Summary of Arguments

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. ICC SHOULD NOT R ECOGNIZE ECOGNIZE HUMAN TRAFFICKING AS A DISTINCT CRIME UNDER ARTICLE 7 (1)(k) OF THE STATUTE.

The defence humbly submits that the PTC was wrong in holding that the ICC has the necessar y  jurisdiction to proceed with the case against Klegane. The defence has shown A) The abusive labor practices in the Westeros shrimp industry did not constitute human trafficking as understood in CIL, B) The crime of human trafficking has not attained the required threshold to be constituted as CAH. The defence has concluded that the present case involves isolated incidents of labor abuses which does not meet the required threshold of CAH. Moreover the alleged labour abuses do not constitute inhumane act but are merely incidents of harsh working conditions and even if the alleged acts do constitute human trafficking it should not be read under article 7(1)(k) but under enslavement under article 7(1)(c). III. THE DOMESTIC COURT ACQUITTAL OF THE DEFENDANT SHALL NOT PRECLUDE THE ICC FROM PROSECUTING THE CRIME UNDER THE N E B I S I N I DE M PRINCIPLE ENSHRINED IN ARTICLE 20 OF THE STATUTE .

The defence submits that the case against Klegane is not admissible before the ICC as it is  barred by b y the

ne bis in idem  principle

enshrined under article 20 of the Statute. The defence

contends that A) The word ‘conduct’ has a broad interpretation which bars the ICC prosecution when the person has been tried at the national level even for an ordinary crime. Moreover B) the exceptions under article 20(3) have not been met and the Northeros court was right to refrain from exercising its jurisdiction on the grounds of non-application of the Act in case of extraterritorial offences.