Central

Good afternoon.

This is the final round of the Nuremberg Mood Court.

I will start with the introduction of the bench, then I will ask the parties, the appearance

starting with the prosecution, then the defense, and then I will give floor to parties starting

with the prosecution, then the defense, to present the submission to the court.

So let me start to introduce the bench.

On my far right is Judge Usatska.

My right is Judge Reynard.

On my left right is Judge Muhamedov, Judge Rakwitz, and I am Ivana Hrlichkova.

I would like to ask the prosecution for the appearance.

Thank you.

Defense, please.

Can you present yourself?

Thank you.

So you have 30 minutes to present your submission to the court.

Last five minutes, you can reserve for rebuttal and rejoinder.

So I would like to ask the prosecution with presenting your submission.

Good afternoon, Your Honours.

May it please the court?

I will speak for 15 minutes while my co-counsellor will speak for 10 minutes.

Your Honours, the case at hand concerns the enforced disappearance of 70 individuals since

over 10 months ago.

Enforced disappearance is a serious violation of human rights.

It disappears the victims, denies the event, leaving them susceptible to the possibility

of unfair or inhumane treatment shielded from the public eye.

This court should not condone this series of disappearances.

The prosecution will show that at this stage there are reasonable grounds for the case

to proceed, and we make three submissions.

First, that this court has subject matter jurisdiction as the enforced disappearances

meet the requirement of a crime against humanity.

Second, that this case is admissible as the defence has failed to prove the existence

of ongoing investigations on the national level, and separately, that this case is sufficiently

grave.

And third, that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused, Mr Vega, is individually

liable for ordering this crime.

I will address the first two issues, while Ms Hua will address the last issue.

On the first issue of jurisdiction, this court has jurisdiction as there are reasonable grounds

to believe that enforced disappearance has been made out.

We say first that the act of enforced disappearance is clear.

The NIO Task Force arrested all victims on 17 September 2018, and when information was

requested of them, the government did not respond.

Separately, we also submit that the intention to remove the victims from the protection

of the law is also clear on the facts.

So in the ICC case to authorise investigations into Burundi, this court noted that intention

can be inferred from the manner in which the victims were deprived of their liberty, and

in that case, the court considered that as the Burundi authorities arrested individuals

without a judicial warrant, placed them in unofficial prisons, this removed them from

access to judicial remedies and legal assistance.

Even in the case of Goyboru and Peru, even the mere non-registration of the victims in