Problem: The trial of Oscar Pistorius, accused of killing his former girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp, was postponed until April 7 because one of two assessors was hospitalized.

The assessors will help the judge decide the verdict. South Africa does not have jury trials.

Pistorius killed Steenkamp on Valentine's Day last year. Of that, there is no doubt.

But was it murder?

One of South Africa's toughest prosecutors, Gerrie Nel, has been fighting for most of this month to prove it was.

On Friday, one of the country's shrewdest defense lawyers, Barry Roux, was scheduled to begin convincing a judge that it wasn't.

Now he will have to wait.

The verdict will hinge on two questions:

Did the Olympic sprinter know his girlfriend was behind the door in the bathroom of his house when he fired four hollow-point bullets through it in the middle of the night?

And if he did not -- if he thought she was a burglar, as he insists -- did he act as a reasonable person would have?

Critical testimony will come from the only living person who was in the house at the time, the "Blade Runner" himself.

Pistorius was expected to take the stand for the first time Friday to give his side of a story he's been telling for more than a year.

He woke up in the middle of the night, went to his balcony to bring in a fan -- or two fans, in his most recent version -- heard his bathroom window opening, took his gun, went to the bathroom and fired through the door when he heard a noise in the toilet.
1. Who doesn't use a jury?
2. What do they use instead?
3. How many?
4. Who do they assist?
5. with what?
6. Who is on trial?
7. For what?
8. Who was that?
9. When did he do it?
10. What day?
Answer: 1. South Africa
2. assessors
3. two
4. the judge
5. the verdict
6. Oscar Pistorius
7. killing his girlfriend
8. Reeva Steenkamp
9. last year
10. Valentine's Day

Q: CHAPTER IV.

But no--he surely is not dreaming. Another minute makes it clear, A scream, a rush, a burning tear, From Inez' cheek, dispel the fear That bliss like his is only seeming.

Washington Alston.

A moment of appalled surprise succeeded the instant when Harry and Rose first ascertained the real character of the vessel that had entered the haven of the Dry Tortugas. Then the first turned toward Jack Tier, and sternly demanded an explanation of his apparent faithlessness.

"Rascal," he cried, "has this treachery been intended? Did you not see the brig and know her?"

"Hush, Harry--_dear_ Harry," exclaimed Rose, entreatingly. "My life for it, Jack has _not_ been faithless."

"Why, then, has he not let us know that the brig was coming? For more than an hour has he been aloft, on the look-out, and here are we taken quite by surprise. Rely on it, Rose, he has seen the approach of the brig, and might have sooner put us on our guard."

"Ay, ay, lay it on, maty," said Jack, coolly, neither angry nor mortified, so far as appearances went, at these expressions of dissatisfaction; "my back is used to it. If I did n't know what it is to get hard raps on the knuckles, I should be but a young steward. But, as for this business, a little reflection will tell you I am not to blame."

"Give us your own explanations, for without them I shall trust you no longer."

"Well, sir, what good would it have done, _had_ I told you the brig was standing for this place? There she came down, like a race-horse, and escape for you was impossible. As the wind is now blowin', the Molly would go two feet to the boat's one, and a chase would have been madness."

Answer the following questions:
1. Who are the main characters
2. Was someone having nightmares?
3. Has Jack been Faithful?
4. What did Rose instruct Harry to do?
5. Where were they?
6. Where was it located?
7. how long had they been watching for the ship
8. What was Jacks attitude?
9. Was the wind blowing?
10. would a pursuit have been logical?
11. What was Jacks last name?
12. Were they happy when they entered the boat?
13. How did they feel?
A: 1. Harry and Rose
2. no
3. yes
4. Hush
5. a vessel
6. the Dry Tortugas.
7. For more than an hour
8. neither angry nor mortified
9. yes
10. no
11. Tier
12. no
13. A moment of appalled surprise

Problem: The phrase "in whole or in part" has been subject to much discussion by scholars of international humanitarian law. The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia found in Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic Trial Chamber I Judgment IT-98-33 (2001) ICTY8 (2 August 2001) that Genocide had been committed. In Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic Appeals Chamber Judgment IT-98-33 (2004) ICTY 7 (19 April 2004) paragraphs 8, 9, 10, and 11 addressed the issue of in part and found that "the part must be a substantial part of that group. The aim of the Genocide Convention is to prevent the intentional destruction of entire human groups, and the part targeted must be significant enough to have an impact on the group as a whole." The Appeals Chamber goes into details of other cases and the opinions of respected commentators on the Genocide Convention to explain how they came to this conclusion.
1. What is the aim of the Genocide Convention?
2. Which phrase has been up for much discussion?
3. By whom?
4. Who found that mass murder had taken place?
5. What was the date of the judgement?
6. Which paragrahs addressed the issue?
7. And what did it find?
8. What did Radislav Krstic like to have for dinner?
Answer:
1. to prevent the intentional destruction of entire human groups
2. "in whole or in part"
3. by scholars of international humanitarian law
4. the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia
5. 19 April 2004
6. paragraphs 8, 9, 10, and 11
7. that the part must be a substantial part of that group.
8. unknown