top of page
  • 執筆者の写真Hiroshige FUJII

Our First Experience with the Nuremberg Moot Court Competition inthe 2024 and the Process Involved/ニュルンベルク模擬裁判への初めての挑戦とその過程

B3 Hitomi Hanatsuka

B3 Miyu Suzuki

-       Our Path to the Competition and an Overview

In December 2023, despite our strong efforts, we narrowly missed reaching the finals of the ICRC-hosted IHL Moot Court Competition. Driven by this disappointment, we - Reona Fukuhara, Magda Yukari Hagiya Corredo, Miyu Suzuki, and Hitomi Hanatsuka -resolved to channel our determination into competing in the 2024 Nuremberg Moot Court Competition for further growth and experience.

The Nuremberg Moot Court Competition is structured into three phases. The first phase involves submitting a motivation letter as a team, explaining our drive and readiness for the competition. In the second phase, we prepare and submit memorials for prosecution and defense based on the case scenario. Only the teams that excel in the first two phases advance to the third phase, the oral presentations held in Germany. To qualify for the oral presentations, teams must successfully navigate the highly competitive and demanding earlier stages, making this competition exceptionally rigorous.

-       The Motivation Letter Phase

In January 2024, we began earnest preparations for the "Motivation Letter" required for the competition application. This letter conveys our motivation for participating in the competition and highlights our experiences in the moot court and legal contexts. We compiled a comprehensive overview of each member's background and accomplishments. We sought guidance from Professor Fujii and senior colleagues on making our letter compelling and effectively expressing our passion. With their invaluable advice, we successfully passed the first phase. At this point, approximately 120 universities qualified to advance to the next phase, the Memorial Phase.

-       The Memorial Phase

Having successfully passed the Motivation Letter phase, our next challenge was to submit the "Memorial" for both the prosecution and defense, based on the given case scenario. With an April deadline, we began preparations in February. Our work included thoroughly reading and understanding the case scenario and researching past precedents from the International Criminal Court (ICC) and other international tribunals to construct robust arguments for both sides.

The case scenario involved the prosecution of Mrs. Stella Swanson. AIF, a non-state armed group, had occupied the town of Esoria and its surrounding areas. Mr. Peter Swanson, Stella's husband, and an AIF commander, implemented a policy to integrate AIF members with Esoria's residents by assigning local women and girls to AIF members. During the execution of this policy, Mr. Peter sought Mrs. Stella's advice on the planning, leading to her indictment for crimes against humanity for her involvement in the AIF's sexual slavery program.

The key points we had to argue in our memorial were as follows:

(i) Whether there are sufficient reasonable grounds to believe that the prosecution against Stella Swanson for the crime against humanity of sexual slavery falls within the jurisdiction of the court, based on Article 19 of the Rome Statute.

(ii) Whether there are sufficient reasonable grounds to believe that Mrs. Stella Swanson bears criminal responsibility for the crime against humanity of sexual slavery, based on Article 25(3)(c) of the Rome Statute.

(iii) Whether the records of previous interviews with Ms. Valerie Porter, who was cited as a witness in this case, are admissible as evidence under Rule 68 of the ICC's Rules of Procedure and Evidence.

Count 1: The Jurisdiction

First, we addressed the issue of whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the case against Mrs. Stella Swanson for the crime against humanity of sexual slavery is within the jurisdiction of the court. According to Article 19 of the Rome Statute, the court must find that it has jurisdiction over any case brought. There are four distinct aspects of jurisdiction. They are subject matter, personal, territorial, and temporal jurisdiction. The moot competition examined whether these elements were met. Article 19 also refers to admissibility in the provisions of Article 17, which was also analyzed in this regard: (i) the first relating to national investigations, prosecutions, and trials concerning the facts alleged in the case at hand, and (ii) the second to the gravity threshold that the case should meet to be admissible before the court. Both the prosecution and the defense made references to the gravity threshold.

Count 2: Crimes Against Humanity and Individual Criminal Responsibility

Article 25(3)(c) of the Rome Statute stipulates that individuals who intentionally instigate, aid, or abet others in committing a crime are also criminally responsible. In this case, before holding Mrs. Stella Swanson criminally responsible as an individual, we first need to establish whether the present case qualifies as a "crime against humanity."

To demonstrate a "crime against humanity," we must explain the following five elements under Article 7(1) of the Rome Statute: (i) an attack directed against any civilian population; (ii) a State or organizational policy; (iii) an attack of a widespread or systematic nature; (iv) a nexus between the individual act and the attack; and (v) knowledge of the attack. Additionally, to determine if AIF's policy constitutes "sexual slavery," we need to satisfy the four elements under Article 7(1)(g)-2 of the Rome Statute, which includes: (i) The perpetrator exercised any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership over one or more persons, such as by purchasing, selling, lending, or bartering such a person or persons, or by imposing on them a similar deprivation of liberty; (ii) The perpetrator caused such person or persons to engage in one or more acts of a sexual nature; (iii) The conduct was committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population; (iv) The perpetrator knew that the conduct was part of or intended the conduct to be part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population. To establish a violation under Article 7(1)(g)-2 of the Rome Statute, it must be demonstrated that AIF's acts of sexual slavery were committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population with knowledge of the attack.

Furthermore, regarding Article 25(3)(c), we need to consider two aspects: (i) whether Mrs. Stella Swanson's actions directly and substantially contributed to the commission of the crime and (ii) whether she had the mental intent of knowingly aiding, abetting, or otherwise assisting in the commission of the crime. While Mrs. Stella advised her husband, Mr. Peter Swanson, the crucial aspect is whether her actions directly contributed to the crime's commission and if she knowingly aided in its execution. Given Mrs. Stella's status as the wife of an AIF member rather than a direct participant, the extent of her influence in aiding her husband's criminal actions becomes a significant point of contention.

Count 3: The Prior Recorded Testimony

Finally, this court considered whether the transcript of the earlier interview of Ms. Valerie Porter, named as a witness in this case, was acceptable as evidence under Rule 68 of the CC's Rules of Procedure and Evidence. In particular, we considered whether, under Rule 68(2)(d), Ms. Porter was indeed in danger of harm and of sufficient importance to require protection. Rule 68(2)(d) may permit the introduction of "previously recorded testimony" of a "disturbed" person if the Chamber is satisfied that. The elements are (i) the person failed to attend as a witness or attended but failed to give evidence with respect to a material aspect contained in the previously recorded testimony. (ii) the person's failure to attend or give evidence was materially affected by undue interference, including threats, intimidation, or coercion (iii) reasonable efforts have been made to secure the presence of the person as a witness or, if present, to secure from the witness all material facts known to the witness (iv) The interests of justice are best served by the previously recorded testimony being introduced and (v) there are sufficient indications of credibility in the previously recorded testimony. The prosecution and defense referred to whether they were subjected to threats or other unreasonable interference and whether they made reasonable efforts.

Next, we would like to discuss each count that I found difficult to prove from the prosecution and defense perspectives.

Prosecution Side: Hitomi Hanatsuka

The counts I handled as the prosecution in this case involved proving "crimes against humanity" of sexual slavery under Article 7(1) of the Rome Statute and individual criminal responsibility through instigation and assistance under Article 25(3)(c). Before holding Mrs. Stella Swanson criminally responsible as an individual, it was crucial to assess whether the AIF's policy itself constituted "crimes against humanity" through sexual slavery. Specifically, in proving "enslavement" under Article 7(1)(g)-2 of the Rome Statute, it was challenging to demonstrate the "indicators of enslavement" under the elements of lack of individual autonomy, freedom of choice, and control over physical and psychological environments, especially given that the victim, Ms. Porter, was given keys to AIF members' homes beforehand, making it difficult to establish lack of freedom of choice and control over physical and psychological environments.

Furthermore, in proving individual criminal responsibility under Article 25(3)(c), it was crucial to establish whether there was a genuine "causal relationship" between Mrs. Stella Swanson's advice to her husband and the actual implementation of AIF's policy, given her position as her husband's wife. Assessing the extent of Mrs. Stella Swanson's influence within AIF was particularly challenging. Additionally, I found it noteworthy that her status as the wife of an AIF member was a distinctive aspect in international tribunal prosecutions, leading me to compare this case with The Prosecutor v. Simone Gbagbo of the International Criminal Court (ICC), the first attempt to prosecute a wife of a defendant in ICC history. However, explaining the existence of a causal relationship between Mrs. Stella and the AIF policy of "sexual slavery" proved to be extremely challenging throughout the case.

Defense Side: Miyu Suzuki

In this case, I was in charge of the defense on the jurisdiction under Article 19 of the Rome Statute and the admissibility of evidence under Rule 68. Regarding Article 19 of the Rome Statute, the first part of the argument examines whether there is domestic prosecution. Although the existence of prosecution could reasonably be derived from the fact that Mrs. Swanson was pardoned, it was difficult to analyze the facts because there was no specific reference to domestic prosecution. Another complicated issue was whether the victims under Rule 68 were subjected to undue interference. In the past, there was no framework for defining undue interference, and there were no precedents close to this case's context. Hence, reference to the legal framework needed to be improved, and feedback from the judges also pointed to legal arguments. Whether the victim was actually in danger or not was an essential factor in Rule 68 that convinced us of the legitimacy of the submission of documentary and visual evidence like interrogation by video.

-       Conclusion

In conclusion, the Nuremberg Moot Court Competition not only provided us with knowledge but also with confidence as we engaged in legal analysis in a new scenario. In particular, we addressed issues based on international humanitarian law at the previous ICRC competition. We considered war crimes and conflict situations, but this moot court was an excellent opportunity to learn about the legitimacy of evidence in Rule 68, a topic of debate at the ICC. In addition, by participating not only in the national competition but also in international competitions, such as the Nuremberg Moot Court Competition, we were able to have further goals for the future. Once again, we found that it is crucial to keep trying in order to challenge yourself on a larger stage. Although it is a disappointment that we could not make it to the Nuremberg stage as we were eliminated during the memorial preparation phase, we will use this setback as motivation to take on new goals, including studying international law and participating in next year's Nuremberg Moot Court Competition.

Finally, we express our sincere gratitude to Professor Fujii for all of his guidance, from preparing the motivation letter to the memorial, and to everyone who participated and supported us as observers in this competition.


2023年12月に行われたICRC主催のIHL模擬裁判大会において惜しくも決勝戦に残れなかった悔しさをばねに、大会後、さらなる経験と知識の飛躍を求めて我々4人(福原玲於茄・Magda Yukari Hagiya Corredo・鈴木望夢・花塚ひとみ)は2024年のニュルンベルク模擬裁判大会への出場を決意した。














-       カウント1(管轄権)



-       カウント2(人道に対する犯罪と個人の刑事責任)


まず、「人道に対する犯罪」を立証するためには、ローマ規程第7条(1)に基づく以下の5つの要件を説明します:(i) 民間人に対する攻撃であること; (ii) 国家または組織的な政策が存在すること; (iii) 広範または組織的な攻撃であること; (iv) 個々の行為と攻撃との関連性があること; (v) 攻撃についての認識があること。そして、AIFの政策が「性奴隷」という性質を有しているかどうかについては、ローマ規程第7条(1)(g)-2に基づく以下の要件が必要です:(i) 加害者が一人または複数の人に対して所有権に付随するいずれかの権力を行使したこと(例:購入、販売、貸与、交換、同様の自由剥奪を課すことなど); (ii) 加害者がその人に対して性的行為を強制したこと; (iii) その行為が民間人に対する広範または組織的な攻撃の一部として行われたこと; (iv) 加害者がその行為が広範または組織的な攻撃の一部であることを知っていたか、そのような行為を意図していたこと。さらに、要件(iv)の主観的要素として、人道に対する犯罪における「性奴隷」の故意(Mens rea)には、被疑者が被害者に対して性的行為を強制する権限を行使したこと、またはそのような行為が通常の出来事として発生する可能性が高いことを認識していたことが求められる。このように、ローマ規程第7条1項(g)-2を立証するためには、AIFによる性奴隷制を含む政策が、民間人に対する広範または組織的な攻撃の一環として行われ、それが攻撃の一環であると認識していたことを示さなければならない。

 次にローマ規程第25条3項(c)における証明としては、まず(i) 被告人の行為が犯罪の実行に対して直接的かつ重要な貢献をしたかどうか、及び (ii) 被告人が犯罪の実行を知りながら幇助、教唆、またはその他の形で支援したという精神的要素について検討した。今回ステラ・スワンソンは実行犯であった夫ピーター・スワンソンに対して助言等の行いをしたが、今回その行動が直接的に当該犯罪行為の実行に貢献し、「教唆した」といえるのかが第一の証明することとして必要であり、次に心理要件に関してはステラ自身が犯罪行為を教唆することでその実行を助けることを認識していたかどうかが立証条件として挙げられる。特に今回はステラ・スワンソンがAIF軍の隊員というわけではなく、隊員の妻としてのステータスであったため、その妻の犯罪実行における助言がどれほどの影響をもたらしたのかは大きな論点となった。


-       カウント3(証言)

カウント3ではICCの手続き規則と証拠規則第68条に基づき、今回証人として挙げられたヴァレリー・ポーターの以前のインタビューの記録が証拠として受け入れられるかどうかを検討した。とりわけ規則68条(2)(d)に基づいてポーター氏が本当に身の危険にさらされており、保護を必要としているほどの重要性を有しているかどうかを検討した。規則第 68 条(2)(d) は、商工会議所がそのことに納得した場合、「妨害を受けた」人物の「以前に記録された証言」の導入を許可することができる。要素としては (i) その人が証人として出席しなかった、または出席したにもかかわらず、以前に記録された証言に含まれる重要な側面に関して証拠を提出しなかった。(ii) 出席または証拠の提出を怠った場合、脅迫、脅迫または強制を含む不当な干渉によって重大な影響を受けた。(iii) 証人としての者の出席を確保するため、または出席している場合には証人が知っているすべての重要な事実を証人から確保するための合理的な努力が払われていること。 (iv) 正義の利益は、導入される事前に記録された証言によって最もよく満たされる。 (v) 以前に記録された証言には十分な信頼性の兆候があること、の5つが挙げられる。特に、検察・弁護両者とも脅迫等の不当な干渉を受けたかどうか、合理的な努力をおこなったかどうかについて言及を行った。






また、ローマ規程第25条の「個人の刑事責任」の立証においては、今回の被告人であるステラ・スワンソンの妻という立場でありながら、彼女の夫に対する助言とAIFの実際の政策実施過程とで「因果関係」が本当に存在したのかが「教唆及び幇助すること」を立証する上で非常に重要な要件であった。特にステラ・スワンソン彼女自身のAIFへの影響力がどれほどのものであったかを測るのが非常に困難であった。さらに、ここにおいては彼女のAIF隊員の妻というステータスが今までの国際法廷の訴追において特徴的な点であると感じたため、ICCの過去の判例において初めて被告人の妻を訴追しようとした初の試みであったThe Prosecutor v. Simone Gbagboの判例と今回のケースとを比較するなどの検討を行った。しかしながら、最後までステラと今回の「性奴隷」という人道に対する罪に該当するAIF政策との因果関係の存在を説明することは非常に困難を極めた点であったという印象である。










bottom of page