Whether there must be two different victims’ legal teams under separate Victims’ Legal

Representatives in this case because one portion of the victims supported secession and the other
favored remaining part of Astafur.

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS
1
The Office of Public Counsel for Victims shall be automatically appointed by the Registrar as
legal representative to provide support and assistance to unrepresented applicants at the stage of
the proceedings which precedes a decision by the relevant Chamber on their status until such time
as the procedural status of victim is granted to them and a legal representative is chosen by them
or appointed by the Court. A Legal team must present a hundred percent support on their victims
stands and must not have a divided attention. Mixing both parties with two different ideals would
result to a chaotic argument. It is proper for them to be well represented in accordance to their
stand or point of view.

1. See No. ICC-01/04-374, Pre-Trial Chamber I, 17 August 2007, paras. 43-44

PLEADINGS

YES. THERE MUST BE TWO DIFFERENT VICTIMS’ LEGAL TEAMS UNDER SEPARATE
VICTIM’S LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE IN THIS CASE.

Having to different points and two different supports from the victim’s position, it the right of the
victims to have their legal team that would represent them with what their truly believe in. Though
the victims must be considered as one team, we cannot deny the fact that the group of victims must
has two different portions. The portion that supported the secession and the other which in favored
to remain as part of the Astafur.

a. There must be two different victims’ legal teams under separate victim’s legal
representative in this case

The legal team must be unbiased on their decision-making on how to represent the victims
accurately. Representing a team in court with two different point of view and beliefs, would
confuse the court and would not disclose a right representation of the victims. It must be clear to
the court on what is the real representation or stand of each legal team of the victims. In this case,
the victims have two stands which are those who supports secession and those who are in favored
to remain as part of the Astafur.

b. Those who supports secession.

Most of the roughly 400,000 inhabitants of Pantos originally migrated there from Braanos, and a
majority of the Pantosian population speak Braan, the predominant language of Braanos, rather
than Astaf, the predominant language of Astafur. This condition, is a reason why some inhabitants
of Pantos considering that Pantos should be a part of Braanos. It would be easier for the inhabitants
of the Pantos to communicate to the state of Braanos since most of them are originally came from
there.

c. Those who are in to remain as part of Astafur.

Consistent with the provisions of the Astafur Constitution, the government of Astafur immediately
announced that the secession plebiscite was not valid and that Pantos would remain part of Astafur
unless and until a dissolution agreement was reached with the Astafur government and approved
by the Astafur Parliament. Since there was a 2005 dissolution agreement, which confirms that the
new independent States would respect the prior federal borders and that the persons living within
them would have the citizenship of the State in whose territory they habitually reside. Also it was
declared in the said agreement that Pantos will continue under the government of the Astafur.

Hence, with the arguments that were laid out it was clearly presented that there was indeed a need
for the two different victims’ legal teams under separate Victims’ Legal Representatives in this
case because one portion of the victims supported secession and the other favored remaining part
of Astafur. One legal team working with two different ideal would result to conflicts and
misunderstandings.