F. The Republic Of Adova Did Not Commit An Act Of Aggression

The Respondent may claim that the apprehension and subsequent detention of Samara Penza and other Adovan citizens was consistent with international law, because these actions constitute self-defense, referring to the Definition of Aggression  United Nations General Assembly Resolution²⁶.  However, article 3 of the mentioned Resolution enumerates the acts that are qualified as an act of aggression and none of these acts were committed by the Republic of Adova. Apart from this, even if the Republic of Adova violated international law by action that can me determined as an act of aggression, Rotania should have reported this information to the Security Council: “Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council”²⁷ Therefore, accusation of Adova concerning the commitment of an act of aggression are unjust and groundless.

III. ROTANIA’S PROSECUTION OF THE DETAINED ADOVAN CITIZENS BEFORE THE ROTANIAN MILITARY COMMISSION, INCLUDING SAMARA PENZA’S PROSECUTION FOR CONSPIRACY, ARSON, AND MURDER, VIOLATES INTERNATIONAL LAW

A. Crimes Committed By Samara Penza And Other Adovan Citizens Were Not War Crimes, And Thus Can Not Be Prosecuted In The Military Commission.

According to the Rome Statute of International Criminal Court, article 8, the term "war crimes" means:

“(a) Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts against persons or property protected under the provisions of the relevant Geneva Convention:

(i)     Wilful killing;

(ii)     Torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments;

(iii)     Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health;

(iv)     Extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly;

(v)     Compelling a prisoner of war or other protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power;

(vi)     Wilfully depriving a prisoner of war or other protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial;

(vii)     Unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement;

(viii)     Taking of hostages.

2. Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the established framework of international law”²⁸.

All these crimes are connected with an international armed conflict and with acting within the state policy. However, there was no international conflict between Adova and Rotania. Samara Penza and other Adovan citizens were not acting within Adovan policy. ILSA organization was not connected with the state of Adova, and was acting at its own discretion. Therefore, Samara Penza and other ILSA members should have been prosecuted in an ordinary criminal court, and their prosecution in Rotania’s Military Commission violated international law.

B. Rotania Should Have Granted To The Detained Adovan Citizens The Right To Have a Legal Counsel Of Their Own Choice.

The prosecution of the detained Samara Penza before the Rotanian Military Commission violated principles 11 and 17 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment²⁹ adopted by General Assembly resolution 43/173 of December 9, 1988, which provide that:

“A detained person shall have the right to defend himself or to be assisted by counsel as prescribed by law” (principle 11).

“1. A detained person shall be entitled to have the assistance of a legal counsel. He shall be informed of his right by the competent authority promptly after arrest and shall be provided with reasonable facilities for exercising it.

2. If a detained person does not have a legal counsel of his own choice, he shall be entitled to have a legal counsel assigned to him by a judicial or other authority in all cases where the interests of justice so require and without payment by him if he does not have sufficient means to pay” (principle 17).

Samara Penza was refused to be granted a legal counsel of her own choice. Instead, a military attorney was appointed to represent her. Consequently, her right to counsel was invaded.

Therefore, it can be concluded that Samara Penza and other Adovan citizens were prosecuted before the Rotania’s military commission in violation of international law.

IV. ADOVA’S EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION OVER MICHAEL KIRGOV AND GOMMEL VINITSA TO PROSECUTE THEM IN ADOVA FOR CRIMES COMMITTED AGAINST SAMARA PENZA AND OTHER ADOVAN CITIZENS IS CONSISTENT WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW

A. Michael Kirgov And Gommel Vinitsa Committed Serious International Crimes, Including Crimes Against Humanity, War Crimes And Other Serious Violations Of International Humanitarian Law.

Michael Kirgov and Gommel Vinitsa infringed the general principles of international law as well as assumed obligations. Rotania being party to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the 1984 Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Comp. 44), committed crimes against humanity, that can be justified by neither the countermeasures against terrorism, nor by the internal legislation. Therefore, Rotania, particularly, Michael Kirgov and Gommel Vinitsa are responsible for these violations.