitation and violence continued unabated.

Fast forward to April 11, 2000—the date marked by an arrest warrant issued by Belgium for former
Congolese officials accused of war crimes during their tenure in power. This legal action
highlighted not only past injustices but also underscored a growing recognition of Belgium's
historical role in perpetuating suffering within Congo.

Understanding this history is crucial as it shapes contemporary discussions around reparations

and accountability for colonial abuses. By acknowledging these atrocities and advocating for
justice, we can begin to address the deep-seated wounds left behind—a necessary step toward
healing both nations involved.

The arrest warrant case between Belgium and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC)
originated on 17 October 2000, when the DRC filed an Application instituting proceedings against
Belgium[1]. The case arose from Belgium's issuance of an international arrest warrant on 11 April
2000 against the incumbent Foreign Minister of Congo, based on the principle of universal
jurisdiction[2]. This action sparked a legal dispute regarding the validity of the arrest warrant and
the obligations of states under international law. The DRC contended that the warrant was
unlawful and sought a declaration from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to that effect,
alongside a request for the cancellation of the warrant[3].
Several key legal issues were at the heart of the Belgum vs. Congo case. Primarily, the Congo
challenged the legality of the arrest warrant on two grounds: Belgium's claim to exercise universal
jurisdiction and the implications of international law regarding diplomatic immunity[4]. The DRC
argued that the issuance of the warrant violated Belgium's international obligations towards
Congo, particularly regarding the respect for state sovereignty and diplomatic immunity for
foreign ministers[2]. The ICJ ultimately ruled that Belgium was required to cancel the arrest
warrant, emphasizing that the principles of international law must guide the actions of states
when dealing with diplomatic personnel[5].

The implications of the arrest warrant case for international law and relations are significant. This
case highlighted the tension between the pursuit of accountability for international crimes and the
respect for sovereignty and diplomatic immunity[6]. The ICJ's ruling prompted discussions
regarding the limits of universal jurisdiction and raised questions about the responsibilities of
states in enforcing international law[7]. Furthermore, the case underscored the need for clear
guidelines to navigate the complexities of international legal obligations, particularly in cases
involving high-ranking officials. As a result, this case has had a lasting impact on the
interpretation and application of international law, influencing future cases and the behavior of
states in similar situations[7].

Chaos in Context

● Statement: “History shows us that during wartime, leaders across the world have used
powerful, even fiery language. Think of Churchill’s speeches during WWII, calling for the
British people to ‘fight on the beaches’—this wasn’t hate speech; it was a rallying cry.
Minister Yerodia’s words were spoken in this same context of desperation and
determination.”
● Follow-Up Statement: “When one faces an existential threat, words become a tool for
survival. In Congo’s context, fiery language was necessary to awaken a sense of
urgency and solidarity against a real danger. Let’s view his words not through a
peacetime lens but through the chaos and urgency of war.”

. Flipping the Burden of Proof

● Statement: “The prosecution has leveled serious accusations, yet where is the evidence
that Minister Yerodia’s words directly incited violence? They claim his rhetoric caused
harm, but this court demands proof beyond assumption. If his statements were truly the
cause, they must provide direct, unequivocal evidence of that link.”
● Follow-Up Challenge: “Where are the specific instances, witnesses, or events that
prove his words had a criminal intent? This court cannot condemn based on insinuations
or assumptions. Justice requires clear proof, not merely persuasive language.”

WITNESS ANALYSIS:

The "Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000" (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium) centers on
a significant legal confrontation regarding international law and diplomatic immunity. As the
lawyer representing the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), my objective is to reaffirm
our position with compelling arguments bolstered by authoritative witnesses. The crux of our
argument hinges on the cautious application of universal jurisdiction, supported by respected
figures in international relations and law, such as Kofi Annan, Salim Ahmed Salim, Ludo De
Witte, and Professor Georges Abi-Saab.

To effectively leverage authority bias in court, I would first introduce Kofi Annan. Having served
as the UN Secretary-General from 1997 to 2006, he is widely regarded for his commitment to
global peace and security (Annan, 2013). His testimony would emphasize that while universal
jurisdiction serves essential justice functions, its application must be judicious to maintain
diplomatic relations and respect state sovereignty. Questions posed might include: “Mr. Annan,
can you elaborate on how universal jurisdiction impacts international diplomacy?” or “In your
experience at the UN, how have you seen states navigate issues concerning immunity?”

Next is Salim Ahmed Salim, former Secretary-General of the Organization of African Unity
(OAU). His insights into African perspectives on international law could be invaluable. Questions
could include: “Mr. Salim, how do African nations generally perceive cases involving universal
jurisdiction against their leaders?” or “Can you discuss any instances where you believe a
balance was struck between accountability and sovereignty?” His stature will lend credence to
our argument that Africa’s voice case omust be central in discussions about global justice.

Ludo De Witte provides an academic perspective through his rigorous analyses of colonial
histories and their implications for contemporary governance in Africa. We could ask him: “Mr.
De Witte, what historical precedents exist that illustrate the tension between colonial legacies
and modern-day legal frameworks like universal jurisdiction?” Such questions will help
contextualize our position within broader historical narratives.

Lastly, we call upon Professor Georges Abi-Saab who has extensive expertise in public
international law. He can address nuanced legal interpretations regarding sovereign immunity
under customary international law. Potential questions might include: “Professor Abi-Saab,
based on your research into sovereign immunity principles, what are your views on their
relevance in cases involving allegations against sitting heads of state?” This line of questioning
aims to underscore that legal interpretations are not monolithic but rather subject to evolving
scholarly discourse.

Our strategy also requires us to draw parallels with historical instances where authority bias
played a crucial role in shaping judicial outcomes internationally—such as the Nuremberg Trials
post-World War II which established important precedents for accountability while respecting
sovereign rights (Peters et al., 2011). By invoking these examples alongside our expert
testimonies, we can illustrate a balanced approach towards justice that recognizes both
accountability for crimes and respect for state sovereignty.

Further support comes from examining other significant cases like Pinochet v. UK which
highlighted complexities surrounding extradition laws influenced by political contexts (Corruption
as a Violation..., 2023). These references establish a framework within which our arguments
operate—signaling that while accountability is necessary; it should not come at an irreparable
cost to diplomatic norms.

This multifaceted approach—utilizing respected authorities—will bolster DRC's claims

significantly during this trial phase re-examining Belgium's actions concerning arrest warrants
issued against Congolese officials accused of human rights violations without due regard for
established protocols surrounding diplomatic immunity.

In conclusion, by integrating authoritative voices alongside well-documented historical context

into our legal strategy before this court today in 2000 allows us not only to present DRC’s case
effectively but also positions it firmly within accepted international norms advocating both justice
and respect for sovereignty—a duality vital for sustainable peace moving forward.

QUESTIONS MID COURT:

The plight faced by Congolese citizens—struggling against violence, poverty, and social
unrest—should be at the forefront of this discussion. If we consider that these words
were intended to unify a fractured nation rather than incite hatred, we must ask: what
alternative could have led to stability? Would silence on his part have resulted in an even
greater humanitarian disaster?

Belgium's intentions: Is this prosecution genuinely aimed at justice or does it reflect a

neocolonial mindset seeking control over former colonies? By framing Belgium’s actions
as hypocritical or even vindictive due to past grievances, I can subtly shift focus away
from our minister’s statements and onto systemic issues deeply rooted in colonialism. If
Belgium truly seeks justice for crimes against humanity, why does it not address its own
historical wrongdoings first?

The defense must also embrace an “If Not, Then What?” strategy that underscores our
minister's role as a protector during wartime conditions. In moments when national unity
is paramount for survival against external threats—what would have been gained had he
chosen silence instead? Historical precedents abound where leaders employed
impassioned rhetoric during wartime; consider Winston Churchill’s speeches designed
to rally British morale during World War II. Churchill faced similar accusations yet was
celebrated for galvanizing national spirit amidst chaos (Locke, 2023). The comparison
illustrates that fiery rhetoric can serve as a tool for preservation rather than destruction.

The case at hand—an arrest warrant issued by Belgium against our Foreign Minister—is
not merely a legal matter; it encapsulates the broader struggles faced by nations
grappling with their historical legacies. In this context, we must consider: if not our
Minister rallying his people in times of chaos, then what? Would silence have been a
better alternative? (Nelson, 2020).
The heart of this case lies in understanding the situation within which our Minister spoke.
The Democratic Republic of the Congo has endured decades of turmoil marked by
violence and instability. In such circumstances, leaders often resort to impassioned
rhetoric to unite their citizens. Our Minister’s statements were aimed at fostering
resilience among a population besieged by external threats and internal strife. To frame
his words as mere incitement is to ignore the dire humanitarian crisis that necessitated
such passionate appeals (Nelson, 2020).

Moreover, let us reflect on Belgium's motivations for pursuing this arrest warrant.
Belgium carries a colonial past replete with exploitation and suffering inflicted upon
Congolese citizens during its rule over our nation. By prosecuting our Foreign
Minister—who stands as a symbol of national unity—Belgium may be attempting to exert
influence under the guise of legality while masking its neocolonial tendencies (Maass,
2024). We must ask ourselves: if not an attempt to rewrite history through legal means,
then what are Belgium's true intentions?

Furthermore, I urge you to consider the broader implications of universal jurisdiction

laws that underpin this case. Such laws could set dangerous precedents undermining
sovereign immunity—a principle foundational to international relations (Nelson, 2020). If
we allow one nation to unilaterally determine another nation's leadership through judicial
means without tangible proof of harm caused by specific actions or words uttered during
wartime conditions—if not chaos in context—then where does it end? What would
become of nations facing similar crises? Would they be left vulnerable under foreign
scrutiny?

In examining historical precedents from Europe itself during tumultuous periods—the

fiery speeches delivered by leaders like Winston Churchill during World War II come to
mind—we see similar scenarios where rhetoric served as a tool for unity rather than
division (Maass, 2024). If those leaders had refrained from speaking passionately about
defending their homelands in fear of prosecution post-war backlash, would Britain have
weathered its darkest hours successfully? This parallel serves as evidence that
passionate defense against existential threats is historically recognized behavior.

Let us also discuss causation: if there is no direct link between my client’s statements
and tangible harm suffered beyond motivating national defense efforts—if not concrete
evidence connecting his words directly with violence or unrest—then how can we justify
prosecution on these grounds? The burden rests squarely on Belgium’s shoulders to
prove that these statements led directly to any adverse outcomes rather than simply
being part and parcel of wartime discourse.

In conclusion, Your Honor and esteemed members present here today: we must
approach this case with empathy towards both nations' histories while recognizing that
every action taken amid conflict requires nuanced understanding rather than blunt
condemnation. Let us reflect on whether punishing one leader will truly serve justice or
merely perpetuate cycles rooted deep within colonial legacies—a question all too
pressing for international law today.

I implore you all: if not fostering dialogue between nations striving toward mutual respect
amidst challenging historical contexts… then what exactly do we hope to achieve
through these proceedings? Thank you.

QUESTIONS
Vital Point: Justice doesn’t thrive on conjecture; it’s built on facts. But today, where are the facts?
Question: “What concrete evidence does the prosecution bring forth to tie Minister Yerodia’s
words to actual harm? Or is this just a performance of finger-pointing?”

2. Vital Point: We’ve seen this before—history’s tendency to twist the words of those trying to
defend their own. Is this one of those times? Question: “If Minister Yerodia had stayed silent,
would his people have found peace, or would silence have been his way of abandoning them?”

3. Vital Point: This courtroom has often favored words from power, but today it must favor words
from the truth. Question: “Are we here to judge Yerodia’s words, or to judge his intentions? And if
intentions are our guide, what harm did he intend?”

4. Vital Point: When a leader speaks in times of crisis, they do so because lives are at stake. Is
that leadership to be condemned? Question: “Did Minister Yerodia speak up out of malice, or
because he knew that silence would mean defeat?”

5. Vital Point: One nation’s right to self-defense should never be dictated by another. Yet here we
are. Question: “Would Belgium respond differently if the tables were turned? Would they remain
silent if their people’s lives were at stake?”

6. Vital Point: The prosecution hangs on labels—‘hate speech,’ ‘incitement’—but words alone
don’t make a crime. Question: “Where is the link between his words and any real-world harm? Or
are we prosecuting someone based on opinions alone?”

7. Vital Point: This case risks setting a precedent: convicting a leader for protecting his people.
What message does that send to the world? Question: “If Minister Yerodia’s duty was to ensure
his people’s survival, does he not deserve recognition for courage, not condemnation?”
8. Vital Point: Great leaders have used strong language to inspire their people. Why should
Congo’s leaders be held to a different standard? Question: “Was Minister Yerodia’s call for unity
any different from Churchill’s call for resilience during wartime?”

9. Vital Point: If justice demands proof, then proof should be in this courtroom today. Question:
“Can the prosecution show us, beyond doubt, that these words alone caused real harm? Or is this
simply a case built on hypotheticals?”

10. Vital Point: A country’s sovereignty means its leaders must sometimes make hard choices to
protect their people. Why is that considered a crime here? Question: “Should a leader be
punished for defending his nation, or applauded for his loyalty and courage?”

11. Vital Point: Every leader’s responsibility is to protect their people, sometimes with words that
inspire resistance. So, ask yourselves: Question: “If these were words to inspire courage, who
here has the right to call it hate?”

12. Vital Point: If intent matters, then we must ask about Minister Yerodia’s intent. So I ask this of
the court: Question: “Did Minister Yerodia intend harm, or was he defending his people from a
genuine threat?”

13. Vital Point: To punish a leader for protecting his nation undermines the concept of
sovereignty. This is the heart of Congo’s case. Question: “Are we prepared to criminalize the
actions of a leader who stood by his people during their darkest hour?”

14. Vital Point: Colonial powers once dictated Congo’s fate. Must we sit by while they try to dictate
Congo’s justice today? Question: “If Congo deserves the same respect as any sovereign state,
then why does Belgium feel entitled to prosecute its leaders?”

15. Vital Point: Belgium claims a moral high ground, but let’s remember: they are no strangers to
bloodshed. Does hypocrisy serve justice? Question: “Can we trust Belgium’s motives here, or do
they have a vested interest in controlling Congo’s fate once again?”

16. Vital Point: In the fog of war, leaders must sometimes make difficult, imperfect choices. Is that
what we’re punishing here? Question: “What alternatives would any leader choose in Minister
Yerodia’s shoes? Should he not do everything in his power to save his people?”

17. Vital Point: Words are just words until action makes them dangerous. So where’s the proof
that words alone led to any violence here? Question: “Can the prosecution show a single instance
where his words directly led to violence, or is this trial just built on speculation?

18. Vital Point: Leaders are not omniscient; they act on information, on instinct, on survival. How
is this any different? Question: “Is it fair to judge Minister Yerodia by perfect hindsight, or should
we understand his decisions in the urgency of war?”

19. Vital Point: If the prosecution had real evidence, we would have seen it. But instead, we’re
seeing grand accusations without a shred of proof. Question: “Where are the documented harms?
Where are the witnesses to specific violence instigated by his words?”
20. Vital Point: Justice isn’t about punishment; it’s about balance. And today, Congo’s sovereignty
hangs in that balance. Question: “Will we let a former colonial power dictate Congo’s justice, or
will we protect a leader who did everything to defend his people?”

Absolutely—here's a set of questions infused with a heightened level of intensity, meant to

challenge the court and bring the drama to new heights. Each one strikes with a sharp, emotional
edge, aiming to disrupt and shake the prosecution’s case with maximum impact:

1. Vital Point: Minister Yerodia’s words may be on trial today, but make no mistake—this is an
assault on Congo’s spirit, on its right to breathe as a free nation. Question: “Who here dares to
suggest that Congo, a sovereign nation, should bend to the whims of its former colonizer? Is that
justice, or the sickest kind of irony?”

2. Vital Point: This trial reeks of hypocrisy—a nation that once plundered Congo now sits in
judgment. Let’s face it: Belgium’s hands are far from clean. Question: “Where was Belgium’s
moral high ground when they looted Congo, took lives, and built an empire on our backs? How
can they stand here and pretend to be a beacon of justice?”

3. Vital Point: When a leader’s words are twisted and used as a weapon against him, that’s not
justice—it’s persecution. Question: “If the Minister’s words were so dangerous, why does the
prosecution need to invent harm where there is none? Why can’t they bring even a shred of proof
that violence followed?”

4. Vital Point: In Congo, Minister Yerodia’s voice was a lifeline—a rallying cry to survive. Yet here,
it’s distorted into a crime. Question: “When did the world decide that Congo’s survival was a
criminal act? And what gives Belgium the right to silence our leaders under the guise of
‘justice’?”

5. Vital Point: They call his words incitement; we call it courage. This court must decide: Do we
punish leaders for their strength or honor them for it? Question: “What leader in a time of war
would say less than Yerodia did? Who here would not do everything to protect their people? Are
we now criminalizing courage itself?”

6. Vital Point: The prosecution hides behind legal jargon, but let’s call this what it is: a desperate
attempt to control Congo, to keep us in line. Question: “If Congo were a powerful state, would we
even be here today? Or is this trial a way for Belgium to continue asserting its dominance?”

7. Vital Point: A leader under siege must make tough choices, but today they label that survival
instinct as ‘hate speech.’ It’s laughable—tragically laughable. Question: “Are we really saying that
defending one’s people, standing up when no one else would, is a crime? Who here believes
that?”

8. Vital Point: If justice exists in this room, it must see that Yerodia’s intentions were to protect,
not destroy. Question: “Did he rally his people because he hated? Or did he do it because the
silence of a leader means the death of a nation?”

9. Vital Point: This prosecution doesn’t care about Congo’s people; they care about winning. And
they’ll sacrifice Congo’s sovereignty to do it. Question: “Is it justice to dissect and twist words to
suit a narrative? Or is that manipulation, the kind of manipulation that should have no place in a
court of law?”

10. Vital Point: We’re not here to rewrite Congo’s history under a Belgian lens. Congo deserves its
story, its heroes, and its voice. Question: “Why is Congo’s right to self-defense so offensive to
Belgium? Do they see themselves as the final judge of what Congo’s leaders should and shouldn’t
say?”

11. Vital Point: The prosecution wants to make Yerodia a villain, but only because his words were
powerful enough to threaten their own interests. Question: “If his words were so ‘hateful,’ why
didn’t they result in widespread violence? Why does the prosecution struggle to connect his
words to any actual harm?”

12. Vital Point: This is not just a trial—it’s an attempt to rewrite Congo’s sovereignty.Question:
“Will Belgium stand as our judge, jury, and executioner? Or will Congo’s right to defend itself be
recognized here today?”

13. Vital Point: In times of war, we fight with everything we have. But today, they want to strip
Congo of its right to defend itself with words. Question: “Should Congo apologize for standing
up? For using every tool, every voice, every word to protect itself from ruin?”

14. Vital Point: This case is built on flimsy presumptions, without real substance. And everyone in
this room knows it. Question: “If Minister Yerodia’s words alone were so dangerous, why can’t
the prosecution prove a single instance where his words led to any violence?”

15. Vital Point: Let’s remember: Minister Yerodia stood as a shield for his people. To condemn him
is to condemn Congo’s fight for survival. Question: “Are we really so blind as to mistake his
protection for aggression? How can a leader’s loyalty to his nation be treated like a criminal act?”

16. Vital Point: Belgium may drape itself in virtue, but this case exposes its hypocrisy in full view.
Question: “Isn’t it curious how Belgium, with its own blood-stained history, suddenly cares about
human rights in Congo?”

17. Vital Point: If words alone are a crime, then let’s ask: how many leaders of powerful nations
would stand unaccused? Not many. Question: “Why is Congo’s leader singled out? Would this
trial be happening if Belgium were not involved?”

18. Vital Point: This is a witch hunt, plain and simple, a desperate attempt to break Congo’s will by
destroying its leadership. Question: “Why does the prosecution cling so desperately to words?
Because they know that real evidence of wrongdoing simply doesn’t exist.”

19. Vital Point: Every leader’s voice echoes through history, yet Yerodia’s words alone are
scrutinized because they dared to stand against a threat. Question: “Why are Congo’s leaders
held to a different standard? Why are they not allowed to speak out in the face of danger, as any
other leader would?”
20. Vital Point: The truth has been twisted into a tool, weaponized by Belgium to continue a legacy
of control over Congo. Question: “Will we let history repeat itself here today, allowing the powerful
to dictate justice for the powerless? Or will Congo finally receive the fairness it deserves?”

1. Humanizing the Minister

“Can you truly imagine the pressure of a leader who wakes up every day, not knowing
whether their people will survive another day of war, knowing that every decision they
make could be the difference between life and death for thousands? This was Minister
Yerodia’s reality.”
“He wasn’t just a politician; he was a father, a son, a protector of his people. His actions
were not out of malice but born out of a desperate will to protect the innocent lives under
his care.”

2. Portraying the Brutality of War

“War is not an abstract concept. It’s the face of a mother burying her child, it’s the
tear-streaked face of a young soldier carrying the weight of an entire country on their
shoulders. Minister Yerodia’s choices were made in the darkest of circumstances, a time
when survival itself was a victory.”
“In times of war, we cannot measure a leader’s actions by the standards of peace. What
we must ask is: what would you do when the very survival of your nation is at stake?”

3. Emphasizing Sovereignty and National Pride

“Congo, a nation with a long and painful history of colonization, cannot be expected to
hand over its sovereignty on a silver platter to a former colonizer. We are a people who
have fought for our right to exist, to speak our truth, and to protect our land and our
culture. Minister Yerodia was standing at the gates, defending not just his people, but the
soul of his country.”
“What is a nation without the right to decide its future? What is a leader without the
responsibility to protect their people? Minister Yerodia’s actions were not an affront to
justice—they were an affirmation of Congo’s sovereignty.”

4. Painting the Court's Decision as a Moral Choice

“This court is not just deciding the fate of one man; it is deciding the fate of an entire
nation. Are we going to condemn Congo to repeat the sins of its colonial past? Will we
allow the legacy of exploitation and control to continue, or will we stand for true justice?”
“Your decision today will echo through the halls of history. Will you be the ones who
recognize the complexity of war and the duty of a leader to protect his people, or will you
be the ones who strip away Congo’s dignity and sovereignty?”

5. Appealing to Universal Justice

“We all understand the horrors of genocide. But the truth is, no one is asking whether we
have the right to speak, to protest, to protect. Minister Yerodia’s actions were not born
out of hatred but out of a desperate need to shield his people from a terrifying and
senseless war.”
“Justice is not about punishing a man for his words; it is about ensuring that nations,
like Congo, can find their own path to peace and recovery, without the interference of
those who never understood our struggle.”

6. Highlighting the Minister's Humanity

“This trial is not about a political figure playing a game of power. This is about a man
who watched his people suffer, who saw the light of hope flicker and fought to keep it
alive. He made mistakes, yes, but was he not justified in doing everything in his power to
save the lives of his people?”
“Minister Yerodia did not act with malice; he acted with a sense of duty and desperation.
He acted because he believed in the sanctity of his people’s lives, not because he wished
to hurt others. He was a leader trapped between his own moral compass and the
unthinkable reality of war.”

7. Emphasizing the Weight of Their Decision

“The weight of this decision will not just fall on the shoulders of this man but on the
shoulders of every leader in every nation who one day will face the impossible dilemma
of saving their people while maintaining their dignity.”
“I ask this court: how will history remember your decision? Will you be the ones who
chose compassion over condemnation, who saw the complexity of the human heart
rather than just the legality of a few words?”

8. Appealing to Compassion
“Imagine the fear and desperation of a leader who must decide whether to speak or
remain silent, not knowing that every word could be twisted, every decision could be
used against him. Minister Yerodia had to choose between the survival of his nation and
his own legacy—how can we, sitting in comfort, judge him for that?”
“This is not a man to be vilified, but a man to be understood. In his shoes, what would we
have done? What would you have done, if you were tasked with saving thousands of
lives?”

9. Portraying the Court as a Champion of Justice

“Today, this court has the opportunity to do something remarkable. Not just to rule on a
legal matter, but to defend the very ideals that make us human: the right to protect, the
right to speak, and the right to stand for those who cannot stand for themselves.”
“In your hands, the power to free not just an individual, but a nation rests. The power to
ensure that history judges us not for our mistakes, but for our willingness to rise above
them and stand for what is just.”
10. Closing with a Call to Action
“The minister’s actions were not taken lightly, nor were they taken for self-gain. They
were taken for the survival of his people. Will we, as a global community, condemn him
for trying to do what no one else could? Or will we rise above the confines of the law and
see the humanity in his decisions?”
“This court must ask itself: Is it the law that must be followed at all costs, or is it
justice—true justice—that we seek?”
 “Imagine, Your Honor, waking up every day with your country teetering on the brink of destruction, your
people in peril, your very survival at risk—and then, as a leader, having to decide how to protect them.
Minister Yerodia was not just acting in self-defense; he was acting in defense of the lives of countless
innocent people. Can you, in your wisdom, truly call that a crime?”

Vital Point: Belgium wants to accuse Congo’s leaders of incitement, but what if they’re just scared
of a nation that’s finally standing tall?
Question: "Is this trial truly about justice, or is it just a reaction, a desperate attempt to crush
Congo’s rise? Tell me, who’s really threatened here—Congo, or those who can no longer control
it?!"

Vital Point: Minister Yerodia’s words were crafted for survival, not destruction.
Question: "How dare you call survival a crime? How dare you accuse a leader who did nothing
more than fight for his people’s very lives? Who here would not have done the same? Who here is
truly innocent?!"

Vital Point: Belgium’s history in Congo was one of oppression, not redemption.
Question: "How can you stand there, Belgium, and pretend to be the moral authority, when your
hands are stained with the blood of Congo’s ancestors? How can you accuse anyone of crimes
when you’ve built your empire on their backs?! Isn’t that the real tragedy?!"

Vital Point: The prosecution wants to punish Yerodia for words they claim sparked violence, but
where is the proof of that violence?
Question: "Where is the proof?! Show me one shred of evidence that Yerodia’s words caused
bloodshed! Where are the bodies, the victims, the violence? Or is this just an empty accusation to
silence the truth?!"

Vital Point: This case isn’t about justice; it’s about controlling a sovereign nation that doesn’t bow
to foreign powers.
Question: "Why does Belgium care about a single speech in a distant land? What is it really afraid
of? Could it be the rise of a free Congo—a nation that refuses to bow to its former masters?!"

Vital Point: Yerodia didn’t incite violence—he responded to it, fought against it with words, in a
war-torn nation.
Question: "What’s more dangerous? A leader who raises his voice to protect his people, or the
silence of the world while that people is ravaged by violence? Is it not a greater crime to stand by
and watch destruction unfold?"

Vital Point: This trial is an insult to Congo’s sovereignty.

Question: "Why does Belgium think it has any right to meddle in Congo’s affairs? Who are they to
tell us how to defend ourselves, to dictate how we protect our future? Are we nothing but puppets
in their twisted game?!"

Vital Point: The prosecution isn’t looking for justice—they’re looking for a scapegoat.
Question: "Who are you really after? Who are you really punishing? Is this about justice, or are
you just finding someone to blame while the true criminals remain untouchable?!"
Vital Point: Congo was under siege, and Yerodia was merely a leader trying to hold his country
together.
Question: "What would you have done, if your people were being slaughtered, if your nation was
being torn apart? Would you not have fought with everything you had? With every word, every
breath?!"
Vital Point: The prosecution is trying to turn survival into a crime.
Question: "Is surviving a war now a crime? Is fighting for your people’s existence now a criminal
act? What kind of twisted, perverse logic are we using here when survival itself becomes a
charge?!"

Vital Point: Yerodia’s words were not intended to kill—they were intended to protect.
Question: "Tell me, who among us would not speak out to shield their people from annihilation?
How many leaders in the world would not use their words to protect their own, to keep them alive?
Should we punish them too?!"

Vital Point: Belgium, the former colonial power, still pulls the strings in Congo.
Question: "Is this about justice, or is Belgium trying to control what it once owned? Do they fear
the rise of a free Congo, one that can stand on its own, one that will no longer answer to its former
masters?!"

Vital Point: The prosecution is using language to silence a leader—something that’s been done for
centuries to oppress the powerless.
Question: "Why are we criminalizing words? Why are we punishing a leader for speaking out
when others are silenced, when their voices are crushed beneath the weight of oppression? Is
this what justice looks like?!"

Vital Point: Yerodia is being tried for the words he spoke during a war, when every nation involved
used words as weapons.
Question: "Is there a single leader in history who hasn’t used words in a time of war? Is every
word a leader speaks in the heat of battle now to be condemned? Are we really going to punish
Yerodia for fighting with every weapon he had?

Vital Point: This trial is built on assumptions, not facts.

Question: "What facts are you presenting? What evidence do you have that Yerodia’s words
caused harm? Or is this all based on the assumptions and fears of those who refuse to listen to
the truth?"

Vital Point: This trial is an attack on Congo’s right to self-defense, to fight for its existence.
Question: "Why should Congo apologize for fighting for its very survival? Why is it a crime to
stand strong in the face of overwhelming forces? Is this the kind of world we’re building, where
nations are punished for fighting back?!"

Vital Point: Belgium’s claim to moral superiority rings hollow when you consider their past.
Question: "How can Belgium claim the moral high ground, when they built their empire on the
blood of the Congolese people? How can they stand here and act as if they’ve ever cared about
Congo’s well-being?"

Vital Point: Yerodia’s words were meant to rally his people, not incite harm.
Question: "What if we’re looking at this wrong? What if Yerodia’s words weren’t a call to violence,
but a call to unity, to stand together against the forces of destruction? Who would not want that
for their people?"

Vital Point: Belgium is trying to rewrite history and control the narrative of Congo’s past.
Question: "Who gave Belgium the right to control our history? Who gave them the right to tell
Congo’s story, especially when their version is filled with lies, blood, and oppression? Why
should we let them continue rewriting our past?!"

Vital Point: This trial is not about justice—it’s about punishing a leader who dared to speak out
against foreign oppression.
Question: "Why is Belgium so eager to put Yerodia on trial? Why do they fear a leader who dares
to speak out, a leader who refuses to bow to the very oppression they’ve subjected us to for
centuries?!"
OBJECTIONS:
1. Relevance

● Purpose: To keep the trial focused strictly on Minister Yerodia’s alleged actions and direct
evidence linking him to incitement to genocide. Relevance objections prevent Belgium
from broadening the scope unnecessarily, particularly if they attempt to introduce
information that reflects poorly on Congo as a country but is unrelated to the specific
accusations.

Examples:

● Example 1: If Belgium’s counsel brings up general reports about unrest in Congo

unrelated to the minister’s speeches, you could object with: “Objection, relevance. These
reports discuss unrelated civil conflicts and do not address Minister Yerodia’s specific
actions, which are the only matters before the court today.”
● Example 2: Suppose Belgium’s side tries to introduce testimony about general
governance issues in Congo. You could object, stating, “Objection, relevance. This
testimony regarding the governance of Congo has no direct connection to the charge of
incitement to genocide against Minister Yerodia.”
● Example 3: If Belgium mentions prior unrelated political speeches or instances of violence
within Congo, object with: “Objection, relevance. This evidence doesn’t pertain to any
actions taken by Minister Yerodia himself and should therefore be excluded from this
proceeding.”

2. Lack of Foundation

● Purpose: To block evidence or statements presented without necessary preliminary

information. This objection forces Belgium to provide a clear link between the actions of
the minister and the alleged incitement, demanding substantial proof before moving
forward.

Examples:

● Example 1: Belgium presents a document allegedly showing that the minister’s words
directly caused violence. You could say, “Objection, lack of foundation. Belgium has yet to
show how this document is linked to any direct acts of violence in response to Minister
Yerodia’s statements.”
● Example 2: Suppose Belgium attempts to use witness testimony to attribute actions to
Yerodia without evidence of causation. You might say, “Objection, lack of foundation. No
foundation has been laid linking this testimony to any direct consequences of the
minister’s words.”
● Example 3: If Belgium provides a witness who claims to “know” Yerodia’s statements
caused violence but lacks evidence, object with: “Objection, lack of foundation. The
witness has not provided factual data that ties Minister Yerodia’s speech to any specific
act.”

3. Speculation
 ● Purpose: To counter arguments based on assumptions or inferences that Belgium might
make without solid evidence. This objection stops Belgian witnesses from offering their
personal interpretations as though they were facts.

Examples:

● Example 1: If a Belgian witness says, “I believe the minister intended to incite violence,”
you could object: “Objection, speculation. This witness is making an assumption without
providing direct evidence of intent.”
● Example 2: Should Belgium argue that Yerodia’s speech likely incited fear or anger in the
population, you might say: “Objection, speculation. Counsel is making presumptive
statements about the public’s response without any verified data on how the population
actually reacted.”
● Example 3: Suppose Belgium argues that Congo’s government might collapse without
external intervention, implying guilt. Object with: “Objection, speculation. Counsel is
making hypothetical claims without factual support to assess Congo’s stability or
governance.”

4. Hearsay

● Purpose: To exclude secondhand statements or indirect reports as unreliable evidence.

This can help prevent Belgium from introducing vague media reports or external accounts
rather than verified primary sources.

Examples:

● Example 1: If Belgium brings in a newspaper article describing the minister’s speech as

“incendiary,” you could object with: “Objection, hearsay. This article is a third-party
interpretation and lacks direct verification of the speech’s content or impact.”
● Example 2: Belgium presents a witness who recounts what another person heard from
Yerodia’s speech. You might object: “Objection, hearsay. The witness did not personally
hear the minister’s speech and is only repeating secondhand information.”
● Example 3: If Belgium’s counsel references a “report” that summarized Yerodia’s
statements, you could object by saying: “Objection, hearsay. This report was not made by
anyone with firsthand knowledge and should not be used to infer the minister’s
intentions.”

5. Assumes Facts Not in Evidence

● Purpose: To prevent Belgium from assuming or presuming facts that haven’t been proven,
such as Congo’s instability or any direct connection between the minister’s speech and
violent acts.

Examples:

● Example 1: Belgium states, “The minister’s speech directly incited violence,” without prior
evidence. You might object: “Objection, assumes facts not in evidence. No proof has been
provided linking the speech to any specific violent incident.”
 ● Example 2: If Belgium describes Congo’s government as unfit to handle internal affairs,
object by saying: “Objection, assumes facts not in evidence. Belgium has not
substantiated any claims regarding Congo’s governance.”
● Example 3: Belgium argues that Yerodia’s statements “clearly indicated intent.” Object
with: “Objection, assumes facts not in evidence. No evidence has been provided to
substantiate any claims of specific intent.”

6. Mischaracterization of Evidence

● Purpose: To challenge Belgium’s interpretation or exaggeration of Congo’s actions,

making sure the evidence is portrayed accurately.

Examples:

● Example 1: If Belgium claims that Congo’s policies are “inherently violent,” you could
object: “Objection, mischaracterization of evidence. The statements being referenced
don’t prove that Congo’s policies promote violence.”
● Example 2: Belgium uses selective quotes from Yerodia’s speech, misrepresenting it as
incitement. Object by saying: “Objection, mischaracterization of evidence. The selective
language distorts the minister’s actual statements and their context.”
● Example 3: If Belgium implies that civil unrest indicates widespread incitement, object:
“Objection, mischaracterization. No evidence links the unrest to direct actions by Minister
Yerodia.”

7. Argumentative

● Purpose: To prevent Belgium’s counsel from asking overly aggressive or confrontational

questions designed to provoke or sway rather than gather facts.

Examples:

● Example 1: If Belgium’s counsel says to a witness, “Isn’t it true that Congo’s government
is negligent?” you could object: “Objection, argumentative. The question implies a
negative judgment rather than seeking facts.”
● Example 2: Belgium’s counsel might ask, “Would you say the minister acted
irresponsibly?” You could object: “Objection, argumentative. This question is designed to
elicit a biased response rather than to establish factual information.”
● Example 3: Counsel asks, “Wouldn’t any reasonable person agree that the minister’s
speech was harmful?” You might object: “Objection, argumentative. This is a loaded
question aimed at eliciting an opinion rather than factual testimony.”

8. Calls for a Legal Conclusion

● Purpose: To prevent Belgium from having witnesses or counsel make legal conclusions,
which should be reserved for the court.

Examples:
 ● Example 1: A witness says, “His words clearly meet the legal definition of incitement.” You
could object: “Objection, calls for a legal conclusion. Defining incitement is for the court,
not the witness.”
● Example 2: If Belgium’s counsel asks a witness, “Do you believe this constitutes
genocide?” you could object: “Objection, calls for a legal conclusion. The classification of
genocide is a judicial decision.”
● Example 3: Counsel asks, “Wasn’t his speech an abuse of human rights?” You might say:
“Objection, calls for a legal conclusion. Whether rights were violated is for the court to
determine.”

9. Ambiguity

● Purpose: To require Belgium to use precise language, particularly around vague or broad
terms, so that evidence and questions are clearly focused on the issue.

Examples:

● Example 1: Belgium uses terms like “hostile environment” without specifics. You could
object: “Objection, ambiguity. Terms like ‘hostile’ lack definition here and need
clarification.”
● Example 2: If Belgium’s counsel says, “Congo’s governance is unstable,” you might
object: “Objection, ambiguity. ‘Unstable’ is subjective and needs factual basis.”
● Example 3: Counsel uses “violence” broadly to imply guilt. Object with: “Objection,
ambiguity. The term ‘violence’ should be clarified to specify any link to Minister Yerodia’s
actions.”
 LAWS

1. UN Charter, Article 2(1)

● Affirms the principle of sovereign equality of all its Members. This can counter
Belgium's encroachment on Congo's sovereignty by reminding the court that all
countries must respect each other's jurisdictional independence.

2. UN Charter, Article 2(4)

● Prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political
independence of any state. This can be used if Belgium’s actions indirectly
undermine Congo’s stability or peace.

3. UN Charter, Article 2(7)

● Forbids intervention in matters which are essentially within the domestic

jurisdiction of any state. This is essential for countering Belgium's argument for
universal jurisdiction over Congo’s internal matters.

4. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Article 14(1)

● Guarantees the right to a fair and public hearing by a competent tribunal. Use this
to challenge any unfair procedures or assumptions Belgium tries to make without
substantial evidence.

5. Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, Article 3

● Defines diplomatic immunity and protections for diplomats. This can help protect
Congo’s ministers and officials from Belgian prosecution under international law.

6. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Article 26 (Pacta Sunt

Servanda)

● Requires that treaties be upheld in good faith. This can object to Belgium's
imposition of laws that disregard Congo’s obligations and agreements under
specific treaties.

7. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Article 27

 ● Prohibits a state from invoking its internal laws as justification for failing to
perform a treaty. Useful if Belgium tries to enforce its internal policies as an
international standard.

8. ICJ Statute, Article 38(1)

● Dictates that the ICJ shall apply international conventions, customs, and
principles recognized by nations. This can remind the court to prioritize
established international norms over Belgium’s domestic laws.

9. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 10

● Guarantees the right to a fair and impartial hearing. This reinforces the importance
of not allowing presumptive or biased arguments that Belgium might bring against
Congo.

10. International Law Commission’s Draft Articles on State Responsibility,

Article 2

● Holds that states are responsible for their own wrongful acts, not for others’
perceived offenses. This can rebut Belgium’s attempts to hold Congo accountable
based on speculative claims of harm.

11. African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Article 3

● Affirms equality before the law. This is critical if Belgium treats Congo differently
due to perceived instability rather than adhering to legal fairness.

12. African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Article 20

● Supports self-determination of peoples, emphasizing that external powers should

not interfere in African countries’ self-governance without just cause.

13. International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial

Discrimination, Article 5(a)

● Ensures equal treatment in legal matters. This can object to Belgium’s possible
bias in assuming Congo’s judiciary is inadequate.

14. UN Declaration on Principles of International Law (1970)

● Prohibits interference in the internal affairs of other countries, reinforcing Congo’s

independence from Belgian jurisdiction.
15. ICJ Statute, Article 36(2)

● Limits the court’s jurisdiction to cases that involve genuine disputes between states,
objecting to Belgium’s hypothetical concerns over Congo’s actions without direct harm to
Belgium.

16. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Article 17 (Complementarity Principle)

● Establishes that the ICC only intervenes when a nation is unwilling or unable to prosecute.
Belgium’s claims of Congo’s incapability may violate this principle if Congo is managing
its own investigations.

17. UN General Assembly Resolution 2625 (1970)

● Declares the duty of states to respect sovereignty and territorial integrity. It can counter
Belgium's arguments if they imply that Congo’s governance is insufficient without direct
harm evidence.

18. Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, UN General
Assembly Resolution 1514

● Opposes intervention by colonial powers, which may reinforce Congo's stance if

Belgium’s actions are seen as neocolonial.

19. ICCPR, Article 15

● Prohibits retroactive criminal laws. This is useful if Belgium tries to apply new legal
interpretations to past actions of Congo’s ministers.

20. European Convention on Human Rights, Article 6

● Ensures the right to a fair trial within Europe. While not binding on Congo, it can be a
persuasive reminder to Belgium of the importance of fair judicial practices.

21. Principle of Non-Intervention (Customary International Law)

● Prohibits external interference in the domestic affairs of states, emphasizing that Congo’s
internal policies are not within Belgium’s jurisdiction.

22. The Lotus Principle (from The Lotus Case, 1927)

● Asserts that states may not exercise their jurisdiction outside their territory unless
permitted by an international treaty. This restricts Belgium’s claims of jurisdiction over
Congo.

23. Charter of the Organization of African Unity (OAU), Article III

● Promotes African countries’ sovereignty and non-interference. This can help underscore
Congo’s independence from European legal interventions.
24. Declaration of the Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations (1970)

● Outlines the principles of equality and respect between states, emphasizing that no state
should interfere in the domestic affairs of another.

25. Convention Against Torture, Article 5(1)

● Establishes that jurisdiction should primarily be asserted by states where the offense
occurred or where the offender is a citizen. Belgium’s assertion of jurisdiction conflicts
with Congo’s primary right to investigate incidents within its borders.

26. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948), Article 1

● Emphasizes that genocide must be prevented and punished, but also outlines that
international intervention should be reserved for specific circumstances. This could be
used to object to Belgium's claim of universal jurisdiction, asserting that Congo must be
given the opportunity to address internal issues before outside intervention is permitted.

27. International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD),
Article 2

● Highlights the requirement to eliminate racial discrimination in all forms, including legal
processes. If Belgium’s actions are seen as targeting Congo disproportionately or on
racial grounds, this could be used to argue that Belgium’s claims are discriminatory and
undermine Congo’s sovereignty.

28. Hague Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969), Article 34

● Prohibits one party from imposing obligations on a third party without its consent. If
Belgium attempts to enforce judicial actions on Congo based on actions that occurred
within Congo’s borders, this article can be used to argue that Belgium cannot impose
such obligations on Congo without Congo's consent or involvement.

29. International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), Article 2

● Ensures the right of states to freely pursue their economic, social, and cultural
development. This could be used to counter Belgium’s interference in Congo’s political
and social systems, arguing that such interventions destabilize Congo's sovereignty and
undermine its development.

30. Customary International Law of Non-Intervention

● This principle asserts that no state has the right to intervene in the internal affairs of
another state, particularly in political, economic, or social matters, unless expressly
authorized by international law. This principle is foundational in defending against
Belgium’s claims, as it emphasizes the autonomy of sovereign states to address their own
issues without outside interference.