Date post: | 03-Jun-2018 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | vivek-singh |
View: | 289 times |
Download: | 0 times |
of 28
8/12/2019 moot memorial for Applicant
1/28
7th AMITY NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION 2014
INTHEINTERNATIONALCOURTOFJUSTICE
PEACEPALACE, THEHAGUE
NETHERLANDS
CASECONCERNING THEINTENATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW
PROSECUTOR
APPLICANT
v.
PROSECUTOR
RESPONDENT
ON SUBMISSION TO THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
MEMORIALfor theRESPONDENT
8/12/2019 moot memorial for Applicant
2/28
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREIATIONS............................................................................................................ i
INDE! OF AUTHORITIES.....................................................................ii
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION............................................................................................... iiv
STATEMENT OF FACTS................................................................................................................ v
ISSUES RAISED............................................................................................................................ vi
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS..................................................................................................... vii
BODY OF PLEADINGS.................................................................................................................. 1
A. ICC "#$$%t &'&(")*& )t* +()*-)"t)%$ %v&( th& "#*&.................................................................... 1
B. I$ )/ht % th& (%t&*t #-& 3 th& *t#t& % N#5%)#, th& "#*& )* $%t #-)**)3& 3&%(& th& ICC. . 4
C. 6h&th&( th& ICC h#* %&( t% &'&(")*& th& (&t(%*&"t)v& +()*-)"t)%$ %$ th& /)v&$ #tt&(. %
...................................................................................................................................................... 7
D. Th& #((&*t #$- *3*&8&$t t(#$*&( % M(. "#$9# t% ICC )* )&/#........................................ 9
E. Th& #""*&- )* $%t /)t % %%)$/ "()&*:........................................................................ 12
PRAYER......................................................................................................................................... xii
http://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/HYPERLINK%23page4http://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/HYPERLINK%23page7http://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/HYPERLINK%23page7http://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/HYPERLINK%23page8http://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/HYPERLINK%23page9http://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/HYPERLINK%23page9http://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/HYPERLINK%23page9http://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/HYPERLINK%23page10http://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/HYPERLINK%23page13http://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/HYPERLINK%23page13http://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/HYPERLINK%23page16http://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/HYPERLINK%23page16http://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/HYPERLINK%23page19http://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/HYPERLINK%23page21http://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/HYPERLINK%23page24http://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/HYPERLINK%23page24http://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/HYPERLINK%23page24http://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/HYPERLINK%23page27http://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/HYPERLINK%23page27http://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/HYPERLINK%23page7http://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/HYPERLINK%23page7http://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/HYPERLINK%23page8http://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/HYPERLINK%23page9http://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/HYPERLINK%23page9http://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/HYPERLINK%23page10http://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/HYPERLINK%23page13http://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/HYPERLINK%23page13http://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/HYPERLINK%23page16http://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/HYPERLINK%23page19http://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/HYPERLINK%23page21http://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/HYPERLINK%23page24http://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/HYPERLINK%23page24http://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/HYPERLINK%23page24http://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/HYPERLINK%23page27http://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/HYPERLINK%23page48/12/2019 moot memorial for Applicant
3/28
LIST OF ABBREIATIONS
A(t. Article (unless otherwise noted, Art.
Designates articles of the Rome Statue)
Ch#3&( Pre-Trial Chamer
F#"t* !acts and Procedural "istor#
G&$%")-& C%$v&"t)%$ $nternational Con%ection on the
Pre%ention and Punishment of the
Crime of &enocide, Dec ', '*, +*
..T.S. ++, */.
ICC $nternational Criminal Court
ICJ $nternational Court of 0ustice
ICRC $nternational Committee of Red Cross
ICTR $nternational Criminal Triunal of
Rwanda
ICTY $nternational Criminal Triunal of
!ormer 1ugosla%ia
ILC $nternational 2aw Commission
N%. umer
Th& St#t& The Rome Statue
Th& R&* Rules of Procedures and 3%idence
UDHR ni%ersal Declaration of "uman
Rights
UN nited ations
8/12/2019 moot memorial for Applicant
4/28
8/12/2019 moot memorial for Applicant
5/28
Ri-ar% %..nite% State$, S Court of A55eal ;udgment of 7+6 ! ed ** (6th Cir. '=+)
............................ 5
8/12/2019 moot memorial for Applicant
6/28
The 2ands of Palmas Aritration, (Netherlan%$%. .nite% State$), '*, , R$AA *'.............................5
Other Authorities
Antonio Cassese, The international criminal Court/ the ma)in of the Rome $tatute i$$ue$0 neotiation$0
re$ult$0 edited # Ro# S. 2ee in coo5eration with The Pro;ect on $nternational Courts and Triunals,
5ulished # The "ague> luwer 2aw $nternational, c'''. at =/= (hereafter @Antonio CasseseE).......3
$.C.0. Re5orts '6+, 5. 67? 4$P8, Case o. D//-/676, //............................................................ 6
$C0 Re5orts, '66, 55., 7 $2R, 55. 7',7=/. at +6...................................................................... 3
$CRC,Ho1 i$ the term 2Arme% Conflict3 %efine% in international humanitarian la1F , 85inion Pa5er,
8/12/2019 moot memorial for Applicant
7/28
8/12/2019 moot memorial for Applicant
8/28
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Prosecutor has a55roached the "onorale $nternational Criminal Court under Article 6 read
with Article 7 (a) of the Rome Statue. The Defendant res5ectfull# o;ects the ;urisdiction of the
Court as it does not ha%e the ;urisdiction to entertain the instant case.
8/12/2019 moot memorial for Applicant
9/28
STATEMENT OF FACTS
$. araKlia got inde5endences from the 3uro5ean continent in late ''/s.due to internal
dissension, the %arious unified nations could e attained. as struggle continue, a lieral
democratic Constitution was ado5ted # countr# and res5onsile go%ernment form #a 5o5ular %ote. ut soon cou5 dLetat was arranged # the militaril# wings led #
8/12/2019 moot memorial for Applicant
10/28
masuari citiKen died due to as5h#Giation with toGic gases, use for the 5roduction of
drugs and chemicals. the following sectors was com5letel# controlled # the go%ernment
and it was alleged that this was delierate attem5t # the go%ernment to wi5e the entire
ethnic 5o5ulation of masauri trie. As 5er the re5ort of the national in%estigation
committee which was set u5 and it was re5orted the national census de5artment has
leaIed the data which showed the highest concentration of masauri 5eo5le in the entire
countr# to the 5rominent leader of haIa#u trie . the alleged charge were o55osed # the
go%ernment and in%ol%ement that the artrocities continued till / and %iolence are a
ruse manufactured # the masauri trie itself and create a situation of ci%il war and to55le
the go%ernment.
$B. Peo5le ecome a %iolent when during huge demonstration in the front of the 5resident
8/12/2019 moot memorial for Applicant
11/28
B. The 5rosecutor of the $CC tooI cogniKance of the matter and initiated the in%estigated.
2ater on 5re-trial chamer issued arrest warrent in the name of mr. 2ucanIa accused him
of committing acts of genocide.
SuseMuent during the trial chamer of the $CC,
8/12/2019 moot memorial for Applicant
12/28
ISSUES RAISED
.. 4hether the $CC has the ;urisdiction to tr# the case against
8/12/2019 moot memorial for Applicant
13/28
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1. ICC "#$$%t &'&(")*& )t* +()*-)"t)%$ %v&( th& "#*&.
The Court cannot eGercise its ;urisdiction o%er the case. The ;urisdiction ratio tempori$has not
een estalished since (i) the territorial State of
the crime committed here is not a State Part# to the Statute at the time of crime (ii) the state of
nationalit# of the accused is not a State Part# to the Statute either.
2. I$ )/ht % th& (%t&*t #-& 3 th& *t#t& % N#5%)#, th& "#*& )* $%t #-)**)3& 3&%(& th&
ICC.
The $CC is im5eded to anal#Ke the merits of the case due to the 5rinci5le of com5lementar#, and
second, the gra%it# of the acts 5er5etrated does not ;ustif# the resource to the Court. The $CC is
arred from eGercising its ;urisdiction o%er a crime, whene%er a national Court asserts its
;urisdiction o%er the same crime and under its national law the aKolia has ;urisdiction and it
ne%er showed its unwillingness and its inailit# of ad;udication. aKolia has shown interest in
5rosecuting the
8/12/2019 moot memorial for Applicant
14/28
;. Th& #((&*t #$- *3*&8&$t t(#$*&( % M(. L"#$9# t% ICC )* )&/#.
There are no reasonale grounds to elie%e that =3> ='v)))> &$)*t&- )$ th&
R%& St#t&.
There are elements that show the lacI of genocidal intent. The accused is not guilt# of crime
against "umanit# under Article +() (g).
8/12/2019 moot memorial for Applicant
15/28
BODY OF PLEADINGS
A. ICC "#$$%t &'&(")*& )t* +()*-)"t)%$ %v&( th& "#*&.
#> Th& J()*-)"t)%$ ratio temporis)* $%t &*t#3)*h&- #""%(-)$/ t% A(t. 11.
$t is in dis5ute that the&uri$%iction ratio tempori$6has een estalished since the alleged crime
tooI 5lace in efore ;ul# // and
8/12/2019 moot memorial for Applicant
16/28
3> Th& J()*-)"t)%$ ratione materiae)* $%t &*t#3)*h&- )$ th)* "#*&.
The defendant counsel would liIe to focus on the issue whether Th& T&%(# J()*-)"t)%$ )* $%t &*t#3)*h&- )$ th)* "#*&.
aKolia as the nationalit# of the accused is a non-state 5art# to $CC and is unliIel# to acce5t the
CourtLs ;urisdiction # declaration as 5ro%ided in Para 7 of Art. /
, es5eciall# when the
accused is the head of state at the time as eG5lained earlier.
+. #ro$ecutor %.Nahimana et al!, (Case o. $CTR-''-6-T) 7 Decemer //7, in which $CTR con%ictedthree mediamen for the crime of inciting genocide.*.!or the 5ur5ose of this Statue, @genocideE means an# of the following acts committed with intent to destro#, inwhole or in 5art, a national, ethical, racial or religious grou5.'.nless other 5ro%ided, a 5erson shall e criminall# res5onsile and liale for 5unishment for a crime within the;urisdiction of the Court onl# if the materials elements are committed with intent and Inowledge./.Art. (7) of the Rome Statue. $t has 5ro%ided a wa# for non-state to acce5t $CCs ;urisdiction # maIingdeclaration..
8/12/2019 moot memorial for Applicant
17/28
8/12/2019 moot memorial for Applicant
18/28
4ith no factual ases for article ;urisdiction, the defendant will argue for no%el grounds for
;urisdiction that are unsu55orted # the Statute, which does not 5ermit eG5anding ;urisdiction.
The Pre-Trial Chamer must re;ect an# argument for territorial ;urisdiction that di%erges from the
language of the Statute or the intentions of the drafters. !irst, there is no statutor# authorit# for a
road reading of article . Article is eG5licit, conclusi%e, and clear on the issue of what
@ma#E 5ro%ide the Court ;urisdiction, and there is no language within the Rome Statute generall#
that encourages alternati%e a55roaches.
Second, a no%el inter5retation would harm the integrit#
of the Court. The 5reconditions to the eGercise of ;urisdiction detailed in article were carefull#
negotiated and drafted during the Rome conference and were considered among of the most
im5ortant and contro%ersial 5ro%isions of the Statute.
B. I$ )/ht % th& (%t&*t #-& 3 th& *t#t& % N#5%)#, th& "#*& )* $%t #-)**)3& 3&%(& th&
ICC.
#> Th& "#*& )* $%t #-)**)3& 3&%(& th& ICC.
Articles + to ' of the Rome Statute determine the conditions of admissiilit#, which can e
defined as reMuirements to the acce5tance of a s5ecific case o%er which the $CC has ;urisdiction.
The 5resent situation is inadmissile efore the $nternational Criminal Court, once the
reMuirements estalished in the Rome Statute are com5letel# fulfilled.
3> P()$")& % C%)&$t#()t.
The $CC is ased on the 5rinci5le of com5lementar# where# the Court is susidiar# or
com5lementar# to national courts. These courts en;o# 5riorit# in the eGercise of ;urisdiction
eGce5t under s5ecial circumstances, when the $CC is entitled to taIe o%er and assert its
;urisdiction. This a55roach undertaIen # the Statute was ado5ted since, the national courts ma#
ha%e more means a%ailale to collect the necessar# e%idence and to la# their hands on theaccused, and also since there was the intent to res5ect State so%ereignt# as much as 5ossile.
Art () of the Rome Statue.
8/12/2019 moot memorial for Applicant
19/28
Com5lementar# is laid down in 5aragra5h / of the Preamle6
as well as in Article of the
Statute=
and is s5elled out in Articles 6, +, * and '. Due to this 5rinci5le the Court is arred
from eGercising its ;urisdiction o%er a crime, whene%er a national Court asserts its ;urisdiction
o%er the same crime and under its national law the State has ;urisdiction and the State is willing
and has the ailit# of ad;udging (Art. +. (a).+
"> N#5%)# *t#t& h#* t&(()t%()# +()*-)"t)%$ %v&( M(. "#$9#.
The asic 5rinci5le of territorialit# determines that a crime committed in a StateLs territor# is
;ustifiale in that State. $n the 2otus case, the Permanent Court of $nternational 0ustice stated in
'+ that @in all s#stems of law the 5rinci5le of the territorialit# character of criminal law is
fundamentalE ((rance%. Tur)e*, '+, 5. /).*
!urther, a S Court stated inRi-ar%%. .nite%
States'that @all the nations of the world recogniKe the 5rinci5le that a man who outside of a
countr# willfull# 5uts in motion a force to taIe effect in it is answerale at the 5lace where the
e%il is done.E The 5rinci5le is grounded asic 5rinci5le of territorial so%ereignt#, which denotes
the en;o#ment of rights o%er territor#. Territorial so%ereignt# in%ol%es the eGclusi%e right to
dis5la# the acti%ities of a State (Netherlan%$%. .nite% State$, '*, Para. *')./
aKolia is a
so%ereign State, and, for that reason, the 5rinci5le of territor# would 5ros5er. $n addition, there
are two im5ortant ad%antages, which ;ustif# its a55licailit#. !irst, the locus delicti commissi (the
5lace where the offence has allegedl# een committed) was within aKolia, countr# where it is
easiest to collect e%idence. $t is therefore considered the a55ro5riate 5lace of trial (I$rael%.
Eichman, '=).
63m5hasiKing that the $nternational Criminal Court estalished under this Statue shall e com5lementar# to
national criminal ;urisdictions.
'. $t shall e a 5ermanent institution and shall ha%e the 5ower to eGercise its ;urisdiction o%er 5ersons for themost serious crimes of international concern, as referred to in this Statue, and shall e com5lementar# to nationalcriminal ;urisdictions.
/.The case is eing in%estigated or 5rosecuted # a State which has ;urisdiction o%er it, unless the State is willing orunale genuinel# to carr# out the in%estigation or 5rosecution..$nternational Court of 0ustice, SS Lotu$((rance%. Tur)e*),PC$0 '+ Series A, o. /, + Se5temer '+, 9Cited asLotu$Case:..Ri-ar% %..nite% State$, S Court of A55eal ;udgment of 7+6 ! ed ** (6th Cir. '=+).7.The 2ands of Palmas Aritration, (Netherlan%$%. .nite% State$), '*, , R$AA *'..$srael,Eichman, Su5reme Court, ;udgement of '
8/12/2019 moot memorial for Applicant
20/28
-> B(-&$ % P(%%
$t is a well estalished 5rinci5le that ad faith cannot e 5resumed under international law.
aKolia has shown interest in 5rosecuting the
8/12/2019 moot memorial for Applicant
21/28
C. 6h&th&( th& ICC h#* %&( t% &'&(")*& )t* (%v)*)%$* (&t(%*&"t)v&.
The $CC has no 5ower to eGercise the retros5ecti%e o5eration under article of Rome statute of
$CC if crime is so heinous or serious than $CC has 5ower to eGercise the retros5ecti%e o5eration.
The 5reamle Rome statute recogniKed that such gra%e crime threaten the 5eace, securit# andwell eing of the world.
2aw must not im5ose criminal liailit# for acts that were not criminal offence at the time the#
were not criminal offence at the time the# were committed ut where crime is more heinous or
serious or against the humanit#, the court has discretionar# 5ower to a55l# retros5ecti%e
o5eration.
!or the su55orting of argument
A new law is alwa#s enacted in the 5ersuasion that it is etter than the former one. $ts efficac#,therefore, must e eGtended as far as 5ossile, in order to communicate the eG5ected
im5ro%ement in the widest s5here.
4illiamsLs 5oints out that the 5rinci5le of non-retroacti%it# is associated with the retriuti%etheor# of 5unishment, as o55osed to the deterrent theor#. $f 5unishment is ;ustified as a deterrent
to future wrongdoing, then new laws can onl# a55l# 5ros5ecti%el#. nless the 5re%ious
wrongdoer eG5ected to e 5unished, the 5unishment would e useless as a deterrent.!urthermore, announcement of the change in the law should e sufficient deterrent to future
wrongdoers 5unishing 5re%ious wrongdoers would ha%e no deterrent effect u5on those future
wrongdoers.
"owe%er, if 5unishment is %iewed as societ#Os retriution for moral wrongdoing, thenretroacti%it# can e ;ustified. As 4illiams 5uts it>
... the ado5tion of retroacti%it# as a general 5rinci5le is altogether inadmissile ... it is un;ust ..7
ut, acce5ting that retros5ecti%it# has a role in the retriuti%e 5unishment of wrongdoers does
not mean that retros5ecti%it# need e a general 5rinci5le. Pro5onents of retros5ecti%it# onl#
argue for the maIing of retroacti%e laws in eGce5tional circumstances> in situations where thewrongdoerOs acts or omissions were morall# wrong, though legal at the
26. !. C. %on Sa%ign#, o5. cit., 5. 7
27. &. 4illiams, o5. cit., 5. =/
28. &. 4illiams, o5. cit., 5. =/.
28 !. C. %on Sa%ign#, o5. cit., 55. 76
8/12/2019 moot memorial for Applicant
22/28
29. This theor# of law-maIing was reified in the much-criticised amendment of the &erman Criminal Code #the aKis
at the time that the# were committed, that is, where the wrongdoer has transgressed the natural
law
According to 4illiams, a numer of eminent ;urists se%erel# criticiKed the uremerg trials for
5ro%iding for 5unishment of all crimes against humanit# (whether or not in %iolation of the
domestic law of the countr# where the acts were committed), and for declaring the waging of a
war of aggression to e a crime. oth of these ste5s were said to go e#ond eGisting international
law.
The uremerg trials are generall# said to ha%e een fair, des5ite the demonstral# retros5ecti%e
nature of the charges laid against the aKi defendants. This is clearl# due to societ#Os ahorrence
of the atrocities committed # the aKis in 4orld 4ar $$. 1et, regardless of the re5ugnant nature
of what the aKis did, it is clear that the# were denied 5rotection from retroacti%e criminal law.
Des5ite these 5rotestations, most ;urists rationaliKed the eha%ior of the uremerg court #claiming that the actions of the aKis were so immoral as to e an eGce5tion to the 5rinci5le of
non-retroacti%it#. 4illiams claims>
o in;ustice was done at uremerg, ecause all the defendants there found guilt# were clearl#
guilt# of war crimes in the traditional sense.6
At this 5oint, it is illustrati%e to Muote from the law with which the aKis altered the &ermanCriminal Code in '76>=
In the case of Shaw v. Director of Public Prosecutions
Shaw was successfull# 5rosecuted under a numer of 5ro%isions of the Se7ual Offence$ Act'6=
and the Ob$cene #ublication$ Act'6'. Shaw com5lained to the "ouse of 2ords, inter alia, thatthe crime of cons5irac# to corru5t 5ulic morals was hitherto unInown or innominate. All fi%e
law lords u5held the con%iction. 8nl# 2ord Reid maintained that the crime with which Shaw was
charged was an eGisting common law misdemeanour. The other four law lords went further. The#
held that courts ha%e a residual 5ower to su5erintend offences which are 5re;udicial to the 5ulicwelfare. The ma;orit# uilt their argument u5on the notion, 5ut forward # 2ord
8/12/2019 moot memorial for Applicant
23/28
D. Th& #((&*t #$- *3*&8&$t t(#$*&( % M(. L"#$9# t% ICC )* )&/#.
The arrest and suseMuent transfer of
8/12/2019 moot memorial for Applicant
24/28
clearl# distinguished. Article 6* () (a) remains unsatisfied. An# 5ossile grounds are ased on
an eGtract of highl# dis5uted and unreliale e%idence, as well as se%eral coincidental e%ents.
Such e%idence cannot 5ossil# amount to reasonale grounds that would suffice to 5ro%ide
e%idence of the occurrence of a crime within ;urisdiction of the Court.
2> A((&*t % M(. L"#$9# )* $$&"&**#(.
3%en if
8/12/2019 moot memorial for Applicant
25/28
$n %iolale and cannot e arrested in an# foreign states. nder international customar# law, i.e.
8/12/2019 moot memorial for Applicant
26/28
E. Th& #""*&- )* $%t /)t % %%)$/ "()&*:
#> Th& #""*&- )* $%t /)t % "()& % G&$%")-& $-&( A(t)"& < =#> % th& R%& St#t&.
"ead of aKolia state has not 5ursued a 5olic# of genocide under Art. = (a) of the Rome Statue.
The &enocide Con%ention of '* and the corres5onding customar# international rules reMuire a
numer of s5ecific o;ecti%e and su;ecti%e elements for indi%idual criminal res5onsiilit# for
genocide to arise. There are elements that show the lacI of genocidal intent. The 5rosecution
failed to show @ dolus s5ecialisE or @dolus aggra%eE which is an essential element to 5ro%e the
@s5ecific intentE in the offence of genocide. The# were onl# against those 5eo5le who etra# the
cause of their great nation. The# were onl# against the 5eo5le who etra# the cause of the nation
not whole Th& #""*&- )* $%t /)t % "()& #/#)$*t H#$)t $-&( A(t)"& 7=1> =/> &$)*t&- )$ th&
R%& St#t&.
To estalish a crime against humanit# which would ring the defendant under ;urisdiction of the
$CC, we must a55l# the threshold test of Article +76
and determine whether the acts in Muestion
were committed as 5art of a wides5read or s#stematic attacI directed against a ci%ilian5o5ulation, with Inowledge of the attacI. !irstl#, there is nowhere mentioned in the facts that
8/12/2019 moot memorial for Applicant
27/28
such an# act. Th& #""*&- )* $%t /)t % #( C()&* $-&( A(t)"& ?=2> =3>='v)))> &$)*t&- )$ th& R%&
St#t&.
8/12/2019 moot memorial for Applicant
28/28
-PRAYER
4herefore, in the light of the Muestions 5resented, arguments ad%anced and authorities cited,
counsel on the ehalf of the Defendant reMuests this "onle Court to find, ad;udge and
declare that>
A.The Court cannot eGercise its ;urisdiction o%er the case.
.The case is not admissile efore the $CC.
C. The Chamer should decline to confirm the charge. The case should e dismissed on
5reliminar# asis (Art. 67 (). (c)).
D.The arrest and suseMuent transfer of