PROSECUTION
May it please the Court?
Much obliged, Your Honour.
I am Aslam Akbar, the second speaker, appearing as a Counsel for the Prosecution before
this Honourable Chamber. Your Honour, I shall be addressing Issue 3,
that pertains to Whether Eren Yeager, as the leader of the Yeagerist Liberation Organization
(YLO), is criminally responsible for the war crime of intentionally directing attacks against
protected objects under Article 8(2)(e)(iv) of the Rome Statute?
Would the honorable bench like to hear the exact verbatim of Article 8(2)(e)(iv) of the Rome
Statute?
Article 8(2)(e)(iv) of Rome Statute provides:
For the purpose of this Statute, "war crimes" means:
(iv) Intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science
or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are
collected, provided they are not military objectives;
The Prosecution respectfully submits that Eren Yeager is criminally responsible.
and the Counsel will establish this through two limbs.
1. The Elements of the Crimes
2. Responsibility under Article 25 and 28.
With Your honour’s permission, may the Counsel proceed to limb 1.
Limb 1:
Your honour, Limb1, concerning the Five Elements of Crimes, will prove crime of attacking
protected objects committed by Eren Yeager.
1. The both sites were Protected Objects
The Merlin Grand Temple is a religious and historical structure(Fact 17), protected under Article
8(2)(e)(iv), Additional Protocol I Article 53, and Additional Protocol II Article 16. As ICC held
in PROSECUTOR v. STANISLAV GALIĆ, “[t]he presence of individual combatants within
1|Page
the population does not change its civilian character and that only military objectives may be
lawfully attacked" (para 135). The mere presence of an antenna on its bell tower(Fact 19) does
not remove protection from the entire Temple. So, YLO should have neutralized antenna rather
than destroying the whole temple.
Your honour, the defence may argue that the Merlin Grand Temple is located 400 metres from
Gurdovian military logistics and vehicle repair depot(Fact18) within 500-metres dual-use
window given in SOP 7.1(Annexure 4), signed and authorized by Eren Yeager. But Your honour,
the ICTY held in Prosecutor v. Strugar held that "the Chamber considers that the special
protection awarded to cultural property itself may not be lost simply because of military
activities or military installations in the immediate vicinity of the cultural property."
Therefore, the nearby presence of Gurdovian Logistics does not change the protected status of
the temple.
Furthermore, Your honour the the defence may also argue that the attack on temple resulted from
the programming code error(Fact 24). Your honour Fact 10 demonstrates that YLO began
developing computerized drone technologies in 2013, which was fully and fundamentally
developed in four years later. YLO, despite knowing the fact that undeveloped technology is
prone to errors, launched an attack in the same year. Your honour, it was not programming code
error, rather it was a calculated attack.
The same applies even more strongly to the Community Hospital. Hospitals enjoy the highest
degree of protection under international humanitarian law, Geneva Convention IV Article 19 and
Additional Protocol II Article 11. This protection may be lost only if the hospital is used to
commit harmful acts and after the issuance of a warning that goes unheeded.(Additional Protocol
II, Article 11(2)) and (ICRC Customary IHL Study, Rule 28)
Here, Your honour, no harmful use of Hospital is established and no warning was issued
Your honour, the Community Hosptal was attacked on two basis: (1 YLO SOP 7.1 that defined
Firdoskti sector as a "Free Fire Zone" and (2) it was a rumoured FSF resupply point(Fact 23).
The defence may argue that Hospital was unmarked but their argument clearly fails as the ICRC
in Customary International Humanitarian Law, Vol. I Rule.30, pp.102-104 explained "that
medical units are not protected by the emblem per se, but
2|Page
by their humanitarian function".
Both structures, therefore, retained full protection at the moment they were attacked.
2. The Accused directed the attacks
Your Excellencies, the first element requires proof that the perpetrator directed an attack. It was
held in Al Mahdi that: "The Chamber considers that the element of ‘direct[ing] an attack’
encompasses any acts of violence against protected objects and will not make a distinction as
to whether it was carried out in the conduct of hostilities or after the object had fallen under
the control of an armed group."( para15) In the present case, both the protected objects the
Merlin Grand Temple and the Hospital were attacked on Eren Yeager's direction.
Your honours, the Merlin Grand Temple, though housing a receiver antenna (Fact 19), was left
untouched for nearly a year. It was struck immediately after Mr. Yeager’s broadcast calling on
supporters to “strike at the enemy’s heart” and “destroy their symbols of tyranny” (Fact 20,
Annexure 7). The Temple also fell within the 500-metre dual-use window authorised in the YLO
Drone Manual (Annexure 8), a manual personally approved by Eren Yeager.
In the case of Community Hospital, the drone operator relied on SOP 7.1, signed and authorized
by Eren Yeager, which designated the entire Firdoskti region a “Free Fire Zone” and granted
discretionary authority to certified remote operators and field commanders(Annexure 4). The
strike was launched solely on a rumour of FSF activity(Fact 23), even though the Hospital lay 3
km from the front lines in the Firdoskti sector(Fact22), outside the 500-metre dual use
window(Annexure 8).
Therefore, through his broadcast, Drone Manual, and SOP 7.1, Eren Yeager enabled, authorised,
and directed both attacks.
3. Intention to Attack Civilian Objects:
The Prosecution submits that the Accused intended the attacks within the meaning of Article
30(2) of Rome Statute which provides that "a person has intent where: (a) In relation to
conduct, that person means to engage in the conduct; (b) In relation to a consequence, that
person means to cause that consequence or is aware that it will occur in the ordinary course
of events."
3|Page
In this case, intent is proven through four categories:
First, explicit incitement. Mr. Yeager's broadcast targeted religious symbols. He said in his
broadcast that "destroy the symbols of their tyranny" and "show them that their gods cannot
protect them." This discriminatory language mirrors the religious animus.
Second, institutional policy. The Drone Manual authorized targeting places of worship as
"secondary operational targets" demonstrating organizational intent to subordinate IHL
protection.
Third, knowledge of protected status. Mr. Yeager knew the Temple represented the Merlin
religion followed by 90% of Gurdovia's population(Fact 3). He knew hospitals are protected. Yet
he authorized policies enabling their targeting.
Fourth, the ICTY in Kordić & Čerkez found that "a pattern of attacks on religious buildings
evidences discriminatory intent." Here, two separate attacks on protected objects within one
year demonstrate systematic violation.
4. Existence of an Armed Conflict:
In Lubanga, the ICC, confirming Tadic,(ICTY, Tadic Interlocutory Appeal Decision, para.70.)
defined NIAC as “armed conflicts that take place in the territory of a State when there is
protracted armed conflict between governmental authorities and organised armed groups or
between such groups.”(ICC, Lubanga Trial Judgment, para.534.).
"Two aspects must be satisfied for the existence of a NIAC: the “organisation” of the parties
and the “intensity” of the conflict."(ICTY, Delalic Trial Judgment, para.184.)
Your Excellencies, the fourth element requires the conduct occurred during a non-international
armed conflict. The ICTY in Prosecutor v. Tadić established that "an armed conflict exists
whenever there is a resort to armed force between States or protracted armed violence between
governmental authorities and organized armed groups or between such groups within a
State."
The protracted hostilities between the coalition forces and the YLO since 2007(Fact 8), the
structured command within YLO(Fact 7), and the consistent engagement of armed forces, all
4|Page
confirm the existence of a NIAC. The Pre-Trial Chamber’s warrant of arrest(Annexure 2)itself
recognizes this classification. The required nexus is therefore fulfilled.
5. The Accused was Aware of Existence of an AC:
As required under Article 30(3) that:"knowledge” means awareness that a circumstance exists
or a consequence will occur in the ordinary course of events" Mr. Yeager was not a peripheral
figure, he was the central military authority of the YLO(Fact 5). He reviewed manuals, issued
battlefield directives, declared free-fire zones, managed drone operations, and addressed the
nation regarding the war. His knowledge is beyond reasonable doubt.
Your Excellencies, that concludes the first limb. All five elements of the crime are fully
established.
Limb 2:
Your honour, through limb 2 the counsel would prove:
1. Individual Responsibility. (Article 25(3))
2. Command Responsibility. (Article 28)
1. Individual Responsibility
Your honour, Article 25(3)(a) criminalizes conduct where a person "commits such a crime,
whether as an individual, jointly with another or through another person." Article 25(3)(b)
provides liability where a person "orders, solicits or induces the commission of such a
crime."
Eren Yeager bears individual responsibility through:
First, policy authorship: SOP 7.1, which designated Free Fire Zones and authorized attacks on
unmarked hospitals, was signed "By The King, Eren Yeager." This constitutes direct authorship
of policies facilitating war crimes.
Second, ordering through broadcast. His September 2013 statement, "We must strike... destroy
the symbols of their tyranny... their gods", constitutes an order to attack religious symbols. The
imperative language coupled with specific target identification demonstrates command intent.
5|Page
Third, commission through subordinates. The drone operators and YLO commanders
implemented his policies as they were given discretionary authority by Eren Yeager(Annexure 4,
SOP). Article 25(3)(a)'s provision for commission "through another person" establishes liability
when the superior creates the framework that enables crimes.
2. Command responsibility
Your Excellencies, Article 28(a) provides that "a military commander shall be criminally
responsible for crimes committed by forces under his effective command and control"
where: "(i) That commander knew or should have known forces were committing such
crimes; and (ii) That commander failed to take all necessary and reasonable measures to
prevent or repress their commission".
a. Effective Command and Control
Mr. Yeager possessed possessed effective command and control over YLO. He declared himself
"King and leader," established "a clear military command structure," and controlled "10 military
sectors" where commanders "took actions in the name of Eren Yeager(Facts 5 and 7)." He issued
SOPs, managed drone programs, and maintained communication with YLO.
The ICTY in Čelebići established: "The ability to exercise effective control will almost
invariably not be satisfied unless a relationship of subordination exists." Here, the
hierarchical structure with Mr. Yeager at the apex establishes de jure and de facto control.
b. Knowledge: Knew or Should Have Known
Eren Yeager should have known the commission on crimes being a YLO leader and king. His
September 2013 broadcast preceded the Temple attack by weeks, demonstrating he knew such
attacks were imminent. He personally signed SOP 7.1 authorizing Free Fire Zone operations.
The ICTY in Kordić & Čerkez held: "A person in superior authority should be held
responsible for failure to prevent crimes if the superior knew or had reason to know that
subordinates were about to commit crimes and failed to take necessary and reasonable
steps to prevent or punish them."
6|Page
c. Failure to Prevent or Repress
After the Temple attack in late 2013, the hospital attack occurred in 2014. Despite knowledge of
the first violation, Mr. Yeager took no preventive measures.
Under Celebici it was held that: "As the corollary to the standard adopted by the Trial
Chamber with respect to the concept of superior, we conclude that a superior should be held
responsible for failing to take such measures that are within his material possibility."(para.
395.)
Eren Yeager took no action to prevent, repress or submit the crimes to the competent authorities.
As He did not:
Revoke SOP 7.1
Issue orders prohibiting attacks on protected objects
Suspend malfunction-prone drones
Investigate or punish perpetrators
His complete inaction satisfies the failure.
Accordingly, the Prosecution respectfully submits that Eren Yeager is criminally
responsible for intentionally directing attacks against protected objects, in violation of
Article 8(2)(e)(iv) of the Rome Statute.
PRAYER
In the light of the aforementioned arguments, the Prosecution most respectfully prays before the
Trial Chamber of the ICC to declare that:
1. Eren Yeager is guilty of the war crime of hostage-taking under Article 8(2)(c)(iii) of the Rome
Statute, read with Articles 25(3)(a) and 28, for acts committed against humanitarian workers in
Kanto between 2005–2014;
7|Page
2. Eren Yeager is guilty of the war crime of intentionally directing attacks against protected
objects under Article 8(2)(e)(iv) of the Rome Statute, for attacks on the Merlin Grand Temple in
late 2013 and the Community Hospital in 2014;
3. Eren Yeager is liable under command responsibility pursuant to Article 28 of the Rome Statute
for crimes committed by his subordinates in the YLO, including the detention, coercion, and
attack on protected sites;
[Link] Chamber confirm its jurisdiction under the Rome Statute and proceed to confirmation of
charges; and
5. Any other relief that the Chamber deems fit and just.
IT WAS AN HONOR AND PLEASURE PLEADING BEFORE THIS HONORABLE
BENCH.
8|Page