Permitted objections will be due to one or multiple of the following:
• Hearsay.
• Leading Question in the Direct Examination as well as Non-Leading in Cross.
• Relevance, i.e., questions in the Cross Examination do not relate to facts brought up during the Direct Examination.
• Badgering (distressing) the witness.
Counsels will submit their objections orally upon asking of the question before the witness has replied. The presidency will decide whether to sustain or overrule the objection.
Hearsay question
Hearsay is difficult to define, and there are many exceptions to the rule. Basically, you cannot ask a witness about an out-of-court statement or act allegedly made by someone other than the witness. A hearsay is a testimony provided by a witness that is not based on personal knowledge but is a repetition of what someone else said. It is never admissible because it is impossible to testify its truthfulness in a cross-examination. “Ms. Miller, what did Mr. Anderson say? Objection, hearsay! Why? Because Mr. Anderson is not available to be cross-examined to determine the veracity/truth of the matter stated. You can ask Ms. Miller what she (Ms. Miller said), but not what someone else said.
Leading Question
Leading questions are suggestive as they imply or contain their own answers:
• How many victims did the defendant appear to have killed?
• You watched from a small distance, didn’t you?
These types of questions are only allowed in cross-examination, but not during the direct examination.
Non-Leading Questions
Conversely, non-leading questions do not imply the answer. These are permitted exclusively during direct examination. For example: “What were you doing on the day of the crime?” is a non-leading question, as opposed to “You were eating breakfast on the day of the crime, right?”, which is leading.
Examination of Evidence Judges are called to examine all pieces of evidence which were presented to the court. Each judge gets appointed a different piece of evidence to read, to assess based on relevance, reliability, and authenticity. Finally, the respective judge presentsthe outcome of the examination to the other judges.
Objections regarding pieces of evidence
• Authenticity, e.g., being based on facts is questionable.
• Reliability, e.g., it is not from a credible source / cannot be traced back.
• Relevance, e.g., it is not relevant to the case.
Closing Statements
In their closing statements both parties outline some points of the trial, repeat some of the facts that they previously mentioned and address some questions that the court may have. The prayers are part of it. These closing statements will each be 20 minutes, maximum. The prosecution will go first, however, if they wish, they may split their total time and permit the defence to speak after, say, 10 minutes. The defence will have their 20 minutes, and then the prosecution will continue with their remaining time.
Verdict
After the taking of evidence has ended and after the closing remarks, the judges come to a verdict – either acquitting (not guilty) convicting (guilty) the defendant. A two-third majority is required.
Opening of the session:
1. Opening of Session
The president opens the session and brings forward motions to be voted on. The president is responsible to grant the floor to the counsels, judges, and witnesses.
2. Stipulations
Prior to the opening, the prosecution and the defence discuss those relevant issues of fact and of law to which an agreement can be reached before the case is presented and submit ONE set of stipulations. After the prosecutor’s Opening Statement, the stipulations are read to the judges. For each one, the defence is asked if they agree. If they do, the president says, “so stipulated”, and that stipulation is evidence, and can be considered by the judges.
3. Opening Statements
The prosecution and defence counsels present their statements (in that order). These presentations should not take more than 20 minutes each.
4. Rebuttal and Surrebuttal
The president grants time to both parties’ counsels to consult with each other before the trial commences with rebuttals and surrebuttals to the opening statements (same orders as in 2). The scope of the rebuttal is limited to the content of the opening statements. Rebuttals (two minutes speaking time) will be followed by surrebuttals from the previous counsel (one minute). Its scope is limited to the content of the rebuttal. The bench may allow more than one round of rebuttal and surrebuttal.
5. Presentation of Evidence
The prosecutor and defence counsels (in that order) present and explain their evidence for the counts of indictment by turns. A good presentation:
5.1 Begins with an introduction of the counsel and the count being presented,
5.2 Summarises the facts relevant to the count,
5.3 Highlights the facts or legal positions in dispute,
5.4 Presents arguments in favour of the party’s position,
5.5 Presents any evidence in support of the party’s argument,
5.6 Anticipates the main arguments from the opposing counsel and presents a preliminary defence to prove how their line of argument is sound and based in law and legal precedent,
5.7 Indicates (if applicable) the witness the counsel intends to examine later, and a brief overview of what they wish to examine the witness for,
5.8 Concludes with a summary.
6. Rebuttal and Surrebuttal to the Presentation of Issues
After the presentation of the count, the floor is open to all counsels of the opposing party for a rebuttal (max. one minute). Rebuttals will be followed by surrebuttals from the other party (max. one minute). The scope is limited to the content of the rebuttal provided.
7. Witness Briefing
Both parties choose up to three witnesses in advance to complement the evidence. They brief their witnesses to the effect that they understand the case and their position in it. Both parties provide their witnesses with a storyline and prepare them for their examination. Both parties are free to make reasonable inferences from the facts of the case to build the storyline and add facts to make the witness’s testimony more authentic, without contradicting any facts. The witnesses should be very well-prepared, during direct examination they should know the questions and give prepared answers. Most importantly, they know how to respond to the cross-examiner.
8. Witness Examination
Before witnesses take the stand, they are required to execute the following statement: “I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.” After the direct examination of the witness, the opposing party may cross-examine the witness. During the examinations, the opposing party has the right to raise objections regarding the admissibility of a question. The president will decide on the objection raised. Evidence may be introduced or already introduced evidence may be shown to the witness during examinations. At any phase of the examinations, the judges are entitled to question a witness.
9. Cross Examination
In the cross examination, the opposing party strives to find incoherences in the testimony and to impeach the witness’s credibility, also taking their demeanour into account. The questions asked cannot exceed or be outside the scope of the direct examination. No hearsay is allowed, either. But every question can and should be a leading question, i.e. the opposing party tells the witness what they want them to say by asking suggestive questions which can be replied to by “yes” or “no”. Example: “You were lying when you said you saw the defendant in the store, weren’t you?” “Isn’t it true that the person you saw was not the defendant, but someone else?”
10. Comments and Recalls
After the witness examination, both parties have the right to comment on the witnesses’ statements (max. five minutes). Ideally, the president will call on both parties alternating after each comment. Parties may also ask to recall witnesses if they require further clarification on a specific matter before the beginning of the closing statements. Both parties are encouraged to treat this phase like a debate and reflect on, reply to, and show the strength or weakness of previous comments in their speeches. The president shall decide on such requests.
11. Questioning
After completing the taking of evidence, the president will call a recess of approximately 90 minutes. During this time judges will convene in closed session to prepare questions for either prosecution, defence, or both. Such questions may refer to any factual or legal matter regarding the case. 30 minutes before the time of the recess ends, prosecution and defence will be provided with a list of questions for their side, to prepare the answers.
12. Closing Statements
Each party, the Prosecution Office and the Defence Office, has 20 minutes to deliver their Closing Statement. While the Prosecutor Office will attempt to show that the defendant’s guilt has been proven beyond reasonable doubt, the Defence Office will dispute that assertion and attempt to prove at least a preponderance of probability that the defendant is not guilty.
13. Advocate Questioning
Judges will have as much time as is necessary to ask any questions they wish of the counsels to gain last insights into the case.
14. The Verdict
The court will be adjourned for the day while the judges deliberate the verdict and formulate the reasons for their decision.
Topic 1: Investigating Nicolás Maduro at the ICC: State-Sanctioned Enforced Disappearances and Political Persecution in Venezuela
Topic Brief:
The ICC is currently investigating the government of Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro for alleged crimes against humanity, including enforced disappearances, political persecution, torture, and arbitrary detention of opposition members and civilians. Since 2014, security forces and intelligence agencies in Venezuela have been accused of systematically targeting anyone seen as a threat to the government. The ICC opened a formal investigation in 2021 after UN reports confirmed that these abuses were state-ordered and not isolated incidents. The case raises major questions about international justice, state sovereignty, and whether a sitting head of state can be held legally accountable for human rights violations. Delegates will need to consider how the international community should respond if Venezuela refuses to cooperate, and what role the ICC and human rights bodies should play in protecting victims and enforcing accountability.
Key Actors Involved
Questions for Delegates
Timeline
Efficient Resources:
https://www.icc-cpi.int/venezuela-i
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/08/venezuela-crimes-demand-urgent-action-icc-prosecutor/
https://www.state.gov/reports/2024-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/venezuela
https://www.oas.org/fpdb/press/Report_2025.pdf
Topic 2: Investigating Rodrigo Duterte at the ICC: Crimes Against Humanity and Extrajudicial Killings in the Philippines’ War on Drugs
Topic Brief:
The International Criminal Court (ICC) is investigating former Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte for alleged crimes against humanity committed during his administration’s “War on Drugs.” Since 2016, thousands of suspected drug users and dealers have been killed in police operations and vigilante-style attacks allegedly encouraged by Duterte’s public statements. Human rights groups and UN investigators claim these killings were systematic, state-sanctioned, and targeted marginalized communities. The Philippine government maintains that the campaign was a legitimate law enforcement effort, while critics argue it amounted to extrajudicial executions carried out with impunity.
In 2021, the ICC authorized a full investigation after finding reasonable grounds to believe that crimes against humanity—including murder and persecution—were committed between 2016 and 2019. Although the Philippines withdrew from the Rome Statute in 2019, the ICC maintains jurisdiction over crimes committed while it was still a member. This case tests the boundaries of international justice, national sovereignty, and the accountability of former heads of state once they leave office. Delegates must consider how international law can ensure justice for victims when a state refuses cooperation and what implications this has for the credibility of the ICC in Asia.
Key Actors Involved
Questions for Delegates
Timeline
Efficient Resources:
Copyright © 2025 MMUN - All Rights Reserved.
Powered by GoDaddy
We use cookies to analyze website traffic and optimize your website experience. By accepting our use of cookies, your data will be aggregated with all other user data.