You are on page 1of 4

Prosecution| Third Charge|1

Since my co-counsels established the two charges, first that General Reed is liable under
individual criminal responsibility for committing, whether as an individual, jointly with another of
through another person provided under Article 25 (3)(a) with respect to the artillery attack and air
strikes on Kebia between 17 and 18 July 2009; and second, that General Reed is liable on the basis
individual criminal responsibility for ordering, soliciting or inducing under Art. 25 (3) (b), with respect to
the attack against the Municipal Hospital in Kiesh, on 20 July 2009.

Your Excellency, now the Prosecution will prove the third charge as to the liability of General
Reed with respect to treatment of detainees in Westwood Prison, in particular, the practice of solitary
confinement and of forced feeding on the basis of superior responsibility under Art. 28 of the Rome
Statute.

First, Jackson Wall committed the crime of inhuman treatment. All five elements of the crime
under Art. 8 (2)(a)(ii) are satisfied :
(1.) The perpetrator inflicted severe physical or mental pain or suffering upon one or more
persons;
(2.) Such person or persons were protected under one or more of the Geneva Conventions of
1949;
(3.) The perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established that protected
status;
(4.) The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international armed
conflict;
(5.) The perpetrator was aware of factual circumstances that established the existence of an
armed conflict.

Element 1. Jackson Wall inflicted severe physical or mental pain or suffering upon the detainees.
Inhuman treatment refers to deliberate act of which causes serious mental or physical suffering or injury,
constitutes a serious attack on human dignity and/or was committed against a protected person. Degree
of suffering is calculated in terms of nature, context, duration and physical and mental effects of the
treatment. Solitary confinement and inadequate medical treatment for detainees are amount to
inhuman treatment.
Solitary confinement bears serious psychological consequences. The act of putting Professor Mange in
solitary confinement cause grave injury to his human dignity and that cut him off completely from the
outside world. The use of solitary confinement, should be restricted to short, temporary periods, no
longer than a maximum 30 consecutive days and only when proved absolutely necessary for the security
of the detaining power.

Your Excellency may I bring your attention to par. 38 of the compromise. Professor Mange had
been put in solitary confinement for four months from April to July 2009, one month longer than the
maximum three months allowed under the Alphonian Emergency Decree, three months longer that the
maximum of the provision of GC IV (Art. 42)— The internment or placing in assigned residence of
protected persons may be ordered only if the security of the Detaining Power makes it absolutely
necessary. If any person, acting through the representatives of the Protecting Power, voluntarily
Prosecution| Third Charge|2

demands internment, and if his situation renders this step necessary, he shall be interned by the Power in
whose hands he may be.

Professor Mange did not pose essential security risks. A security risks cannot simply refer to an
individual’s political individual’s political attitude towards the state. Given his state of incarceration, it
would have been impossible for Mange to carry out material and/or direct harm to the State Alphon.

Force-feeding is an involuntary and unjustifiable act. Your Excellency may I bring your attention
to par. 41 of the compromise, Mange suffered from physical pain for 17 days. The procedure took place
in a transformed feeding room in the prison infirmary. Dr. Malade, with the help of prison staff, inserted
a “10 French” tube (3.3mm diameter) through Mange’s nose which threaded down into his stomach.
From time to time, Mange twisted during the procedure and the tube kinked on the first attempt but
was usually successfully placed on the second attempt. The feeding lasted for around two hours per day.
Mange was then placed under watch for up to 60 minutes to prevent sickness, nausea, vomiting pain or
to cause irreversible neurological disorder.

Strikers are granted treatment in accordance with internationally accepted standards of medical
ethics. Prison’s physicians are obliged to maintain primary obligation to the individual patient and
provide information on the probable consequence of the strike. Failure to fulfil these duties violated the
rights of hunger strikes and added unnecessary mental burden and suffering on the victims. Under par.
40 of the compromis, Professor Mange’s health conditioned deteriorated and was susceptible to heart
irritability and arrhythmias.

The above proved also applies in relation to prisoners of war from the PAB and the DKF under
Art. 130 of GC III- Grave breaches to which the preceding Article relates shall be those involving any of
the following acts, if committed against persons or property protected by the Convention: wilful killing,
torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, wilfully causing great suffering or
serious injur y to body or health, compelling a prisoner of war to serve in the forces of the hostile Power,
or wilfully depriving a prisoner of war of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed in this Convention.

Element 2. Such persons were protected under one or more of the Geneva Conventions of 1949.
Prisoner’s of War (POWs) and civilians are protected under GC III and IV. (Art. 5 of GC III). The detainees
who went on hunger strike include members of the PAB, DKF as well as civilians suspected of presenting
terrorism and security threats. (par. 39)

POWs of the People’s Army of Bethuis (PAB) and the Democratic Kebian Front (DKF) were
members of the armed force of a party to the conflict and members of “organized resistance
movement”. As Bethuisian National Assembly rocognized the province can be regarded as nationals of
the Bethuis. Therefore enjoyed a protected status. Furthermore GC IV is still applicable in circumstances
when victims possessing the same nationality with the perpetrators. The civilian suspects are qualified as
persons protected either as Alphonian or Bethuisian. (GC IV, Art. 14- In time of peace, the High
Contracting Parties and, after the outbreak of hostilities, the Parties thereto, may establish in their own
territory and, if the need arises, in occupied areas, hospital and safety zones and localities so organized
as to protect from the effects of war, wounded, sick and aged persons, children under fifteen, expectant
Prosecution| Third Charge|3

mothers and mothers of children under seven. Upon the outbreak and during the course of hostilities,
the Parties concerned may conclude agreements on mutual recognition of the zones and localities they
have created. They may for this purpose implement the provisions of the Draft Agreement annexed to
the present Convention, with such amendments as they may consider necessary. The Protecting Powers
and the International Committee of the Red Cross are invited to lend their good offices in order to
facilitate the institution and recognition of these hospital and safety zones and localities.)

Element 4. Conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international armed
conflict.

People’s Army of Bethuis (PAB), Prisoner’s of War were captured by the AAF in the Westwood
Prison as a result of the “resort to armed force between State”.

Elements 3 and 5 of this crime are fulfilled. Wall as the warden of the Westwood Prison, knew
the identities of detainees, also given the delegation sent by ICRS, Wall had the knowledge that they
were under the protection of the convention. He was also aware of the existence of an armed conflict
since the detainees put under interment were involved in the IAC. (Under par. 39 of the compromise,
Jackson Wall, sent a letter to Reed, stating that they cannot condone such act in prison and something
need to be done, because they started lose control ever since Manger was there.

General Reed bears the superior responsibility for the commission of the war crime of inhuman
treatment by his subordinate.

First, the existence of superior-subordinate relationship. A superior subordinate relationship is


based on one person being formally or legally appointed to carry out a military commanding function or
exercising effective control over a group of persons through a chain of command. The following are
factors needed for effective control: (1) the suspects official position; (2) power to issue/give orders; (3)
capacity to ensure compliance with orders issued; (4) capacity to make changes to command structure;
(5) power to promote, replace remove or discipline any forces; (6) authority to send forces into hostilities
and withdrew them therefrom.

General Reed was the de jure commander of several AAF units. (As provided under par. 10 of the
compromise, that the Alphonian government declared Kebia under a state of emergency and dispatched
several AAF units under the command of General Reed). Reed appointed Wall as warden of Westwood
Prison, demonstrating his ability to change the command structure, thus indicating that Reed had the
material ability to prevent and repress the commission of the crime to the competent authorities. Reed
was given the specific authority to prevent and control inhuman treatment in the prison (par. 39)

Second, General Reed should have known that the subordinate were committing or about to
commit the crime. Reed was negligent in failing to acquire knowledge. Given the international and media
attention, governmental pressure and the letter sent by Wall, Reed was aware of the hunger strike in the
prison and that measure should be taken in response to the situation. All consultations should have been
reported to Reed. The superior bears the responsibility to discover and obtain information within his
Prosecution| Third Charge|4

powers, which includes properly supervising his subordinates. Reed had general information to put him
on notice of crimes committed and had sufficient information to justify further inquiry or investigations.

Last, General Reed also failed to take all necessary and reasonable measures within his power to
prevent or repress the commission of crime or submit the matter to the competent authorities for
investigation and prosecution.

Failure to fulfil any one of the duties would constitute the command responsibility. Reed had the
duty to prevent the commission of crime when he and should have known his subordinates were about
to commit a crime. He bore the responsibilities to stop the crimes, punish those responsible and bring
the perpetrators to justice.

Despite the statement of a military spokesperson to indicate potential criminal wrongdoing in


the hospital and the consultations his staff made with wall. Reed takes no measures to investigate,
prevent or repress act of criminality.

All these lead to a reasonable ground to believe that General Reed is liable to the crime of
torture or inhumane treatment of Professor Mange and other detainees in Westwood Prison as to the
practice of solitary confinement and of forced feeding.