We have come to the final stage of our 2017 moodötchart.

I am happy to see so many people here, full of excitement, now who will actually win this year's competition.

bother Kenya or the

And we start of course, first with the presentation of the prosecution case and I give you the

floor.

Good afternoon mister President, your honor, may it please the Court.

My name is Anastasija Yermolenko and this is a great honor to appear before this Court

swearing that they would like to

prove that the

Created Barrier destroyer

was used as a bipartisan

incident providing reporting on

the prosecution.

We have fundamental grounds to believe

that Mr. Nobere is individually criminal responsible

for commitment to work crimes and crimes against humanity.

This trial is about violence and misery,

about sudden of innocent victims,

and crimes characterized either by the seriousness

and savagery or by the nonignitude

or by the fact they were a link

in a deliberately pursued policy

or that they were a part of a system

designed to spread terror

Obriga.

This trial is the last resort to maintain justice.

In it regard, and with your permission,

I will proceed with our first argument concerning admissibility of the case at hand

Article 17 Closed I of the Rome Statute

imposed three tests of admissibility

namely the complementarity, double jeopardy

and gravity test.

Since defense has challenged only two tests, the prosecution submits that this case is admissible since

Complementarity test is satisfied and, secondly, this case is of sufficient gravity to be heard by this court.

With all the court's of the first dimension, the prosecution claimed that the principle of

Complementarity ensures that, states sovereign right to try cases over the territory would not be encouraged upon.

Therefore, the ICC can take any measures in response to the crime

attempt, only in case of failure of the State to act in response of the crime, or in that

they were finding, the State is unwilling or unable to carry out an investigation in

response to the crime.

Thus, it is pisition of the prosecutor that there is no State, with jurisdiction over

the case, that is acting or has acted, in relation to such case.

Notwithstanding the fact that the term Rawls is not clearly defined in the Rawls Statute

It was revealed in the Faber's decision in Lubabo case,

where it was stated that even issues of a warrant

of arrest without reference to concrete crimes

cannot be regarded as an active position of the state

in response to the crime at hand.

Even though the commission of inquiry

can be established with accordance