Tilburg University
Theories of co-perpetration in international criminal law
Yanev, Lachezar
Publication date: 2016
Document Version
Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Link to publication in Tilburg University Research Portal
Citation for published version (APA):
Yanev, L. (2016). Theories of co-perpetration in international criminal law.
General rights
Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain
• You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal Take down policy
International Criminal Law
International Criminal Law
Proefschrift ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan Tilburg University
op gezag van de rector magnificus, prof. dr. E.H.L. Aarts,
in het openbaar te verdedigen ten overstaan van een door het college voor promoties aangewezen commissie
in de aula van de Universiteit op vrijdag 14 oktober 2016 om 10.00 uur
door
Lachezar Dimitrov Yanev
geboren op 9 november 1987 te Sofia, Bulgarije
Colofon
© Lachezar Yanev, 2016
Overige leden van de promotiecommissie: Prof. mr. M.S. Groenhuijsen Prof. dr. E. van Sliedregt Prof. dr. T. Weigend
headed for immortality. Sanne, you are a star in the making and having you in my corner for the defence is truly a morale boost!
Last, but certainly not least, the completion of this thesis would have been impossible without the support of my parents and family. Lia, you had the more difficult part during these four years and you were brilliant: the girls and I are blessed to have you! This one is for you.
Lachezar Yanev The Hague August 2016
The varying definitions of co-perpetration responsibility in international criminal law caused me much anxiety during my LL.M. studies in Utrecht University and continued to confound me as an intern at the ICTY, SCSL and the ICC. Writing a PhD thesis on this topic thus became an evident choice, which proved to be a highly rewarding and fulfilling experience for me. Tilburg University gave me the opportunity to satisfy the academic curiosity I have had for this topic and devote four years of research to exploring questions, which the international courts and tribunals have been grappling with for decades: for this, I am grateful. There are a number of people whom I would like to thank here for making the completion of this thesis possible.
I am especially grateful to my supervisors, Professor Tijs Kooijmans and Doctor Anne-Marie de Brouwer. Tijs, thank you for giving me the space I needed to develop my ideas and for being the vast pool of knowledge I could always promptly consult to make sense of criminal legal doctrine. You made time and took the extra effort to help me out with all matters, PhD-related or not, that I brought up to you during the past four years, for which I am ever grateful. Anne-Marie, your passion for the field of international criminal law has been truly inspirational to me. You took a leap of faith with the ambitious, yet in hindsight perhaps somewhat disjointed, research proposal that I, a stranger, first sent to you some six years ago. Thank you for this and for all the insightful comments you provided me with between that first draft proposal and the present book. To both of you, your guidance during this project and friendship off it have been much appreciated.
I would also like to thank the members of my reading committee – Professor Marc Groenhuijsen, Professor Elies van Sliedregt, Professor Thomas Weigend and Professor Christine van den Wyngaert – for your valuable insights, which further influenced the content of my manuscript. I have learned immensely from your academic and judicial work on this topic, and it is an honour to have you on my committee.
criminal organization 81 2.2.6. The IMTFE Judgment: controversy and an adherent approach to conspiracy 91
2.2.7. Preliminary conclusions 101
2.3.
The notion of ‘common design/purpose’
104 2.3.1. Article II(2) CCL - refining the modes of criminal liability 104 2.3.2. The principal-accessory distinction in post-Nuremberg jurisprudence 108 2.3.3. Liability for acting in pursuance of a common criminal design 1172.4. Conclusions
135Chapter 3: Joint criminal enterprise: doctrinal
framework and nature
1383.1. Introduction
1393.2.
Drafting modes of liability into the ICTY Statute: from
Nuremberg to The Hague
1403.3.
Introducing the common purpose doctrine in the ICTY
jurisprudence
1453.3.1. The Tadić Trial Judgement (7 May 1997): case facts and findings 145 3.3.2. The Furundžija Trial Judgement (10 December 1998): a new reading of
common purpose liability 147
3.3.3. The Tadić Appeal Judgement (15 July 1999): systemizing common purpose
liability 151
3.4.
Joint criminal enterprise: theoretical framework
1543.4.1. The objective (material) elements 154
3.4.2. The subjective (mental) elements 177
3.5.
Joint criminal enterprise vis-a-vis the Nuremberg-era notions
on joint liability
1993.5.1. JCE and the notions of conspiracy and membership in a criminal
organization* 199
3.5.2. JCE and the Nuremberg-era common purpose theory 206
3.6. Conclusion
210Chapter 4: The pitfalls of joint criminal
enterprise liability
2124.1. Introduction
2134.2.
The customary status and nature of JCE III liability
* 214Abbreviations xii
Table of Cases
Table of Legislation xxxi
Chapter 1: A first look at individual liability within
the contenxt of mass criminality
21.1. Introduction
31.2.
The nature of international crimes: explaining the need for a
theory of joint liability
61.2.1. The inherent challenges of assigning liability in a context of mass criminality 6 1.2.2. The limits of traditional modes of liability 9
1.3.
Theories of co-perpetration
211.3.1. Choosing between approaches 21
1.3.2. JCE: a subjective approach to co-perpetration 23 1.3.3. Joint control over the crime: a material-objective approach to
co-perpetration 26
1.4.
Thesis scope and research question
29 1.4.1. Joint principal liability in the wake of international criminal law 30 1.4.2. Co-perpetration based on JCE: legal framework and issues of controversy 31 1.4.3. Co-perpetration based on joint control: legal framework and issues ofcontroversy 37
1.5.
The assessment framework for co-perpetration responsibility
41 1.5.1. Legal basis under international criminal law 42 1.5.2. Effective legal tool for allocating individual criminal responsibility 47 1.5.3. Respect for fundamental principles of criminal justice 501.6.
Concluding remarks
53Chapter 2: Back to nuremberg: the genesis of joint
liability for international crimes
562.1. Introduction
57
2.2.
‘Conspiracy’ and ‘Criminal Organizations’:
first approach to mass war criminality
* 572.2.1. Introducing the concepts of conspiracy and membership in a criminal
organization: Bernays’ prosecutorial strategy 58 2.2.2. Reviewing the law on conspiracy and criminal membership 60 2.2.3. Drafting the IMT Charter: the London negotiations on conspiracy and
6.3.1. The ‘joint control’ criterion: a theoretical critique 418 6.3.2. The joint control criterion in practice: much ado for nothing? 423
6.4. Conclusion
431Chapter 7: Co-perpetration responsibility in international
criminal law: forging a path forward
4347.1. Introduction
4357.2.
Searching for the right formula: the alternative views of
two ICC Judges
4367.2.1. Judge Fulford’s notion of co-perpetration and ‘operative links’ 436 7.2.2. Judge Van den Wyngaert’s notion of co-perpetration and
‘direct contributions’ 440
7.3.
Testing the theories of JCE and joint control over the crime
4447.3.1. Legal basis 446
7.3.1.1. The contrived gap between international custom and the Rome Statute 446
7.3.2. Effectiveness 463
7.3.3. Fairness 470
7.4.
Co-perpetration responsibility in international criminal law:
a single legal framework
4787.5.
Conclusion
482PhD summary
484Bibliography
498doctrine: an appraisal 219
4.2.3. JCE III and customary international criminal law 232 4.2.4. Evaluating the customary status of JCE III 254
4.2.5. The nature of JCE III liability 258
4.3.
The law on JCE with no physical perpetrators
268 4.3.1. A dubious start: early ICTY case law on JCE with no physical perpetrators 269 4.3.2. Adopting the notion of leadership-level JCE 281 4.3.3. Linking the physical perpetrators to the ‘leadership-level’ JCE 2944.3.4. Concluding remarks 318
4.4. Conclusion
321Chapter 5: Co-perpetration based on joint control over
the crime: doctrinal framework
3245.1. Introduction
3255.2.
Doctrinal and jurisprudential origins of the theory of
co-perpetration based on joint control over the crime
326 5.2.1. Back to 1963: Roxin’s “Täterschaft Und Tatherrschaft” 326 5.2.2. The ICTY Stakić Trial Judgment: a debut for the joint control theory ininternational criminal proceedings 330
5.3.
Introducing the joint control theory in the ICC case law
* 3355.3.1. The Prosecutor v Lubanga: case facts and early submissions on
co-perpetration 336
5.3.2. The Lubanga Decision on the Confirmation of Charges 338
5.4.
Joint Control over the Crime: Theoretical Framework
3405.4.1. The objective (material) elements 341
5.4.2. The subjective (mental) elements 358
5.5. Conclusion
372Chapter 6: Rethinking the theory of co-perpetration
based on joint control over the crime
3746.1. Introduction
*375
6.2.
Reviewing the legal basis for the joint control theory
3766.2.1. Alleged basis in Article 25(3) RS 377
INTERNATIONAL/HYBRID COURTS AND TRIBUNALS
Allied Military Courts in Occupied Germany (Zonal Trials)
Trial of Bruno Tesch and Two Others (‘The Zyklon B Case’), British Military Court, Hamburg, 1st –
8th March 1946, in UN War Crimes Commission, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Vol. I
(London: Published for the United Nations War Crimes Commission by His Majesty’s Stationary Office, 1947).
Trial of Carl Bauer, Ernst Schrameck and Herbert Falten, Permanent Military Tribunal, Dijon,
France, 18 October 1945, in UN War Crimes Commission Law, Reports of Trials of War
Crim-inals, Vol. VIII (London: Published for the United Nations War Crimes Commission by His
Majesty’s Stationary Office, 1949).
Trial of Erich Heyer and Six Others (‘The Essen Lynching Case’), British Military Court, Essen,
18-19 and 21-22 December 1945, in UN War Crimes Commission, Law Reports of Trials of War
Criminals, Vol. I (London: Published for the United Nations War Crimes Commission by His
Majesty’s Stationary Office, 1947).
Trial of Feurstein and Others (‘The Ponzano Case’), British Military Court at Hamburg, 24 August
1948, in 5 Journal of International Criminal Justice (2007): 238-240.
Trial of Franz Holstein and Twenty-Three Others, Permanent Military Tribunal at Dijon, 3
Febru-ary 1947, in UN War Crimes Commission, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Vol. VIII (London: Published for the United Nations War Crimes Commission by His Majesty’s Stationary Office, 1949).
Trial of Franz Schonfeld and Nine Others, British Military Court, Essen, 11th – 26th June 1946, in UN
War Crimes Commission, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Vol. XI (London: Published for the United Nations War Crimes Commission by His Majesty’s Stationary Office, 1949).
Trial of Josef Kramer and 44 Others, British Military Court, Luneburg, 17September – 17 No-vember 1945, in UN War Crimes Commission Law, Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Vol. II (London: Published for the United Nations War Crimes Commission by His Majesty’s Stationary Office, 1947).
Trial of Martin Gottfried Weiss and Thirty-Nine Others (‘The Dachau Concentration Camp Trial’),
General Military Government Court of the United States Zone, Dachau, 15 November 1945 – 13 December 1945, in UN War Crimes Commission, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Vol. XI (London: Published for the United Nations War Crimes Commission by His Majesty’s Stationary Office, 1949).
Office of Judge Advocate (Headquarters, Third US Army and Eastern Military District), Review
of the Proceedings of General Military Court in the Case of United States vs. Martin Gottfried Weiss et al., 15 Nov – 13 Dec 1945, [Date of Case Review: March-April 1946].
Trial of Max Wielen and 17 Others (‘The Stalag Luft III Case’), British Military Court, Hamburg,
Germany, 1 July – 3 September 1947, in UN War Crimes Commission, Law Reports of Trials of
War Criminals, Vol. XI (London: Published for the United Nations War Crimes Commission by CCL Control Council Law No. 10
ECCC Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia ECtHR European Court of Human Rights
SPSC Special Panels for Serious Crimes (East Timor Tribunal) ICC International Criminal Court
ICJ International Court of Justice
ICTR International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda
ICTY International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia IMT International Military Tribunal
IMTFE International Military Tribunal for the Far East JCE Joint Criminal Enterprise
NMTs U.S. Nuremberg Military Tribunals NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization PTC Pre-Trial Chamber
SCSL Special Court for Sierra Leone STL Special Tribunal for Lebanon UN United Nations
ECtHR (GC) Judgment of 17 May 2010 (Application no. 36376/04), Kononov v. Latvia.
ECtHR Judgment of 22 November 1995 (Application no. 20166/92), S.W. v. The United Kingdom.
Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC)
Case 001
The Prosecutor v. Kaing Guek Eav alias Duch (001/18-07-2007/ECCC/TC), Judgment, Trial
Cham-ber, 26 July 2010. Case 002
The Prosecutor v. Ieng Sary, Ieng Thirith and Khieu Samphan (002/19-09-2007-ECCC/OCIJ),
De-cision on the Appeals against the Co-Investigative Judges Order on Joint Criminal Enterprise (JCE), Pre-Trial Chamber, 20 May 2010.
The Prosecutor v. Nuon Chea and Khieu Samphan (002/19-09-2007/ECCC/TC), Case 002/01
Judg-ment, Trial Chamber, 7 August 2014.
The Prosecutor v. Nuon Chea, Ieng Sary, Ieng Thirith and Khieu Samphan (002/19-09-2007-ECCC/
TC), Decision on the Applicability of Joint Criminal Enterprise, Trial Chamber, 12 September 2011.
International Criminal Court (ICC)
Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir (ICC-02/05-01/09)
The Prosecutor v. Al Bashir (ICC-02/05-01/09-3), Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for a
Warrant of Arrest against Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, Pre-Trial Chamber I, 4 March 2009, Separate and Partly Dissenting Opinion of Judge Anita Ušacka.
The Prosecutor v. Al Bashir (ICC-02/05-01/09-94), Second Decision on the Prosecutor’s
Applica-tion for a Warrant of Arrest, Pre-Trial Chamber I, 12 July 2010. Bahar Idriss Abu Garda (ICC-02/05-02/09)
The Prosecutor v. Abu Garda (ICC-02/05-02/09-243-Red), Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,
Pre-Trial Chamber I, 8 February 2010.
Abdallah Banda Abakaer Nourain and Saleh Mohammed Jerbo Jamus (ICC-02/05-03/09)
The Prosecutor v. Banda and Jerbo (ICC-02/05-03/09-121-Corr-Red), Corrigendum of the Decision
on the Confirmation of Charges, Pre-Trial Chamber I, 7 March 2011. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo (ICC-01/05-01/08)
The Prosecutor v. Bemba (ICC-01/05-01/08-424), Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,
Pre-Tri-land, 24 – 26 November 1945 in UN War Crimes Commission, Law Reports of Trials of War
Criminals, Vol. I (London: Published for the United Nations War Crimes Commission by His
Majesty’s Stationary Office, 1947).
United States of America v. Friedrich Becker et al., United States Military Court, Dachau, 14 May
1946 – 22 January 1947, in UN War Crimes Commission, Law Reports of Trials of War
Crimi-nals, Vol. XV (London: Published for the United Nations War Crimes Commission by His
Maj-esty’s Stationary Office, 1949).
United States of America v. Hans Ulrich and Otto Merkle (Case No. 000-50-2-17), General Military
Government Court of the United States, Dachau, Germany, 12-22 November 1946.
Deputy Judge Advocate’s Office (War Crimes Group European Command), Review and
Recom-mendations: United States of America v. Hans Ulrich and Otto Merkle (Case No. 000-50-2-17),
General Military Government Court of the United States at Dachau, Germany, 12-22 November 1946, [Date of Case Review: 12 June 1947].
United States of America v. Hans Wuelfert et al. (Case No. 000-50-2-72), General Military
Govern-ment Court of the United States, Dachau, Germany, 12-17 March 1947.
Deputy Judge Advocate’s Office (War Crimes Group European Command), Review and
Recom-mendations: United States of America v. Hans Wuelfert et al., (Case No. 000-50-2-72), General
Military Government Court of the United States at Dachau, Germany, 12-17 March 1947, [Date of Case Review: 19 Sept 1947].
United States of America v. Karl Adami et al. (Case No. 000-50-2-1), Intermediate Military
Govern-ment Court, Dachau, Germany, 11-14 October 1946.
Deputy Judge Advocate’s Office (War Crimes Group European Command), Review and
Recom-mendations: The United States v. Karl Adami et al. (Case No. 000-50-2-1), Intermediate
Mili-tary Government Court, Dachau, Germany, 11-14 October 1946, [Date of Case Review: 24 Mar 1947].
The United States of America v. Kurt Goebell et al. (Case No. 12-489), General Military
Govern-ment Court in Ludwigsburg, Germany, 6 February – 22 March 1946.
Deputy Judge Advocate’s Office (War Crimes Group European Command), Review and
Recommen-dations: The United States v. Kurt Goebell et al. (Case No. 12-489), General Military
Govern-ment Court in Ludwigsburg, Germany, 6 February – 22 March 1946, [Date of Case Review: 1 August 1947].
United States of America v. Stefan Koch et al. (Case No. 000-50-2-55), Intermediate Military
Gov-ernment Court, Dachau, Germany, 20-21 January 1947.
Deputy Judge Advocate’s Office (War Crimes Group European Command), Review and
Recom-mendations: The United States v. Stefan Koch et al. (Case No. 000-50-2-55), Intermediate
The Prosecutor v. Lubanga (ICC-01/04-01/06-T-44-EN), Transcript, Pre-Trial Chamber, 24
Novem-ber 2006.
The Prosecutor v. Lubanga (ICC-01/04-01/06-745-tEN), Written Submissions of the Legal
Repre-sentative of Victim a/0105/06, Legal RepreRepre-sentatives of Victims, 1 December 2006. Callixte Mbarushimana (ICC-01/04-01/10)
The Prosecutor v. Mbarushimana (ICC-01/04-01/10-465-Red), Decision on the Confirmation of
Charges, Pre-Trial Chamber I, 16 December 2011.
Francis Kirimi Muthaura, Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta and Mohammed Hussein Ali (ICC-01/09-02/11)
The Prosecutor v. Muthaura and Kenyatta (ICC-01/09-02/11-444), Prosecution’s Submissions on the Law of Indirect Co-Perpetration under Article 25(3)(a) of the Statute and Application for
Notice to be Given under Regulation 55(2) with Respect to the Accuseds’ Individual Criminal
Responsibility, 3 July 2012.
The Prosecutor v. Muthaura, Kenyatta and Ali (ICC-01/09-02/11-382-Red), Decision on the Confir-mation of Charges, Pre-Trial Chamber II, 23 January 2012.
The Prosecutor v. Muthaura, Kenyatta and Ali (ICC-01/09-02/11-257-AnxA), Document
Contain-ing the Charges, Office of the Prosecutor, 19 August 2011. Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui (ICC-01/04-02)
The Prosecutor v. Ngudjolo Chui (ICC-01/04-02/12-3-tENG), Judgment, Trial Chamber, 18 De-cember 2012.
———, Concurring Opinion of Judge Christine Van den Wyngaert. Prosecutor v. Bosco Ntaganda (ICC-01/04-02/06)
The Prosecutor v. Ntaganda (ICC-01/04-02/06-309), Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, Pre-Trial Chamber II, 9 June 2014
Dominic Ongwen (ICC-02/04-01/15)
The Prosecutor v. Ongwen (ICC-02/04-01/15-422-Red), Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,
Pre-Trial Chamber II, 23 March 2016.
William Samoei Ruto, Henry Kiprono Kosgey and Joshua Arap Sang (ICC-01/09-01/11)
The Prosecutor v. Ruto, Kosgey and Sang (ICC-01/09-01/11-373), Decision on the Confirmation of
Charges, Pre-Trial Chamber II, 23 January 2012.
International Court of Justice (ICJ)
Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Croatia
Charles Blé Goudé (ICC-02/11-02/11)
The Prosecutor v. Blé Goudé (ICC-02/11-02/11-186), Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,
Pre-Trial Chamber I, 11 December 2014. Laurent Gbagbo (ICC-02/11-01/11)
The Prosecutor v. Laurent Gbagbo (ICC-02/11-01/11-656-Red), Decision on the Confirmation of
Charges, Pre-Trial Chamber I, 12 June 2014.
Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui (ICC-01/04-01/07)
The Prosecutor v. Katanga and Chui (ICC-01/04-01/07-649-Anx1A), Amended Document
Con-taining the Charges Pursuant to Article 61(3)(a) of the Statute, Office of the Prosecutor, 26 June 2008.
The Prosecutor v. Katanga and Chui (ICC-01/04-01/07-717), Decision on the Confirmation of
Charges, Pre-Trial Chamber I, 30 September 2008.
The Prosecutor v. Katanga and Chui (ICC-01/04-01/07-1541), Prosecution’s Pre-Trial Brief on the
Interpretation of Article 25(3)(a), 19 October 2009. Germain Katanga (ICC-01/04-01/07)
The Prosecutor v. Katanga (ICC-01/04-01/07-3436-tENG), Judgment, Trial Chamber II, 7 March
2014.
———, Minority Opinion of Judge Christine Van den Wyngaert. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo (ICC-01/04-01/06)
The Prosecutor v. Lubanga (ICC-01/04-01/06-803-tEN), Decision on the Confirmation of Charges,
Pre-Trial Chamber I, 29 January 2007.
The Prosecutor v. Lubanga (ICC-01/04-01/06-8-US-Corr), Decision on the Prosecutor’s
Applica-tion for a Warrant of Arrest, Article 58, Pre-Trial Chamber I, 10 February 2006.
The Prosecutor v. Lubanga (ICC-01/04-01/06-356-Anx2), Document Containing the Charges,
Arti-cle 61(3)(a), Office of the Prosecutor, 28 August 2006.
The Prosecutor v. Lubanga (ICC-01/04-01/06-3121-Red), Judgment, Appeals Chamber, 1
Decem-ber 2014.
The Prosecutor v. Lubanga (ICC-01/04-01/06-2842), Judgment, Trial Chamber, 14 March 2012.
———, Separate Opinion of Judge Adrian Fulford.
The Prosecutor v. Lubanga (ICC-01/04-01/06-750-tEN), Observations Made During the
Confirma-tion Hearing on Behalf of Victims a/0001/06, a/0002/06 and a/0003/06, Legal Representatives of Victims, 4 December 2006.
The Prosecutor v. Lubanga (ICC-01/04-01/06-2748-Red), Prosecution’s Closing Brief, 1 June 2011. The Prosecutor v. Lubanga (ICC-01/04-01/06-749), Prosecution’s Document Addressing Matters
ment and Prosecution Application to Amend, Trial Chamber, 26 June 2001.
The Prosecutor v Brđanin and Talić (IT-99-36-PT), Decision on Motion by Momir Talić for
Provi-sional Release, Trial Chamber, 28 March 2001.
The Prosecutor v. Brđanin (IT-99-36-A), Decision on Interlocutory Appeal, Appeals Chamber, 19
March 2004.
The Prosecutor v. Brđanin (IT-99-36-A), Judgment, Appeals Chamber, 3 April 2007.
———, Declaration of Judge Van Den Wyngaert.
———, Partly Dissenting Opinion of Judge Shahabuddeen. ———, Separate Opinion of Judge Meron.
The Prosecutor v. Brđanin (IT-99-36-T), Judgment, Trial Chamber, 1 September 2004.
Vlastimir Đorđević (IT-05-87/1)
The Prosecutor v. Đorđević (IT-05-87/1-A), Judgment, Appeals Chamber, 27 January 2014. The Prosecutor v. Đorđević (IT-05-87/1-T), Judgment, Trial Chamber, 23 February 2011.
Dražen Erdemović (IT-96-22)
The Prosecutor v. Erdemović (IT-96-22-A), Judgment, Appeals Chamber, 7 October 1997.
———, Joint Separate Opinion of Judge McDonald and Judge Vohrah. ———, Separate and Dissenting Opinion of Judge Cassese.
Anto Furundžija (IT-95-17/1)
The Prosecutor v. Furundžija (IT-95-17/1-PT), Amended Indictment, 2 June 1998. The Prosecutor v. Furundžija (IT-95-17/1-A), Judgment, Appeals Chamber, 21 July 2000. The Prosecutor v. Furundžija (IT-95-17/1-T), Judgment, Trial Chamber, 10 December 1998.
Stanislav Galić (IT-98-29)
The Prosecutor v. Galić (IT-98-29-A), Judgment, Appeals Chamber, 30 November 2006. The Prosecutor v. Galić (IT-98-29-T), Judgment, Trial Chamber, 5 December 2003.
Ante Gotovina, Ivan Čermak and Mladen Markać (IT-06-90)
The Prosecutor v. Gotovina and Markać (IT-06-90-A), Judgment, Appeals Chamber, 16 November
2012.
The Prosecutor v. Gotovina et al. (IT-06-90-T), Judgment, Trial Chamber, 15 April 2011.
Sefer Halilović (IT-01-48)
The Prosecutor v. Halilović (IT-01-48-T), Judgment, Trial Chamber, 16 November 2005.
Ramush Haradinaj, Idriz Balaj and Lahi Brahimaj (IT-04-84)
The Prosecutor v. Haradinaj et al. (IT-04-84bis-T), Judgment, Trial Chamber, 29 November 2012. The Prosecutor v. Haradinaj et al. (IT-04-84-T), Judgment, Trial Chamber, 8 April 2008.
February 2002, ICJ Reports 2002.
Case Concerning Certain German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia (German v. Poland), Judgment,
25 May 1926, PCIJ (Series A – No.7).
Fisheries Case (United Kingdom v. Norway), Judgment, 18 December 1951, ICJ Reports 1951. Fisheries Jurisdiction (United Kingdom v. Iceland), Merits, Judgment, 25 July 1974, ICJ Reports
1974, Joint Separate Opinion of Judges Forster, Bengzon, Jimenez de Arechaga, Nagendra Singh and Ruda.
Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory
Opinion, 9 July 2004, ICJ Reports 2004.
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of Amer-ica), Merits, Judgment, 27 June 1986, ICJ Reports 1986.
North Sea Continental Shelf Cases (Federal Republic of Germany v. Denmark; Federal Republic of Germany v. Netherlands), Judgment, 20 February 1969, ICJ Reports 1969.
Nottebohm Case /second phase/ (Liechtenstein v. Guatemala), Judgment, 6 April 1955, ICJ Reports
1955.
Reservations to the Convention on Genocide, Advisory Opinion, 28 May 1951, ICJ Reports 19-51. Rights of Nationals of the United States of America in Morocco (France v. United States of
Ameri-ca), Judgment, 27 August 1952, ICJ Reports 1952.
The Case of the S.S. Lotus (France v. Turkey), Judgment, 7 September 1927, PCIJ (Series A –
No.10).
International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY)
Zlatko Aleksovski (IT-95-14/1)
The Prosecutor v. Aleksovski (IT-95-14/1-A), Judgment, Appeals Chamber, 24 March 2000.
Milan Babić (IT-03-72)
The Prosecutor v. Babić (IT-03-72-A), Judgment on Sentencing Appeal, Appeals Chamber, 18 July
2005.
Vidoje Blagojević and Dragan Jokić (IT-02-60)
The Prosecutor v. Blagojević and Jokić (IT-02-60-A), Judgment, Appeals Chamber, 9 May 2007.
Tihomir Blaškić (IT-95-14)
The Prosecutor v. Blaškić (IT-95-14-A), Judgment, Appeals Chamber, 29 July 2004. The Prosecutor v. Blaškić (IT-95-14-T), Judgment, Trial Chamber, 3 March 2000.
Ljube Boškoski and Johan Tarčulovski (IT-04-82)
Miroslav Kvočka, Dragoljub Prcać, Milojica Kos, Mlađo Radić and Zoran Žigić (IT-98-30/1)
The Prosecutor v. Kvočka et al. (IT-98-30/1-A), Judgment, Appeals Chamber, 28 February 2005. The Prosecutor v. Kvočka et al. (IT-98-30/1-T), Judgment, Trial Chamber, 2 November 2001.
Fatmir Limaj, Haradin Bala and Isak Musliu (IT-03-66)
The Prosecutor v. Limaj, Bala and Musliu (IT-03-66-A), Judgment, Appeals Chamber, 27
Septem-ber 2007.
———, Partially Dissenting and Separate Opinion and Declaration of Judge Schomburg. Milan Lukić and Sredoje Lukić (IT-98-32/1)
The Prosecutor v. Lukić and Lukić (IT-98-32/1-A), Judgment, Appeals Chamber, 4 December 2012.
Milan Martić (IT-95-11)
The Prosecutor v. Martić (IT-95-11-A), Judgment, Appeals Chamber, 8 October 2008.
———, Separate Opinion of Judge Schomburg on the Individual Criminal Responsibility of Milan Martić.
Milan Milutinović, Nikola Šainović, Dragoljub Ojdanić, Nebojša Pavković, Vladimir Lazarević and Sreten Lukić (IT-05-87) [previously (IT-99-37)]
The Prosecutor v. Milutinović et al. (IT-99-37-AR72), Decision on Dragoljub Ojdanić’s Motion
Challenging Jurisdiction – Joint Criminal Enterprise, Appeals Chamber, 21 May 2003.
———, Separate Opinion of Judge David Hunt on Challenge by Ojdanić to Jurisdiction Joint
Crim-inal Enterprise.
The Prosecutor v. Milutinović et al. (IT-05-87-PT), Decision on Ojdanić’s Motion Challenging
Ju-risdiction: Indirect Co-perpetration, Trial Chamber, 22 March 2006. ———, Separate Opinion of Judge Iain Bonomy.
The Prosecutor v. Milutinović et al. (IT-99-37-AR72), General Ojdanić’s Appeal from Denial of
Pre-liminary Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction: Joint Criminal Enterprise, 28 February 2003.
The Prosecutor v. Milutinović et al. (IT-05-87-T), Judgment, Trial Chamber, 26 February 2009. The Prosecutor v. Milutinović et al. (IT-05-87-PT), Prosecution’s Response to General Ojdanić’s
Preliminary Motion Challenging Jurisdiction: Indirect Co-Perpetration, Trial Chamber, 21 Oc-tober 2005.
The Prosecutor v. Šainović and Ojdanić (IT-99-37-PT), General Dragoljub Ojdanić’s Preliminary
Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction: Joint Criminal Enterprise, Trial Chamber, 29 No-vember 2002.
The Prosecutor v. Šainović et al. (IT-05-87-A), Judgment, Appeals Chamber, 23 January 2014.
———, Partially Dissenting Opinion and Declaration of Judge Liu.
The Prosecutor v. Šainović et al. (IT-05-87-PT), (Redacted) Third Amended Indictment, 21 June
2006.
The Prosecutor v. Jelisić (IT-95-10-A), Judgment, Appeals Chamber, 5 July 2001.
Radovan Karadžić (IT-95-5/18)
The Prosecutor v. Karadžić (IT-95-5/18-T), Decision on Accused’s Motion to Strike JCE III
Allega-tions as to Specific Intent Crimes, Trial Chamber, 8 April 2011.
The Prosecutor v. Karadžić (IT-95-5/18-AR72.4), Decision on Prosecution’s Motion Appealing
Tri-al Chamber’s Decision on JCE III Foreseeability, AppeTri-als Chamber, 25 June 2009.
The Prosecutor v. Karadžić (IT-95-5/18-T), Judgment, Trial Chamber, 24 March 2016.
The Prosecutor v. Karadžić (IT-95-5/18-PT), Motion for Leave to Reply and Reply Brief:
Prelimi-nary Motion to Dismiss JCE III - Special Intent Crimes, Trial Chamber, 20 April 2009.
The Prosecutor v. Karadžić (IT-95-5/18-PT), Third Amended Indictment, 27 February 2009.
Dario Kordić and Mario Čerkez (IT-95-14/2)
The Prosecutor v. Kordić and Čerkez (IT-95-14/2-A), Judgment, Appeals Chamber, 17 December
2004.
The Prosecutor v. Kordić and Čerkez (IT-95-14/2-T), Judgment, Trial Chamber, 26 February 2001.
Momčilo Krajišnik (IT-00-39)
The Prosecutor v. Krajišnik (IT-00-39-A), Judgment, Appeals Chamber, 17 March 2009.
———, Separate Opinion of Judge Shahabuddeen.
The Prosecutor v. Krajišnik (IT-00-39-T), Judgment, Trial Chamber, 27 September 2006.
The Prosecutor v. Krajišnik and Plavšić (IT-00-39&40-PT), Amended Consolidated Indictment, 7
March 2002.
Milorad Krnojelac (IT-97-25)
The Prosecutor v. Krnojelac (IT-97-25-T), Judgment, Trial Chamber, 15 March 2002. The Prosecutor v. Krnojelac (IT-97-25-A), Judgment, Appeals Chamber, 17 September 2003. The Prosecutor v. Krnojelac (IT-97-25-I), Third Amended Indictment, 25 June 2001.
Radislav Krstić (IT-98-33)
The Prosecutor v. Krstić (IT-98-33-I), Amended Indictment, 27 October 1999. The Prosecutor v. Krstić (IT-98-33-A), Judgment, Appeals Chamber, 19 April 2004. The Prosecutor v. Krstić (IT-98-33-T), Judgment, Trial Chamber, 2 August 2001.
Dragoljub Kunarac, Radomir Kovač and Zoran Vuković (IT-96-23 & 23/1)
The Prosecutor v. Kunarac et al. (IT-96-23 & IT-96-23/1-A), Judgment, Appeals Chamber, 12 June
2002.
The Prosecutor v. Kunarac et al. (IT-96-23-T & IT-96-23/1-T), Judgment, Trial Chamber, 22
2015.
The Prosecutor v. Stanišić and Simatović (IT-03-69-T), Judgment, Trial Chamber, 30 May 2013.
Mićo Stanišić and Stojan Župljanin (IT-08-91-T)
The Prosecutor v. Stanišić and Župljanin (IT-08-91-T), Judgment, Trial Chamber, 27 March 2013.
Pavle Strugar (IT-01-42)
The Prosecutor v. Strugar (IT-01-42-A), Judgment, Appeals Chamber, 17 July 2008. The Prosecutor v. Strugar (IT-01-42-T), Judgment, Trial Chamber, 31 January 2005.
Duško Tadić (IT-94-1)
The Prosecutor v. Tadić (IT-94-1-I), Indictment (Amended), 14 December 1995. The Prosecutor v. Tadić (IT-94-1-A), Judgment, Appeals Chamber, 15 July 1999. The Prosecutor v. Tadić (IT-94-1-T), Judgment, Trial Chamber, 7 May 1997.
Zdravko Tolimir (IT-05-88/2)
The Prosecutor v. Tolimir (IT-05-88/2-A), Judgment, Appeals Chamber, 8 April 2015. The Prosecutor v. Tolimir (IT-05-88/2-T), Judgment, Trial Chamber, 12 December 2012.
Mitar Vasiljević (IT-98-32)
The Prosecutor v. Vasiljević (IT-98-32-A), Judgment, Appeals Chamber, 25 February 2004.
———, Separate and Dissenting Opinion of Judge Shahabuddeen.
The Prosecutor v. Vasiljević (IT-98-32-T), Judgment, Trial Chamber, 29 November 2002.
International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR)
Jean Paul Akayesu (ICTR-96-4)
The Prosecutor v. Akayesu (ICTR-96-4-T), Judgment, Trial Chamber, 2 September 1998.
Casimir Bizimungu, Justin Mugenzi, Jérôme-Clément Bicamumpaka and Prosper Mugiraneza (ICTR-99-50)
The Prosecutor v. Bizimungu et al. (ICTR-99-50-T), Judgment, Trial Chamber, 30 September 2011. Mugenzi and Mugiraneza v. The Prosecutor (ICTR-99-50-A), Judgment, Appeals Chamber, 4
Feb-ruary 2013.
Sylvestre Gacumbitsi (ICTR-2001-64)
The Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi (ICTR-2001-64-A), Judgment, Appeals Chamber, 7 July 2006.
———, Separate Opinion of Judge Schomburg on the Criminal Responsibility of the Appellant for Committing Genocide.
ment and Schedules of Incidents, 16 December 2011.
Mile Mrkšić, Miroslav Radić and Veselin Šljivančanin (IT-95-13/1)
The Prosecutor v. Mrkšić and Šljivančanin (IT-95-13/1-A), Judgment, Appeals Chamber, 5 May 2009.
Mladen Naletilić and Vinko Martinović (IT-98-34)
The Prosecutor v. Naletilić & Martinović (IT-98-34-T), Judgment, Trial Chamber, 31 March 2003.
Naser Orić (IT-03-68)
The Prosecutor v Orić (IT-03-68-A), Judgment, Appeals Chamber, 3 July 2008.
———, Declaration of Judge Shahabuddeen.
The Prosecutor v. Orić (IT-03-68-T), Judgment, Trial Chamber, 30 June 2006.
Momčilo Perišić (IT-04-81)
The Prosecutor v. Perišić (IT-04-81-A), Judgment, Appeals Chamber, 28 February 2013. The Prosecutor v. Perišić (IT-04-81-T), Judgment, Trial Chamber, 6 September 2011.
Vujadin Popović, Ljubiša Beara, Drago Nikolić, Ljubomir Borovčanin, Radivoje Miletić, Milan Gvero and Vinko Pandurević (IT-05-88)
The Prosecutor v. Popović et al. (IT-05-88-A), Judgment, Appeal Chamber, 30 January 2015.
———, Separate and Dissenting Opinions of Judge Mandiaye Niang.
The Prosecutor v. Popović et al. (IT-05-88-T), Judgment, Trial Chamber, 10 June 2010.
Jadranko Prlić, Bruno Stojić, Slobodan Praljak, Milivoj Petković, Valentin Ćorić and Berislav Pušić (IT-04-74)
The Prosecutor v. Prlić et al. (IT-04-74-AR72.3), Decision on Petković’s Appeal on Jurisdiction,
Appeals Chamber, 23 April 2008.
The Prosecutor v. Prlić et al. (IT-04-74-T), Judgment, Trial Chamber, 29 May 2013.
———, Separate and Partially Dissenting Opinion of Presiding Judge Jean-Claude Antonetti. Blagoje Simić, Miroslav Tadić and Simo Zarić (IT-95-9)
The Prosecutor v. Simić et al. (IT-95-9-T), Judgment, Trial Chamber, 17 October 2003.
———, Separate and Partly Dissenting Opinion of Judge Per-Johan Lindholm.
The Prosecutor v. Simić (IT-95-9-A), Judgment, Appeals Chamber, 28 November 2006.
———, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Schomburg. Milomir Stakić (IT-97-24)
Augustin Ndindiliyimana, Augustin Bizimungu, François-Xavier Nzuwonemeye and Innocent Sagahutu (ICTR-00-56)
The Prosecutor v. Ndindiliyimana et al. (ICTR-00-56-T), Judgment, Trial Chamber, 17 May 2011.
Augustin Ngirabatware (ICTR-99-54)/(MICT-12-29)
Ngirabatware v. The Prosecutor (MICT-12-29-A), Judgment, Appeals Chamber, 18 December 2014. The Prosecutor v. Ngirabatware (ICTR-99-54-T), Judgment, Trial Chamber, 20 December 2012.
Ildéphonse Nizeyimana (ICTR-00-55C)
Nizeyimana v. The Prosecutor (ICTR-00-55C-A), Judgment, Appeals Chamber, 29 September 2014. The Prosecutor v. Nizeyimana (ICTR-00-55C-T), Judgment, Trial Chamber, 19 June 2012.
André Ntagerura, Emmanuel Bagambiki and Samuel Imanishimwe (ICTR-99-46)
The Prosecutor v. Ntagerura et al. (ICTR-99-46-A), Judgment, Appeals Chamber, 7 July 2006. The Prosecutor v. Ntagerura et al. (ICTR-99-46-T), Judgment, Trial Chamber, 25 February 2004.
Elizaphan Ntakirutimana and Gérard Ntakirutimana (ICTR-96-10-A and ICTR-96-17-A)
The Prosecutor v. Ntakirutimana and Ntakirutimana (ICTR-96-10-A and ICTR-96-17-A),
Judg-ment, Appeals Chamber, 13 December 2004.
Pauline Nyiramasuhuko, Joseph Kanyabashi, Elie Ndayambaje, Sylvain Nsabimana, Arsène Shalom Ntahobali and Alphonse Nteziryayo (ICTR-98-42)
The Prosecutor v. Nyiramasuhuko et al. (ICTR-98-42-T), Judgment, Trial Chamber, 24 June 2011.
Laurent Semanza (ICTR-97-20)
Semanza v. The Prosecutor (ICTR-97-20-A), Judgment, Appeals Chamber, 20 May 2005. Prosecutor v. Semanza (ICTR-97-20-T), Judgment, Trial Chamber, 15 May 2003.
Athanase Seromba (ICTR-2001-66)
The Prosecutor v. Seromba (ICTR-2001-66-A), Judgment, Appeals Chamber, 18 March 2008.
Ephrem Setako (ICTR-04-81)
Setako v. The Prosecutor (ICTR-04-81-A), Judgment, Appeals Chamber, 28 September 2011.
Aloys Simba (ICTR-01-76)
The Prosecutor v. Simba (ICTR-01-76-A), Judgment, Appeals Chamber, 27 November 2007.
André Rwamakuba (ICTR-98-44C)
Rwamakuba v. The Prosecutor (ICTR-98-44-AR72.4), Decision on Interlocutory Appeal Regarding The Prosecutor v. Gatete (ICTR-2000-61-T), Judgment, Trial Chamber, 31 March 2011.
Clément Kayishema and Obed Ruzindana (ICTR-95-1)
The Prosecutor v. Kayishema and Ruzindana (ICTR-95-1-A), Judgment, Appeals Chamber, 1 June
2001.
Gaspard Kanyarukiga (ICTR-02-78)
Kanyarukiga v. The Prosecutor (ICTR-02-78-A), Judgment, Appeals Chamber, 8 May 2012.
———, Separate Opinion of Judge Pocar.
The Prosecutor v. Kanyarukiga (ICTR-02-78-T), Judgment and Sentence, Trial Chamber, 1
Novem-ber 2010.
Édouard Karemera, Matthieu Ngirumpatse and Joseph Nzirorera (ICTR-98-44)
Karemera et al. v. The Prosecutor (ICTR-98-44-AR72.5, ICTR-98-44-AR72.6), Decision on
Juris-dictional Appeals: Joint Criminal Enterprise, Appeals Chamber, 12 April 2006.
The Prosecutor v. Karemera et al. (ICTR-98-44-T), Decision on the Preliminary Motions by the
Defence of Joseph Nzirorera, Édouard Karemera, Andre Rwamakuba and Mathieu Ngirumpatse Challenging Jurisdiction in relation to Joint Criminal Enterprise, Trial Chamber III, 11 May 2004.
The Prosecutor v. Karemera and Ngirumpatse (ICTR-98-44-T), Judgment, Trial Chamber, 2
Feb-ruary 2012.
Karemera and Ngirumpatse v. The Prosecutor (ICTR-98-44-A), Judgment, Appeals Chamber, 29
September 2014.
Jean Mpambara (ICTR-01-65)
The Prosecutor v. Mpambara (ICTR-01-65-T), Judgment, Trial Chamber, 11 September 2006.
Yussuf Munyakazi (ICTR-97-36A)
The Prosecutor v. Munyakazi (ICTR-97-36A-A), Judgment, Appeals Chamber, 28 September 2011.
Ferdinand Nahimana, Jean Bosco Barayagwiza and Hassan Ngeze (ICTR-99-52)
Nahimana et al. v. The Prosecutor (ICTR-99-52-A), Judgment, Appeals Chamber, 28 November
2007.
Siméon Nchamihigo (ICTR-01-63)
The Prosecutor v. Nchamihigo (ICTR-2001-63-T), Judgment, Trial Chamber, 21 November 2008.
Grégoire Ndahimana (ICTR-01-68)
Vol. IV (Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1950).
Military Tribunal III, United States of America v. Josef Altstötter et al. (“The Justice Case”), Case No. 3, 5 March 1947 – 4 December 1947, in Trials of War Criminals before the Nuernberg
Mil-itary Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10, Nuremberg, October 1946-April, 1949, Vol.
III (Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office: 1951),
Military Tribunal IV, United States of America v. Ernst Von Weizsaecker et al. (“The Ministries Case”), Case No.11, 6 January 1948 – 13 April 1949, in Trials of War Criminals before the
Nu-ernberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10, Nuremberg, October 1946-April, 1949, Vol. XIV (Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1953).
Military Tribunal IV, United States of America v. Friedrich Flick et al. (“The Flick Case”), Case No. 5, 19 April 1947 – 22 December 1947, in Trials of War Criminals before the Nuernberg Military
Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10, Nuremberg, October 1946-April, 1949, Vol. VI
(Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1952).
Military Tribunal V, United States of America v. Wilhelm von Leeb et al. (“The High Command Case”), Case No. 12, 30December 1947 – 28October 1946, in UN War Crimes Commission,
Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Vol. XII (London: Published for the United Nations War
Crimes Commission by His Majesty’s Stationary Office, 1949).
Military Tribunal VI, United States of America v. Carl Krauch et al. (“The Farben Case”), Case No. 6, 27 August 1947-30 July 1948, in Trials of War Criminals before the Nuernberg Military
Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10, Nuremberg, October 1946-April, 1949, Vols. VII
and VIII (Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1952).
Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL)
Alex Tamba Brima, Brima Bazzy Kamara and Santigie Borbor Kanu (SCSL-04-16)
The Prosecutor v. Brima, Kamara and Kanu (SCSL-2004-16-A), Judgment, Appeals Chamber, 22
February 2008.
The Prosecutor v. Brima, Kamara and Kanu (SCSL-2004-16-T), Judgment, Trial Chamber, 20 June
2007.
Issa Hassan Sesay, Morris Kallon and Augustine Gbao (SCSL-04-15)
The Prosecutor v. Sesay, Kallon and Gbao (SCSL-04-15-A), Judgment, Appeals Chamber, 26
Oc-tober 2009.
———, 26 October 2009, Partially Dissenting and Concurring Opinion of Justice Shireen Avis Fisher.
The Prosecutor v. Sesay, Kallon and Gbao (SCSL-04-15-T), Judgment, Trial Chamber, 2 March
2009.
International Military Tribunal (IMT)
France et al. v. Göring et al., International Military Tribunal, Judgment and Sentence, 1 October
1946, reprinted in Trial of the Major War Criminals before the International Military Tribunal,
Nuremberg, 14 November 1945-1 October 1946. Vol. I. Nuremberg, Germany, 1947.
International Military Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE)
United States et al. v. Araki et al., International Military Tribunal for the Far East, Judgment and
Sentence, 4 November 1948, reprinted in B.V.A. Röling and C. F. Rüter, The Tokyo Judgment:
The International Military Tribunal for the Far East (I.M.T.F.E.), 29 April 1946-12 November 1948, Vol. 1 (Amsterdam: APA-U Amsterdam, 1977).
———, Dissenting Judgment of the Member from France, re-printed in Röling, B.V.A., and C. F. Rüter, The Tokyo Judgment: The International Military Tribunal for the Far East (I.M.T.F.E.), 29
April 1946-12 November 1948, Vol. 1 (Amsterdam: APA-U Amsterdam, 1977).
Nuremberg Military Tribunals (Control Council Law No. 10)
Military Tribunal I, United States of America v. Karl Brandt et al. (“The Medical Case”), Case No. 1, 9 December 1946-19 August 1947, in Trials of War Criminals before the Nuernberg Military
Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10, Nuremberg, October 1946-April, 1949, Vols. I and
II (Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1949).
Military Tribunal I, United States of America v. Ulrlch Greifelt et al. (“The RuSHA Case”), Case No. 8, 20 October 1947 – 10 March 1948, in Trials of War Criminals before the Nuernberg Military
Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10, Nuremberg, October 1946-April, 1949. Vols. IV
and V (Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1950).
Military Tribunal II, United States of America v. Erhard Milch (“The Milch Case”), Case No. 2, 2 January 1947-16 April 1947, in Trials of War Criminals before the Nuernberg Military Tribunals
under Control Council Law No. 10, Nuremberg, October 1946-April, 1949, Vol. II (Washington,
D.C.: United States Government Printing Office: 1950).
Military Tribunal II, United States of America v. Oswald Pohl et al. (“The Pohl Case”), Case No. 4, 8 April 1947 – 3 November 1947, in Trials of War Criminals before the Nuernberg Military
Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10, Nuremberg, October 1946 – April, 1949, Vol. V,
(Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1950).
Paquette v. R, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 189.
Germany
Stashynsky Case, Judgment, 19 October 1962, 18 BGHSt 87.
Israel
State of Israel v. Eichmann (Criminal Case No. 40/61), Judgment, District Court of Jerusalem, 11
December 1961. Japan
2 Keishu 478 (S. Ct. Second P.B., May 8, 1948). 5 Keishu 1987 (S. Ct. Second P.B. Sept. 28, 1951). 15 Keishu 715 (Gr. Ct. Cass. Nov 5, 1936). 33 Keishu (S. Ct. G.B.. May 28, 1958). The Netherlands
Supreme Court, 2 December 2014, NJB 2014/2278. Supreme Court, 8 May 2001, NJ 2001, 480. (‘Bacchus’ case)
Supreme Court, 17 November 1981, NJ 1983, 84 m.nt. ThWwV. (‘Containerdiefstal’ case) Supreme Court, 22 November 2011, NJB 2011/2269.
Supreme Court, 28 May 2002, NJ 2003, 142.
Supreme Court, 29 October 1934, NJ 1934, 1673. (‘Wormerveer Arson’ case) South Africa
Thebus and Another v. S (CCT36/02) [2003] ZACC 12; 2003 (6) SA 505 (CC).
Spain
Supreme Court, Judicial Chamber for Criminal Cases, Judgment of 4 September 1994. United Kingdom
Credit Lyonnais Bank Nederland NV v Export Credits Guarantee Department [1999] C.L.C. 823. Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland v. Lynch [1975] A.C. 653
Mulcahy v. R [1868] LR 3 HL 306.
Macklin and others [1838] 2 Lewin CC 225. R v. Appleby [1943] 28 Cr. App. R. 1. R v. Gnango [2011] UKSC 59. R v. Hancock [1986] A.C. 455. R v. Moloney [1985] A.C. 905.
R v. Smith (Wesley) [1963] 1 WLR 1200.
R v. Stewart and Schofield [1995] 1 Cr. App. R. 441.
Regarding the Majority Decision Concerning the Pleading of JCE in the Second Amended Indict-ment, Appeals Chamber, 1 May 2009.
The Prosecutor v. Taylor (SCSL-03-01-A), Judgment, Appeals Chamber, 26 September 2013. The Prosecutor v. Taylor (SCSL-03-01-T), Judgment, Trial Chamber, 18 May 2012.
The Prosecutor v. Taylor (SCSL-03-01-T), Prosecution Notification of Filing of Amended Case
Summary, 3 August 2007.
The Prosecutor v. Taylor (SCSL-03-01-T), Sentencing Judgment, Trial Chamber, 30 May 2012.
Moinina Fofana, Allieu Kondewa and Samuel Hinga Norman (SCSL-04-14)
The Prosecutor v. Fofana and Kondewa (SCSL-04-14-T-796), Judgment on the Sentencing, Trial
Chamber, 9 October 2007.
The Prosecutor v. Norman (SCSL-2004-14-AR72), Decision on Preliminary Motion Based on Lack
of Jurisdiction (Child Recruitment), Appeals Chamber, 31 May 2004.
Special Panels for Serious Crimes (East Timor Tribunal)
The Prosecutor v. Lino de Carvalho (SPSC-10/2001), Judgment, 18 March 2004. The Prosecutor v. Domingos Mendonca (SPSC-18b/2001), Judgment, 13 October 2003. The Prosecutor v. João Sarmento (SPSC-18A/2001), Judgment, 12 August 2003.
Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL)
Interlocutory Decision on the Applicable Law: Terrorism, Conspiracy, Homicide, Perpetration, Cu-mulative Charging (STL-11-01/I/AC/R176bis), Decision, Appeals Chamber, 16 February 2011.
Domestic Courts
Australia
Osland v. R, 10 December 1998, High Court of Australia [HCA 75; 197 CLR 316].
Bulgaria
Supreme Court of Cassation, Interpretative Judgment No.2, 16 July 2009.
Supreme Court of Cassation, Judgment No.478 (347/98), 19 November 1998, report by judge rap-porteur Savka Stoyanova.
United States
American Tobacco Co. v. United States, 328 U.S. 781 (1946). Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171 (1987).
Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez, 549 U.S. 183 (2007). Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006). Hicks v. United States, 150 U.S. 442 (1893). Krulewitch v. United States, 336 U.S. 440 (1949). Pettibone v. United States, 13 S.Ct. 542 (1893). Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640 (1946). Salinas v. United States, 522 U.S. 52 (1997). Standefer v. United States, 447 U.S. 10 (1949). State v. Burney, 191 Or. App. 227 (2003). United States v. Bell, 812 F.2d 188 (1987). United States v. Falcone, 61 S.Ct. 204 (1940). United States v. Hirsch, 100 U.S. 33 (1879).
INTERNATIONAL/HYBRID TRIBUNALS: FOUNDING DOCUMENTS
ECCC
Law on the Establishment of the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia for the Prose-cution of Crimes Committed during the Period of Democratic Kampuchea, 10 August 2001, with inclusion of amendments as promulgated on 27 October 2004, (NS/RKM/1004/006).
ICC
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, (UN Doc. A/CONF.183/9, 2178 UNTS 3), 17 July 1998 [in force on 1 July 2002], as last amended in 2010.
ICJ
Statute of the International Court of Justice, (33 UNTS 993), 26 June 1945, inaugural session held on 18 April 1946.
ICTR
Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, (UN Doc. S/RES/955), UN Security Council Resolution 955 (1994), 8 November 1994.
ICTY
Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, (UN Doc. S/RES/827), UN Security Council Resolution 827 (1993), 25 May 1993, as last amended on 7 July 2009.
Kosovo Specialist Chambers
Assembly of the Republic of Kosovo, Law on Specialist Chambers and Specialist Prosecutor’s
Office (Law No. 05/L-053), 3 August 2015. SCSL
Statute of the Special Court for Sierra Leone, (2178 UNTS 138), 16 January 2002.
Special Panels for Serious Crimes (East Timor Tribunal)
UN Transitional Administration in East Timor, On the Establishment of Panels with Exclusive Ju-risdiction over Serious Criminal Offences, Regulation No. 2000/15 (UNTAET/REG/2000/15), 6 June 2000.
World War II-era Tribunals
Charter of the International Military Tribunal - Annex to the Agreement for the Prosecution and Pun-ishment of the Major War Criminals of the European Axis, London, (82 UNTS 279), 8 August 1945, reprinted in Trial of the Major War Criminals before the International Military Tribunal,
bunal: Charter, Indictment and Judgments (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2008), at 7-11.
Control Council Law No. 10, Punishment of Persons Guilty of War Crimes, Crimes Against Peace and Against Humanity, December 20, 1945, Official Gazette Control Council for Germany 50-55 (1946), reprinted in T. Taylor, Final Report to the Secretary of the Army on the Nuernberg War
Crimes Trials under Control Council Law No. 10, Appendix D, (Washington D.C., 15 August
1949).
International Treaties, Conventions and Other Instruments
International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, (UN Doc. A/RES/52/164), 15 December 1997.
UN General Assembly, Affirmation of the Principles of International Law Recognized by the
Char-ter of the Nuremberg Tribunal, G.A. Res. 95 (I), (UN Doc. A/236), U.N. GAOR, 1st Sess., pt. 2, at
1144, 11 December 1946.
United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, resolution adopted by the Gen-eral Assembly (UN Doc. A/RES/55/25), 8 January 2001.
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, (1155 UNTS 331), 23 May 1969.
Domestic Legislation and Instruments Belgium
1867 Criminal Code [Strafwetboek].
France
French Ordinance of 28 August 1944, Concerning the Suppression of War Crimes, reprinted in UN War Crimes Commission, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Vol. III, Annex II (London: Pub-lished for the United Nations War Crimes Commission by His Majesty’s Stationary Office, 1948).
Finland
1889 Criminal Code [Rikoslaki/Strafflag].
Germany
1998 Criminal Code [Strafgesetzbuch].
Japan
1907 Criminal Code [刑法 Keihō].
The Netherlands
1881 Criminal Code [Wetboek van Strafrecht].
United Kingdom
Accessories and Abettors Act 1986, (24 & 25 Vict. c.94).
Royal Warrant - Regulations for the Trial of War Criminals, (A.O. 81/1945), 14 June 1945, reprinted in T. Taylor, Final Report to the Secretary of the Army on the Nuernberg War Crimes Trials under
Control Council Law No. 10, Appendix E, (Washington D.C., 15 August 1949). United States
Draft Directive to the US (UK) (USSR) Commander in Chief, Apprehension and Detention of War
Criminals, 21 October 1944
Headquarters, U.S. Forces, European Theater, Investigation of War Crimes, (Circ. 132), 2 October 1945, re-printed in Report of the Deputy Judge Advocate for War Crimes, European Command, June 1994 to July 1948
Joint Chiefs of Staff, Directive on the Identification and Apprehension of Persons Suspected of War Crimes or Other Offenses and Trial of Certain Offenders (J.C.S. 1023/10), 8 July 1946, reprinted in T. Taylor, Final Report to the Secretary of the Army on the Nuernberg War Crimes Trials under
Control Council Law No. 10, Appendix C, (Washington D.C., 15 August 1949).
Model Penal Code and Commentaries (Official Draft and Revised Commentaries): With Text of Model Penal Code as Adopted at the 1962 Annual Meeting of the American Law Institute at Washington, D.C., May 24, 1962 (Philadelphia: American Law Institute, 1985).
1
A First Look at Individual
Liability within the Context
of Mass Criminality
1.1. Introduction 3
1.2. The nature of international crimes: explaining the need
for a theory of joint liability 6 1.2.1. The inherent challenges of assigning
liability in a context of mass
criminality 6
1.2.2. The limits of traditional modes of
liability 9
1.2.2.1. Accessorial modes of liability 10 1.2.2.2. Command responsibility 16 1.2.2.3. Commission liability 18
1.3. Theories of co-perpetration 21 1.3.1. Choosing between approaches 21 1.3.2. JCE: a subjective approach to
co-perpetration 23
1.3.3. Joint control over the crime: a material-objective approach to
co-perpetration 26
1.4. Thesis scope and research question
29 1.4.1. Joint principal liability in the wake
of international criminal law 30
1.4.2. Co-perpetration based on JCE: legal framework and issues of controversy 31 1.4.2.1. JCE and customary international
law 32
1.4.2.2. JCE with no physical perpetrators 35 1.4.3. Co-perpetration based on joint control:
legal framework and issues
of controversy 37
1.5. The assessment framework
for co-perpetration responsibility 41 1.5.1. Legal basis under international
criminal law 42
1.5.2. Effective legal tool for allocating individual criminal responsibility 47 1.5.3. Respect for fundamental principles
of criminal justice 50
1.6. Concluding remarks 53
1.1. Introduction
[I]t is not helpful at all, at this stage of the development of international criminal law, that there now exist two competing concepts of commission as a mode of liability […] For this mode of liability, there can be only one definition in international criminal law.1
These words of Wolfgang Schomburg, former judge at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (‘ICTY’), are an outcry against one of the most enduring controversies in the modern field of international criminal law: the fragmented definition of co-perpetration responsibility. Nowadays, the international courts and tribunals employ two different theories to formulate the legal framework of this mode of liability. On the one hand, there is the theory of joint criminal enterprise (‘JCE’), often referred to as the common purpose doctrine, which was applied for the first time at the ICTY2 and was later
also endorsed in the jurisprudence of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (‘ICTR’),3 the Special Court for Sierra Leone (‘SCSL’),4 and the Extraordinary Chambers
in the Courts of Cambodia (‘ECCC’).5 It was also subsequently recognized in the case
law of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (‘STL’).6 On the other hand, however, stands the
theory of (joint) control over the crime, that offers a markedly different approach to co-perpetration liability. It was adopted in the emerging jurisprudence of the International
1 The Prosecutor v. Martić (IT-95-11-A), Judgment, Appeals Chamber, 8 October 2008, Separate Opinion of Judge Schomburg on the Individual Criminal Responsibility of Milan Martić, para 6. (footnotes omitted)
2 The Prosecutor v. Tadić (IT-94-1-A), Judgment, Appeals Chamber, 15 July 1999, paras 185-229; The Prosecutor v.
Vasiljević (IT-98-32-A), Judgment, Appeals Chamber, 25 February 2004, paras 94-102; The Prosecutor v. Kvočka et al.
(IT-98-30/1-A), Judgment, Appeals Chamber, 28 February 2005, paras 79-119; The Prosecutor v. Stakić (IT-97-24-A), Judgment, Appeals Chamber, 22 March 2006, paras 58-65; The Prosecutor v. Brđanin (IT-99-36-A), Judgment, Appeals Chamber, 3 April 2007, paras 357-432; The Prosecutor v. Krajišnik (IT-00-39-A), Judgment, Appeals Chamber, 17 March 2009, paras 657-672; The Prosecutor v. Đorđević (IT-05-87/1-A), Judgment, Appeals Chamber, 27 January 2014, paras 25-58; The Prosecutor v. Popović et al. (IT-05-88-A), Judgment, Appeal Chamber, 30 January 2015, paras 806 et seq.;
The Prosecutor v. Stanišić and Simatović (IT-03-69-A), Judgment, Appeals Chamber, 9 December 2015, para 77.
3 The Prosecutor v. Kayishema and Ruzindana (ICTR-95-1-A), Judgment, Appeals Chamber, 1 June 2001, paras 191-193; The Prosecutor v. Ntakirutimana and Ntakirutimana (ICTR-96-10-A and ICTR-96-17-A), Judgment, Appeals Chamber, 13 December 2004, paras 461-468; The Prosecutor v. Simba (ICTR-01-76-A), Judgment, Appeals Chamber, 27 November 2007, paras 243-255; The Prosecutor v. Munyakazi (ICTR-97-36A-A), Judgment, Appeals Chamber, 28 September 2011, paras 156-164; Nizeyimana v. The Prosecutor (ICTR-00-55C-A), Judgment, Appeals Chamber, 29 September 2014, paras 321-334; Karemera and Ngirumpatse v. The Prosecutor (ICTR-98-44-A), Judgment, Appeals Chamber, 29 September 2014, paras 623-634; Ngirabatware v. The Prosecutor (MICT-12-29-A), Judgment, Appeals Chamber, 18 December 2014, paras 242-252.
4 The Prosecutor v. Brima, Kamara and Kanu (SCSL-2004-16-A), Judgment, Appeals Chamber, 22 February 2008, paras 72-75; The Prosecutor v. Sesay, Kallon and Gbao (SCSL-04-15-A), Judgment, Appeals Chamber, 26 October 2009, paras 474-475; The Prosecutor v. Taylor (SCSL-03-01-T), Judgment, Trial Chamber, 18 May 2012, paras 457-468.
5 The Prosecutor v. Kaing Guek Eav alias Duch (001/18-07-2007/ECCC/TC), Judgment, Trial Chamber, 26 July 2010, paras 504-517; The Prosecutor v. Nuon Chea and Khieu Samphan (002/19-09-2007/ECCC/TC), Case 002/01 Judgment, Trial Chamber, 7 August 2014, paras 690-691.
Criminal Court (‘ICC’), which expressly rejected the concept of JCE.7 Thus, at the expense
of coherence and uniformity, international criminal law today hosts the parallel existence of two competing theories of co-perpetration.
The ICC’s decision to depart from the established jurisprudence on JCE responsibility came amid sustained criticism against this notion’s theoretical framework and calls to replace it with the theory of co-perpetration based on joint control over the crime.8 To be sure, despite its wide acceptance in international jurisprudence, JCE proved to be highly controversial from the moment of its endorsement in the Tadić case, and it continues to be a divisive issue among scholars and practitioners. Schomburg called it an “artificial concept”,9 which is “unnecessary and even dangerous”.10 Quite the opposite opinion was professed by Cassese – another former ICTY judge – who praised the doctrine of JCE as a “crucial part of international criminal law, ensuring that individual culpability is not obscured in the fog of collective criminality and accountability evaded”.11 There is no one single reason why this construct has proven to be so divisive for so long: rather, it has faced a multitude of critiques ranging from challenges to the legal basis for its application in international criminal law, to debates over the exact scope and meaning of its various legal elements, to disagreements about its nature. Naturally, the advent of the alternative theory of joint control over the crime, as the ICC’s preferred approach to co-perpetration liability, additionally exacerbated these disputes and widened the breach between the two
7 The Prosecutor v. Lubanga (ICC-01/04-01/06-803-tEN), Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, Pre-Trial Chamber I, 29 January 2007, paras 338-341; The Prosecutor v. Katanga and Chui (ICC-01/04-01/07-717), Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, Pre-Trial Chamber I, 30 September 2008, paras 480-486; The Prosecutor v. Banda and Jerbo (ICC-02/05-03/09-121-Corr-Red), Corrigendum of the Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, Pre-Trial Chamber I, 7 March 2011, paras 126-127; The Prosecutor v. Ntaganda (ICC-01/04-02/06-309), Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, Pre-Trial Chamber II, 9 June 2014, para 104; The Prosecutor v. Lubanga (ICC-01/04-01/06-2842), Judgment, Trial Chamber, 14 March 2012, para 980 et seq; The Prosecutor v. Lubanga (ICC-01/04-01/06-3121-Red), Judgment, Appeals Chamber, 1 December 2014, paras 469, 473.
8 See e.g. The Prosecutor v. Stakić (IT-97-24-T), Judgment, Trial Chamber, 31 July 2003, paras 439-442; The Prosecutor
v. Gacumbitsi (ICTR-2001-64-A), Judgment, Appeals Chamber, 7 July 2006, Separate Opinion of Judge Schomburg on
the Criminal Responsibility of the Appellant for Committing Genocide, paras 16-17.
9 Martić Appeal Judgment, supra n 1, Separate Opinion of Judge Schomburg on the Individual Criminal Responsibility of Milan Martić, para 9.
10 S. Wolfgang, ‘Jurisprudence on JCE – Revisiting a Never Ending Story’, Cambodia Tribunal Monitor, 3 June 2010, at 2, available at http://www.cambodiatribunal.org/assets/pdf/court-filings/ctm_blog_6_1_2010.pdf [accessed 21 July 2016]. Another former ICTY judge, Per-Johan Lindholm, expressed an opinion that JCE “has caused confusion and a waste of time, and is […] of no benefit to the work of the Tribunal or the development of international criminal law”.
The Prosecutor v. Simić et al. (IT-95-9-T), Judgment, Trial Chamber, 17 October 2003, Separate and Partly Dissenting
Opinion of Judge Per-Johan Lindholm, para 5.
11 A. Cassese, ‘Amicus Curiae Brief of Professor Antonio Cassese and Members of the Journal of International Criminal Justice on Joint Criminal Enterprise Doctrine’, 20 Criminal Law Forum (2009), at 294. In this line of thought, Schabas called JCE “the magic bullet” in the prosecution of international crimes. W. Schabas, ‘Mens Rea and the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia’, 37 New England Law Review (2003), at 1032. See also e.g. M. Osiel, ‘Modes of Participation in Mass Atrocity’, 38 Cornell International Law Journal (2005), at 797-798; N. Piacente, ‘Importance of the Joint Criminal Enterprise Doctrine for the ICTY Prosecutorial Policy’, 2 Journal of International
Criminal Justice (2004), at 446-454.
camps: one welcoming the ICC jurisprudence on this issue as a much-needed, positive development, and the other denouncing it as an unnecessary, disruptive effort to re-invent the wheel.
