A 2017 moot court final oral argument analyzes ICC admissibility under Article 17, gravity, and the admissibility of evidence allegedly obtained by torture in Prosecutor v. Newbery.
📊 Quick Facts
| Type | Interview |
| Author | Alexandre GAIN |
| Published | April 1, 2026 |
| Source | Visit Source |
| Location(s) | PANSIM World Organisation |
🖼️ Illustrations
📝 Abstract
[Summary generated by AI] The author presents oral submissions in a 2017 moot court final on Prosecutor v. Newbery, addressing (1) admissibility under Article 17(1) of the Rome Statute, (2) the admissibility of evidence obtained through torture under Article 69(7), and (3) individual criminal responsibility for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Drawing on the Rome Statute, ICC Rules of Procedure and Evidence, the Lubanga admissibility jurisprudence, and Article 1 of the UN Convention against Torture, the author argues that complementarity is satisfied because state authorities remained inactive beyond a reasonable period, notwithstanding a limited commission of inquiry and the respondent’s removal from office. Using a gravity analysis that considers systematic or large-scale conduct, senior leadership, and organizational participation, the author contends the threshold is met given the role of a clandestine security group and the accused’s senior position. On evidentiary questions, applying reliability and integrity criteria associated with ICC practice and comparative tribunals, the author claims the challenged statement remains reliable and its admission would not damage the Court’s integrity, particularly absent proof of official complicity in the alleged torture. The deliverable is a structured prosecutorial plea urging the ICC to admit the case and evidence and proceed.