4. Such property was property of an adversary.

P.11. Evidence that the property was that of a person participating in hostilies.

P.12. Evidence that the property was that of a civilian.

4. Such property was property of an adversary.

A. Evidentiary Comment:

Since in this case the conflict is non-international, article 8(2)(e)(xii) does not refer to the property of an “hostile party” as in article 8(2)(b)(xiii). Rather, the adversary refers to “any person, who is considered to belong to another party to the conflict, such as the government, insurgents or […] [any person who] belongs to an opposing organized armed group.” (Andreas Zimmermann in Triffterer (ed.), Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, article 8, para. 326).

Furthermore, since article 8(2)(e)(xii) does not refer solely to combatant adversaries, both the property of persons participating in hostilities and that of civilians is protected against such destruction or seizure. (Andreas Zimmermann in Triffterer (ed.), Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, article 8, para. 327).

P.11. Evidence that the property was that of a person participating in hostilies.

P.12. Evidence that the property was that of a civilian.