* This text was reproduced and reformatted from the text available at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia Web site (visited November 11, 2013), http://www.icty.org/x/cases/perisic/acjug/en/130228_judgement.pdf.

1 Prosecutor v. Perišić, Case No. IT-04-81-A, Judgment (Int’l Crim. Trib. for the former Yugoslavia Feb. 28, 2013) [hereinafter Appeals Judgment].

2 The controversy has several origins. One is that following on the heels of Prosecutor v. Gotovina and Markać, Perišić is the latest in a series of high profile ICTY appellate acquittals. See Prosecutor v. Gotovina and Markać, Case No. IT-06-90-A, Judgment (Int’l Crim. Trib. for the former Yugoslavia Nov. 16, 2012). Also, following Perišić, on May 30, 2013 an ICTY trial chamber, applying the specific direction requirement, ordered the release of the former Chief of Serbian State Security Service and a former employee of that service. See Prosecutor v. Stanišić and Simatović, Case No. IT-03-69, Judgment (Int’l Crim. Trib. for the former Yugoslavia May 30, 2013).

3 The Appeals Chamber of the Special Court for Sierra Leone, in upholding the conviction of Charles Taylor, the former President of Liberia, claimed that “[a]lthough the Perišić Appeal Judgment introduces novel elements in its articulation of ‘specific direction’ [to aiding and abetting liability], which may perhaps be developed in time, this Appeals Chamber is not persuaded that there is good reason to depart from settled principles of law at this time.” Prosecutor v. Taylor, Case No. SCSL-03-01-A, Judgment, ¶ 480 (Special Ct. for Sierra Leone Sep. 26, 2013), http://www.sc-sl.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=t14fjFP4jJ8%3d&tabid=53.

4 Marko, Milanovic, SCSL Appeals Chamber Affirms Charles Taylor’s Conviction , EJIL: TALK! (Sep. 26, 2013)Google Scholar, http://www.ejiltalk.org/scsl-appeals-chamber-affirms-charlestaylors-conviction/.

5 Prosecutor v. Perišić, Case No. IT-04-81-T, Judgment (Int’l Crim. Trib. for the former Yugoslavia Sep. 6, 2011) [hereinafter Trial Judgment].

6 The 1995 VRS attack of Srebrenica led to the mass murder of some 8,000 Bosniaks, in what then-UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan labeled the worst crime to be committed on European soil since World War II. See Press Release, Secretary-General, ‘May We All Learn and Act on the Lessons of Srebrenica’, Says Secretary-General, in Message to Anniversary Ceremony, U.N. Press Release SG/SM/9993 (Nov. 7, 2005), http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2005/sgsm9993.doc.htm. The International Court of Justice later ruled that the attack constituted genocide. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), 2007 I.C.J. 43 (Feb. 26), www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/91/13685.pdf.

7 Trial Judgment, supra note 5, ¶¶ 1815, 1820, 1838.

8 Id. ¶¶ 1818, 1839.

9 The de novo factual review was of an issue of the doctrine of command responsibility, which this Introductory Note does not address.

10 Appeals Judgment, supra note 1, ¶ 17 (referring to Trial Judgment, supra note 5, ¶ 1627).

11 Id. ¶ 26 (referring to Tadić Appeals Judgment ¶ 229) (emphasis in original).

12 Id. ¶ 28.

13 Judge Liu reasoned that Perišić “facilitated the large-scale crimes of the VRS through the provision of considerable and comprehensive aid” constituting “a prime example of conduct to which aiding and abetting liability should attach.” Appeals Judgment, supra note 1, ¶ 9 (Liu, J., partially dissenting). Judge Liu persuasively referred to points from the Trial Judgment, including that Perišić institutionalized the provision of assistance to the VRS, that he had the power to approve or deny requests, that the assistance “sustained the very life line of the VRS”, that Perišić “did not believe that the VRS had another significant source of assistance,” and that from early stages of the war Perišić was aware of “the VRS’ propensity to commit criminal acts.” Id. ¶¶ 6-7, 8.

14 Id. ¶ 39.

15 Id. ¶ 72; Marko Milanovic, The Limits of Aiding and Abetting Liability: The ICTY Appeals Chamber Acquits Momcilo Perisic, EJIL: Talk! (Mar. 11, 2013), http://www.ejiltalk.org/the-limits-of-aiding-and-abetting-liabilitythe-icty-appeals-chamber-acquits-momcilo-perisic/.

16 See Kevin, Jon Heller, Why the ICTY’s “Specifically Directed” Requirement is Justified , OPINIO JURIS (June 2, 2013)Google Scholar, http://opiniojuris.org/2013/06/02/why-the-ictys-specifically-directedrequirement-is-justified/.

17 Id.; see also Human Rights Watch, Syria: Armed Opposition Groups Committing Abuses end Kidnappings, Forced Confessions, and Executions (Mar. 20, 2012)Google Scholar, http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/03/20/syria-armedopposition-groups-committing-abuses.

1 For ease of reference, two annexes are appended: Annex A – Procedural History and Annex B – Cited Materials and Defined Terms.

2 See Trial Judgement, paras 9-21.

3 Trial Judgement, para. 3.

4 See Indictment, paras 8-33, 40-46, 55-62; Trial Judgement, paras 6, 9-11, 16-21.

5 See Indictment, paras 34-62; Trial Judgement, paras 7-21.

6 See Trial Judgement, para. 15.

7 Trial Judgement, paras 1815, 1820, 1838.

8 Trial Judgement, paras 1818, 1839.

9 Trial Judgement, para. 1840.

10 Notice of Appeal, paras 19-69; Appeal, para. 7.

11 Notice of Appeal, para. 70; Appeal, paras 417, 429, 452, 492-493.

12 Response, para. 333.

13 AT. 30 October 2012 p. 10.

14 Lukić and Lukić Appeal Judgement, para. 10; Gotovina and Markač Appeal Judgement, para. 10. See also Gatete Appeal Judgement, para. 7.

15 Lukić and Lukić Appeal Judgement, para. 10; Gotovina and Markač Appeal Judgement, para. 10.

16 Lukić and Lukić Appeal Judgement, para. 11 (internal citations omitted). See also Gotovina and Markač Appeal Judgement, para. 11; Gatete Appeal Judgement, para. 8.

17 Lukić and Lukić Appeal Judgement, para. 12; Gotovina and Markač Appeal Judgement, para. 12. See also Gatete Appeal Judgement, para. 9.

18 Lukić and Lukić Appeal Judgement, para. 12; Gotovina and Markač Appeal Judgement, para. 12. See also Gatete Appeal Judgement, para. 9.

19 Lukić and Lukić Appeal Judgement, para. 11; Gotovina and Markač Appeal Judgement, para. 12.

20 Lukić and Lukić Appeal Judgement, para. 13; Gotovina and Markač Appeal Judgement, para. 13.

21 Lukić and Lukić Appeal Judgement, para. 13 (internal citations omitted). See also Gotovina and Markač Appeal Judgement, para. 13; Gatete Appeal Judgement, para. 10.

22 Gotovina and Markač Appeal Judgement, para. 14; Boškoski and Tarčulovski Appeal Judgement, para. 16. See also Gatete Appeal Judgement, para. 11.

23 Gotovina and Markač Appeal Judgement, para. 14; Boškoski and Tarčulovski Appeal Judgement, para. 16. See also Gatete Appeal Judgement, para. 11.

24 Practice Direction on Formal Requirements for Appeals from Judgement, IT/201, 7 March 2002, paras 1(c)(iii)-(iv), 4(b)(i)-(ii). See also Gotovina and Markač Appeal Judgement, para. 15; Boškoski and Tarčulovski Appeal Judgement, para. 17; Gatete Appeal Judgement, para. 12.

25 Gotovina and Markač Appeal Judgement, para. 15; Boškoski and Tarčulovski Appeal Judgement, para. 17. See also Gatete Appeal Judgement, para. 12.

26 Gotovina and Markač Appeal Judgement, para. 15; Boškoski and Tarčulovski Appeal Judgement, para. 17. See also Gatete Appeal Judgement, para. 12.

27 Trial Judgement, para. 1838.

28 See Trial Judgement, paras 556-563, 729-760. See also Trial Judgement, paras 1580-1650.

29 Trial Judgement, paras 1588-1591, 1621.

30 Trial Judgement, paras 1594-1602.

31 Trial Judgement, paras 1607-1619.

32 Trial Judgement, para. 1631.

33 Trial Judgement, paras 1628-1648. See also Trial Judgement, paras 1588-1589, 1620.

34 Notice of Appeal, paras 22-24; Appeal, paras 38-64. See also Appeal, paras 105-109.

35 Notice of Appeal, paras 19-21, 25-54; Appeal, paras 16-37, 65-314.

36 Trial Judgement, para. 1627. See also Trial Judgement, paras 1580-1626.

37 Trial Judgement, para. 126, citing Mrkšić and Šljivančanin Appeal Judgement, para. 159.

38 See generally Trial Judgement.

39 See Appeal, para.

40 See also Appeal, para. 108; AT. 30 October 2012 pp. 17-18. 40 Appeal, para. 42.

41 Appeal, paras 41-44. See also AT. 30 October 2012 pp. 18-19.

42 See Appeal, paras 41, 52-54. Cf. Reply, paras 8-12.

43 Reply, para. 16. See also AT. 30 October 2012 pp. 24-33.

44 See Appeal, paras 41 n. 34 (citing, inter alia, Tadić Appeal Judgement, para. 229, Ntagerura et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 370), 45 (citing, inter alia, Kalimanzira Appeal Judgement, para. 74), 55 (citing, inter alia, Kupreškić et al. Appeal Judgement, paras 277, 283). See also Appeal, para. 46; AT. 30 October 2012 pp. 19-20. Perišić further asserts that trial judgements of the Special Court for Sierra Leone have required evidence of specific direction. See Appeal, para. 47.

45 Appeal, para. 46.

46 Appeal, para. 49. See also Appeal, para. 48; Reply, paras 18-19.

47 Appeal, para. 24. See also Appeal, para. 21.

48 Appeal, paras 57, 61. See also Appeal, paras 98, 108-109.

49 AT. 30 October 2012 p. 78.

50 Appeal, paras 58-59. See also Appeal, paras 124-133.

51 Appeal, para. 60.

52 Appeal, para. 64.

53 Response, paras 21-41. See also AT. 30 October 2012 pp. 48-53.

54 Response, paras 27-32. See also AT. 30 October 2012 pp. 46, 54.

55 See Response, para. 33. See also AT. 30 October 2012 p. 51.

56 Response, para. 31.

57 See Response, paras 26, 30. See also AT. 30 October 2012 pp. 48-50.

58 Response, paras 37-38.

59 See Response, para. 34.

60 See Response, para. 35.

61 See Response, para. 36.

62 See Response, paras 45-47.

63 Response, para. 45.

64 Response, para. 48.

65 Response, para. 84. See also Response, paras 83, 85; AT. 30 October 2012 pp. 59-60. The Prosecution further maintains that whether some of Perišić’s assistance may have been supplied to VRS units not involved in perpetrating crimes is “irrelevant” and does not undermine his criminal responsibility for the crimes charged. See Response, para. 73. See also Response, paras 75-76.

66 Response, para. 86.

67 Appeal, paras 41-44. See also AT. 30 October 2012 pp. 18-19.

68 Tadić Appeal Judgement, para. 229 (emphasis added).

69 Tadić Appeal Judgement, para. 229 (emphasis added).

70 See Blagojević and Jokić Appeal Judgement, para. 127 (stating that “an aider and abettor carries out acts specifically directed to assist, encourage, or lend moral support to the perpetration of a certain specific crime, which have a substantial effect on the perpetration of the crime”); Kvočka et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 89 (stating that “[t]he aider and abettor carries out acts specifically directed to assist, encourage or lend moral support to the perpetration of a certain specific crime”) (internal quotation omitted); Blaškić Appeal Judgement, para. 45 (stating that “[t]he aider and abettor carries out acts specifically directed to assist, encourage or lend moral support to the perpetration of a certain specific crime”) (internal quotation omitted); Vasiljević Appeal Judgement, para. 102 (stating that “[t]he aider and abettor carries out acts specifically directed to assist, encourage or lend moral support to the perpetration of a certain specific crime”); Krnojelac Appeal Judgement, para. 33 (stating that “[t]he aider and abettor carries out acts specifically directed to assist, encourage or lend moral support to the perpetration of a certain specific crime”) (internal quotation omitted); Kupreškić et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 254 (stating that “aiding and abetting the perpetration of persecution requires proof that [an accused] carried out acts specifically directed to assisting, encouraging or lending moral support to the perpetration of the offence of persecution”); Aleksovski Appeal Judgement, para. 163 (stating that “[i]t must be shown that the aider and abettor carried out acts specifically directed to assist, encourage or lend moral support to the specific crime committed by the principal”). See also Kalimanzira Appeal Judgement, para. 74 (stating that “an aider and abettor carries out acts specifically directed to assist, encourage, or lend moral support to the perpetration of a certain specific crime”) (internal quotation omitted); Muvunyi Appeal Judgement, para. 79 (stating that “an aider and abettor carries out acts specifically directed to assist, encourage, or lend moral support to the perpetration of a certain specific crime”); Seromba Appeal Judgement, para. 139 (stating that “the actus reus for aiding and abetting extermination as a crime against humanity comprises of acts specifically directed to assist, encourage, or lend moral support to the perpetration of this crime”); Nahimana et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 482 (stating that “[t]he actus reus of aiding and abetting is constituted by acts or omissions aimed specifically at assisting, furthering or lending moral support to the perpetration of a specific crime”) (internal citations omitted); Muhimana Appeal Judgement, para. 189 (stating that “an aider and abettor carries out acts specifically directed to assist, encourage, or lend moral support to the perpetration of a specific crime”); Ntagerura et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 370 (stating that “[t]o establish the material element (or actus reus) of aiding and abetting under Article 6(1) of the [ICTR] Statute, it must be proven that the aider and abettor committed acts specifically aimed at assisting, encouraging, lending moral support for the perpetration of a specific crime”) (internal citation omitted); Ntakirutimana and Ntakirutimana Appeal Judgement, para. 530 (stating that “[t]he actus reus for aiding and abetting the crime of extermination is that the accused carries out acts specifically directed to assist, encourage or lend moral support to the perpetration of that crime”).

71 Simić Appeal Judgement, para. 85 (emphasis added).

72 Orić Appeal Judgement, para. 43 (emphasis added).

73 Ntawukulilyayo Appeal Judgement, para. 214 (stating that “the actus reus of aiding and abetting is constituted by acts or omissions specifically aimed at assisting, encouraging, or lending moral support to the perpetration of a specific crime”) (emphasis added); Rukundo Appeal Judgement, para. 52 (stating that “an aider and abettor commit[s] acts specifically aimed at assisting, encouraging, or lending moral support for the perpetration of a specific crime”) (emphasis added) (internal quotations omitted).

74 Karera Appeal Judgement, para. 321 (emphasis added).

75 See Haradinaj et al. Appeal Judgement, paras 57-62; Limaj et al. Appeal Judgement, paras 84, 92, 121-123, 132; Furundžija Appeal Judgement, paras 124-127; Renzaho Appeal Judgement, paras 253-338, 345-379; Nchamihigo Appeal Judgement, paras 67-83; Zigiranyirazo Appeal Judgement, paras 53-74; Ndindabahizi Appeal Judgement, para. 117; Gacumbitsi Appeal Judgement, paras 118-125, 140; Semanza Appeal Judgement, paras 225-279, 316; Rutaganda Appeal Judgement, paras 294-295.

76 See Gotovina and Markač Appeal Judgement, para. 127 (noting that the Appeals Chamber was addressing the elements of aiding and abetting liability “as relevant”), citing Blagojević and Jokić Appeal Judgement, para. 127 (including specific direction in its discussion of elements of aiding and abetting liability); Krajišnik Appeal Judgement, para. 662 (noting differences between aiding and abetting and JCE liability), citing Kvočka et al. Appeal Judgement, paras 89-90 (including specific direction in its analysis of aiding and abetting liability), Vasiljević Appeal Judgement, para. 102 (explicitly referring to specific direction in its discussion of the elements of aiding and abetting liability); Branin Appeal Judgement, para. 151 (referring to some elements of aiding and abetting liability but explicitly indicating that this recitation was not exhaustive), citing Tadić Appeal Judgement, para. 229 (establishing that specific direction is an element of the actus reus of aiding and abetting); Krstić Appeal Judgement, para. 137, citing Krnojelac Appeal Judgement, para. 52, Vasiljević Appeal Judgement, para. 102 (explicitly including specific direction in its discussion of the elements of aiding and abetting liability). The Appeals Chamber notes that, while paragraph 52 of the Krnojelac Appeal Judgement does not explicitly refer to specific direction, paragraph 33 does.

77 See Delalić et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 352.

78 Blagojević and Jokić Appeal Judgement, para. 189.

79 Blagojević and Jokić Appeal Judgement, para. 189. The Appeals Chamber notes that the Blagojević and Jokić Appeal Judgement also used this logic to explain other apparent inconsistencies in the Appeals Chamber’s application of specific direction. See Blagojević and Jokić Appeal Judgement, paras 188, 189 n. 498.

80 Blagojević and Jokić Appeal Judgement, para. 189, citing, inter alia, Delalić et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 352.

81 See supra, para. 18.

82 Mrkšić and Šljivančanin Appeal Judgement, para. 159 (emphasis added), citing Blagojević and Jokić Appeal Judgement, paras 188-189.

83 Tadić Appeal Judgement, para. 229.

84 See Mrkšić and Šljivančanin Appeal Judgement, p. 67.

85 See Mrkšić and Šljivančanin Appeal Judgement, paras 157-159.

86 Mrkšić and Šljivančanin Appeal Judgement, para. 159.

87 Mrkšić and Šljivančanin Appeal Judgement, para. 159.

88 See Mrkšić and Šljivančanin Appeal Judgement, para. 159, citing Blagojević and Jokić Appeal Judgement, paras 188-189.

89 Aleksovski Appeal Judgement, para. 109. See also Aleksovski Appeal Judgement, paras 107-108, 110-111.

90 See Kordić and Čerkez Appeal Judgement, paras 1040-1041; Aleksovski Appeal Judgement, para. 109.

91 See Mrkšić and Šljivančanin Appeal Judgement, para. 159, citing Blagojević and Jokić Appeal Judgement, paras 188-189. See also Mrkšić and Šljivančanin Appeal Judgement, p. 67.

92 Mrkšić and Šljivančanin Appeal Judgement, para. 159.

93 See Lukić and Lukić Appeal Judgement, para. 424; Gotovina and Markač Appeal Judgement, para. 127. See also Ntawukulilyayo Appeal Judgement, para. 214; Kalimanzira Appeal Judgement, para. 74; Rukundo Appeal Judgement, para. 52.

94 Lukić and Lukić Appeal Judgement, para. 424, citing Mrkšić and Šljivančanin Appeal Judgement, para. 159, Blagojević and Jokić Appeal Judgement, para. 189.

95 Indeed, the Lukić and Lukić Appeal Judgement specifically noted this relationship in its citation to the Mrkšić and Šljivančanin Appeal Judgement’s reference to specific direction: “Mrkšić and Šljivančanin Appeal Judgement, para. 159, confirming Blagojević and Jokić Appeal Judgement, para. 189.” See Lukić and Lukić Appeal Judgement, para. 424 n. 1286 (emphasis added).

96 See Ntawukulilyayo Appeal Judgement, para. 214; Kalimanzira Appeal Judgement, para. 74; Rukundo Appeal Judgement, para. 52.

97 See Blagojević and Jokić Appeal Judgement, para. 189. See also Tadić Appeal Judgment, para. 229. The Appeals Chamber recalls that specific direction may be addressed implicitly in the context of analysing substantial contribution. See Blagojević and Jokić Appeal Judgement, para. 189.

98 See supra, paras 26-27; Blagojević and Jokić Appeal Judgement, para. 189; Tadić Appeal Judgement, para. 229. See also Rukundo Appeal Judgement, paras 48-52. The Appeals Chamber recalls that proof of specific direction does not require that relevant acts are the proximate cause of a charged crime: it is well-settled in the Tribunal’s and ICTR’s jurisprudence that it is not necessary to prove a causal nexus between an aider and abettor and the actions of principal perpetrators. See Mrkšić and Šljivančanin Appeal Judgement, para. 81; Blaškić Appeal Judgment, para. 48; Rukundo Appeal Judgement, paras 50-52.

99 These other elements of aiding and abetting liability are substantial contribution, knowledge that aid provided assists in the commission of relevant crimes, and awareness of the essential elements of these crimes. See Lukić and Lukić Appeal Judgement, paras 422, 428.

100 See Lukić and Lukić Appeal Judgement, paras 437-451 (Sredoje Lukić provided practical assistance through his armed presence during the commission of cruel treatment and inhumane acts against unarmed Muslim civilians and was present during the forced transfer of unarmed civilians to a house that was subsequently locked and set on fire); Mrkšić and Šljivančanin Appeal Judgement, paras 5, 104, 193, p. 169 (Šljivančanin witnessed and failed to prevent torture of prisoners of war he was responsible for); Limaj et al. Trial Judgement, paras 631-632, 656, 658; Limaj et al. Appeal Judgement, paras 122-123 (Bala was present during the torture and cruel treatment of civilians at a prison camp); Blagojević and Jokić Appeal Judgement, paras 3-4, 69, 75, 79, 112, 125-135, 150-157, 164-175, 180, 196-200 (Blagojević, a colonel in the Bratunac Brigade, was present at Brigade headquarters and allowed the Brigade’s resources and personnel to be used in committing murder, persecutions, mistreatment, and forcible transfer of Muslim men detained in Bratunac; Jokić, a major in the Zvornik Brigade, committed Brigade resources to dig mass graves and otherwise facilitate murder, extermination, and persecutions at nearby sites); Branin Appeal Judgement, paras 2, 227-228, 311-320, 344-351 (as President of the Autonomous Region of Krajina Crisis Staff, Brđanin aided the commission of crimes by Bosnian Serb forces in the region under his authority); Simić Appeal Judgement, paras 3, 114-118, 132-137, 148-159, 182-191 (Simić assisted persecutions of non-Serb civilians in Bosanski Šamac municipality, where he was the highest ranking civilian official); Naletilić and Martinović Appeal Judgement, paras 489-538 (Martinović assisted the murder of a detainee by encouraging the detainee’s mistreatment, preventing the detainee from returning from Martinović’s unit to prison, actively covering up the detainee’s disappearance, and giving direct orders to his soldiers regarding disposal of the detainee’s corpse); Kvočka et al. Appeal Judgement, paras 562-564 (Žigić led a prisoner to a room in which he was tortured); Krstić Appeal Judgement, paras 61-62, 135-144 (Krstić permitted troops and other resources under his control to assist in killings of Bosnian Muslims); Vasiljević Appeal Judgement, paras 134-135, 143, 147 (Vasiljević personally guarded seven Muslim men and prevented them from escaping); Furundžija Appeal Judgement, paras 124-127 (Furundžija assisted criminal acts through his presence and personal interrogation of prisoners); Aleksovski Appeal Judgement, paras 36, 165-173 (Aleksovski, a prison warden, assisted in the mistreatment of detainees in and around his prison facility). See also Ntawukulilyayo Appeal Judgement, paras 208-217, 226-229, 243, 246 (Ntawukulilyayo assisted criminal acts by personally encouraging refugees to seek shelter at Kabuye Hill and then transporting soldiers to help kill these refugees); Kalimanzira Appeal Judgement, paras 81, 126, 243 (Kalimanzira encouraged refugees to seek shelter at Kabuye Hill and subsequently accompanied armed individuals who killed some of these refugees); Renzaho Appeal Judgement, paras 2, 68, 75, 84-85, 93, 99-100, 104, 108, 253-255, 336-338, 622 (in his capacity as Prefect of Kigali-Ville, Renzaho aided various crimes in Kigali including murder by, inter alia, facilitating weapons distribution and supporting roadblocks); Rukundo Appeal Judgement, paras 3, 39, 51-54, 92, 115, 176-177, 218, 269-270 (Rukundo assisted the killings of Tutsis by, inter alia, identifying victims to principal perpetrators who then committed genocide and extermination); Karera Appeal Judgement, paras 298, 322-323 (Karera, while at a roadblock, instructed principal perpetrators that a man he identified as a Tutsi be detained and taken away; the man was subsequently murdered); Seromba Appeal Judgement, paras 77, 183-185, 206, 240 (Seromba assisted the murder of Tutsis by expelling them from his parish); Nahimana et al. Appeal Judgement, paras 668-672, 965-968 (Ngeze set up, manned, and supervised roadblocks, assisting in identification of Tutsi civilians who were then killed); Muhimana Appeal Judgement, paras 148, 165-177, 185-192 (Muhimana personally encouraged principal perpetrators to rape Tutsi women); Ndindabahizi Appeal Judgement, para. 4, p. 48 (Ndindabahizi transported attackers to a crime site and distributed weapons used to kill Tutsis); Gacumbitsi Trial Judgement, paras 286-287, 314; Gacumbitsi Appeal Judgement, paras 83-98, 123-125, 207 (Gacumbitsi personally encouraged principal perpetrators to massacre Tutsis and expelled two Tutsi tenants who were subsequently killed); Semanza Appeal Judgement, paras 263-279, 310 (Semanza was present during, participated in, and directed others to participate in mass killings of Tutsis); Ntakirutimana and Ntakirutimana Appeal Judgement, paras 524-537, p. 187 (Elizaphan and Gérard Ntakirutimana assisted attacks on Tutsis by, inter alia, providing transport to attackers and shooting weapons); Rutaganda Appeal Judgement, paras 294-295, 308-341 (Rutaganda aided killings of Tutsis by, inter alia, distributing weapons to principal perpetrators); Kayishema and Ruzindana Appeal Judgement, paras 188-190, 201-202, 242-247, 251-262, 372 (Ruzindana and Kayishema were present at massacres of Tutsis which they, inter alia, orchestrated and directed).

101 See, e.g., Lukić and Lukić Appeal Judgement, paras 419-461; Kvočka et al. Appeal Judgement, paras 563-564; Furundžija Appeal Judgement, paras 124-127. See also Kayishema and Ruzindana Appeal Judgement, paras 201-202.

102 The Appeals Chamber underscores that the requirement of explicit consideration of specific direction does not foreclose the possibility of convictions in cases of remoteness, but only means that such convictions require explicit discussion of how evidence on the record proves specific direction. Cf. Mrkšić and Šljivančanin Appeal Judgement, para. 81 (finding that in the context of the actus reus of aiding and abetting, substantial contribution may be geographically and temporally separated from crimes of principal perpetrators).

103 See Kupreškić et al. Appeal Judgement, paras 275-277 (finding that a six-month delay between an appellant being observed unloading weapons and a subsequent attack reduced the likelihood that these weapons were directed towards assisting in this attack).

104 See Trial Judgement, para. 126, citing Mrkšić and Šljivančanin Appeal Judgement, para. 159. See also Trial Judgement, paras 1582-1627.

105 See supra, paras 32-36.

106 Judge Liu dissents from the analysis in this paragraph.

107 See Trial Judgement, paras 2-3, 205-210, 235-237, 262-266.

108 See Trial Judgement, paras 183-184, 195-196, 235-236, 262-263.

109 See, e.g., Trial Judgement, paras 1592-1627.

110 See supra, paras 37-40.

111 Judge Liu dissents from the findings and analysis in this paragraph.

112 See supra, para. 9; Statute, Article 25. Cf. Statute, Article 21.

113 See supra, para. 9; Gotovina and Markač Appeal Judgement, para. 64; Zigiranyirazo Appeal Judgement, para. 43. While consideration of specific direction may be implicit (see Blagojević and Jokić Appeal Judgement, para. 189), in the context of correcting a legal error of the Trial Chamber, the Appeals Chamber will undertake an explicit examination.

114 See supra, paras 26-27.

115 Cf. Trial of Bruno Tesch and Two Others (The Zyklon B Case), British Military Court Hamburg 1946, in United Nations War Crimes Commission, 1 Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals 93-102 (1947) (finding two defendants guilty of assisting killings of concentration camp detainees by providing poison gas, despite arguments that the gas was to be used for lawful purposes, after reviewing evidence that defendants arranged for S.S. units to be trained in using this gas to kill humans in confined spaces).

116 See Trial Judgement, paras 262-293, 1770-1779.

117 See Trial Judgement, para. 265.

118 Trial Judgement, para. 267.

119 See Trial Judgement, paras 1012-1231.

120 See Trial Judgement, paras 1770-1779.

121 Trial Judgement, paras 1365-1369, 1772. See also Trial Judgement, para. 266.

122 Trial Judgement, para. 1772.

123 Appeal, para. 57.

124 See Krajišnik Appeal Judgement, para. 202; Stakić Appeal Judgement, para. 219.

125 Statute, Articles 6-7. See also Tadić Appeal Judgement, para. 186; Report of the Secretary-General Pursuant to Paragraph 2 of Security Council Resolution 808 (1993), U.N. Doc. S/25704, 3 May 1993, para. 53 (“An important element in relation to the competence ratione personae (personal jurisdiction) of the [Tribunal] is the principle of individual criminal responsibility.”). Cf. Gotovina and Markač Croatia Decision, paras 12-13.

126 See infra, paras 68-69, 71.

127 Mrkšić and Šljivančanin Appeal Judgement, para. 159. See also Orić Appeal Judgement, para. 43; Blaškić Appeal Judgement, para. 49.

128 See supra, paras 25-36. Judge Liu dissents from the analysis in this sentence.

129 Trial Judgement, para. 3.

130 See Trial Judgement, paras 206-207. See also Trial Judgement, paras 208-209.

131 Trial Judgement, para. 208. See also Trial Judgement, paras 205-207.

132 See Trial Judgement, para. 199.

133 See Trial Judgement, paras 198-200.

134 See Trial Judgement, paras 761-763, 948, 1595.

135 See Trial Judgement, paras 962-988, 1622.

136 See Trial Judgement, paras 198, 962, 1008. See also Trial Judgement, paras 963-986.

137 Trial Judgement, paras 965-967, 988, 1007.

138 See Trial Judgement, paras 962-974.

139 See Boškoski and Tarčulovski Appeal Judgement, para. 167, citing Statute, Article 7(4).

140 Cf. Boškoski and Tarčulovski Appeal Judgement, para. 167.

141 Trial Judgement, para. 1588. See also Trial Judgement, paras 172-194, 262-293.

142 See, e.g., Prosecution Exhibits 348, 375 (expert reports on aspects of the conflict in, inter alia, the BiH); T. 4 February 2009 pp. 3165-3232 (testimony by Prosecution Witness Martin Bell, a journalist covering the conflict in BiH). See also Adjudicated Facts Motion, para. 40, Annex A (proposing, inter alia, adjudicated facts involving the structure and combat abilities of BiH forces); Decision on Adjudicated Facts, para. 28 (taking judicial notice of, inter alia, certain adjudicated facts related to the structure and combat abilities of BiH forces as proposed in the Adjudicated Facts Motion). The Appeals Chamber notes that where exhibits are originally in B/C/S, all citations herein refer to the English translation as admitted at trial.

143 Trial Judgement, para. 1588. See also Trial Judgement, paras 184-185, 1589-1591, 1621-1625.

144 See Trial Judgement, paras 303-563, 598-760, 1588-1591. See also Adjudicated Facts Motion, Annex A (proposing, inter alia, adjudicated facts involving the structure and combat abilities of BiH forces); Decision on Adjudicated Facts, para. 28 (taking judicial notice of, inter alia, certain adjudicated facts related to the combat abilities and structure of BiH forces as proposed in the Adjudicated Facts Motion).

145 See Trial Judgement, paras 963, 970.

146 See Trial Judgement, paras 763-771, 780-787, 966-967, 974.

147 Trial Judgement, para. 974.

148 See generally Trial Judgement.

149 See, e.g., Defence Exhibit 344, p. 5 (excerpt from Mladić’s notebook, dated 12 August 1994, in which Perišić notes that FRY policy is more general than the policy of the Republika Srpska); Prosecution Exhibit 230, p. 2 (minutes of meeting of FRY and Republika Srpska political and military leaders held on 25 August 1995 in which Slobodan Milošević warns the Republika Srpska leadership not to take action that could trigger NATO retaliation); Prosecution Exhibits 708-726, 731-734, 737-741, 743-800 (transcripts of SDC meetings documenting decisions taken there).

150 See generally Prosecution Exhibits 708-726, 731-734, 737-741, 743-800 (transcripts of SDC meetings documenting decisions taken there).

151 See Prosecution Exhibit 776, pp. 38-45 (transcript of SDC meeting on 7 June 1994).

152 See Prosecution Exhibit 794, pp. 45-48 (transcript of SDC meeting on 18 January 1995).

153 See Prosecution Exhibit 779, pp. 55-65 (transcript of SDC meeting on 2 November 1994).

154 See supra, para. 24.

155 See Trial Judgement, paras 1580-1627.

156 See supra, paras 37-40.

157 See Krajišnik Appeal Judgement, para. 202; Stakić Appeal Judgement, para. 219.

158 See Trial Judgement, para. 1588 (noting that the VRS strategy included “military warfare against BiH forces”).

159 See supra, paras 52-55.

160 See Trial Judgement, paras 962-988.

161 See Trial Judgement, paras 963-974.

162 See Trial Judgement, paras 1007-1009.

163 See, e.g., Prosecution Exhibits 708-726, 731-734, 737-741, 743-800 (transcripts of SDC meetings documenting decisions taken there).

164 Prosecution Exhibit 791, p. 5 (transcript of SDC meetings on 10 and 13 January 1994).

165 Prosecution Exhibit 776, pp. 38-39 (transcript of SDC meeting on 7 June 1994); Prosecution Exhibit 2716, pp. 1-2 (proposal by Perišić to the FRY President, dated 15 September 1995, urging the adoption of widespread measures to support the VRS).

166 Prosecution Exhibit 763, p. 2 (minutes of SDC meeting on 29 July 1995).

167 See Trial Judgement, paras 948-952.

168 See Trial Judgement, paras 941-1009.

169 See, e.g., Prosecution Exhibit 791, pp. 4-5 (transcript of SDC meetings on 10 and 13 January 1994 at which Perišić set out the overall scope and costs of assistance to the VRS); Prosecution Exhibit 734 (VJ General Staff instructions issued by Perišić on 8 December 1993, concerning operation of, inter alia, the 30th Personnel Centre (“PC”)); Prosecution Exhibit 709, pp. 32-33 (transcript of SDC meeting on 11 October 1993 at which Perišić discussed organising secondments of VJ personnel to the VRS and the importance of making these secondments more compatible with the legal framework of the FRY); Prosecution Exhibit 776, p. 38 (transcript of SDC meeting on 7 June 1994 at which Perišić advocated assisting, inter alia, VRS combat operations on the basis that the VRS would otherwise lose territory to opposing forces); Prosecution Exhibit 779, pp. 55-65 (transcript of SDC meeting on 2 November 1994 at which Perišić discussed taking action against VJ personnel who provided assistance to the VRS outside official channels); Defence Exhibit 452 (letter from the Office of the Chief of the VJ General Staff, dated 29 October 1993, denying a request for assistance).

170 See Trial Judgement, paras 761-940.

171 See Trial Judgement, paras 1010-1154, 1232-1237.

172 See Trial Judgement, paras 763-766, 1607-1611. See also Trial Judgement paras 793, 795.

173 See Trial Judgement, paras 1607-1619.

174 See Trial Judgement, paras 866-915.

175 See, e.g., Prosecution Exhibit 791, pp. 52-53 (transcript of SDC meetings on 10 and 13 January 1994); Prosecution Exhibit 1871, p. 1 (order by Perišić dated 17 August 1994 stating that housing for, inter alia, soldiers seconded through the 30th PC should be “dealt with in the same manner as all other members of the [VJ]”); T. 5 March 2010 p. 10520 (testimony by Defence Witness Stamenko Nikolić, explaining that salaries from FRY soldiers who were seconded to, inter alia, the VRS continued to receive their salaries from the FRY in a way that the “cycle was never broken”). See also Trial Judgement, paras 867-889; T. 5 March 2010 pp. 10543-10544, 10559, 10587-10588 (testimony by Witness Nikolić, explaining that the establishment of, inter alia, the 30th PC aimed to ensure that officers of the VRS were able to exercise the rights they were entitled to as members of the VJ). The Appeals Chamber recalls that the Trial Chamber concluded that Perišić did not possess effective control over VJ soldiers seconded to the VRS who perpetrated crimes during their secondment, despite the fact that the VJ provided these benefits. See Trial Judgement, paras 1770-1779.

176 See, e.g., Prosecution Exhibit 785, p. 19 (transcript of SDC meeting on 21 July 1994); Prosecution Exhibit 731 (order dated 10 November 1993 establishing, inter alia, the 30th PC); Prosecution Exhibit 734 (VJ General Staff instructions dated 8 December 1993 on operation of, inter alia, the 30th PC); Prosecution Exhibit 2722 (document dated 31 May 1995 from Mladić to Perišić, requesting expert assistance from the VJ); Prosecution Exhibit 2518 (request by the VRS dated 23 May 1995 for secondment of specific officers); Prosecution Exhibit 2725 (request by the VRS dated 12 June 1995 for secondment of 292 officers); T. 22 March 2010 pp. 11213-11215; T. 23 March 2010 pp. 11317-11318 (testimony by Defence Witness Stojan Malčić, indicating that when VJ members who were born in Bosnia requested leave to serve in the VRS, their requests were favourably received).

177 See, e.g., Trial Judgement, para. 562.

178 Cf. supra, para. 46.

179 See Trial Judgement, paras 761-940, 1607-1619.

180 See, e.g., Prosecution Exhibit 709, pp. 32-37 (transcript of SDC meeting on 11 October 1993); Prosecution Exhibit 780, pp. 18-24 (transcript of SDC meeting on 10 November 1993); Prosecution Exhibit 785, pp. 1-21 (transcript of SDC meeting on 21 July 1994); Prosecution Exhibit 794, p. 45 (transcript of SDC meeting on 18 January 1995); Prosecution Exhibit 731 (order dated 10 November 1993 establishing, inter alia, the 30th PC); Prosecution Exhibit 734 (VJ General Staff instructions, issued by Perišić on 8 December 1993, on operation of, inter alia, the 30th PC); T. 8 March 2010 pp. 10635-10642, 10663 (testimony by Witness Nikolić, indicating that the 30th PC was established to provide a legal basis to dispatch VJ personnel outside of the FRY).

181 Trial Judgement, para. 1594. See also Trial Judgement, paras 1234-1237.

182 Trial Judgement, paras 1035, 1597. See also Trial Judgement, paras 1116-1134.

183 See Trial Judgement, paras 1034-1069.

184 Trial Judgement, paras 1135-1154.

185 Trial Judgement, paras 1352-1358.

186 See, e.g., Prosecution Exhibit 1009 (1994 order of the FRY President delegating to Perišić the power to regulate the provision of VJ assistance to the VRS); Prosecution Exhibit 1258, pp. 1-2 (VJ General Staff order of 27 December 1993 in which Perišić gave himself the power to approve or deny requests for assistance to, inter alia, the VRS); Prosecution Exhibit 791, pp. 5, 56 (transcript of SDC meetings dated 10 and 13 January 1994 in which Perišić set out the cost of providing assistance to the VRS and advocated provision of this assistance); Prosecution Exhibits 1265-1267, 1270-1272 (VJ orders dated between 31 March and 11 July 1994 providing ammunition to the VRS); Prosecution Exhibit 1214, pp. 19-21 (VRS annual financial statement, dated 17 February 1995, indicating assistance received from the VJ).

187 See, e.g., Prosecution Exhibits 1265-1267, 1270-1272 (VJ orders dated between 31 March and 11 July 1994 providing ammunition to the VRS); Prosecution Exhibit 1214, pp. 19-21 (VRS annual financial statement, dated 17 February 1995, indicating assistance received from the VJ); Prosecution Exhibit 877 (VJ decision dated 28 December 1993 providing various types of assistance to the VRS including grenades, shells, mines, rockets, rocket launchers, and fuses); Prosecution Exhibit 1269 (VJ order dated 19 November 1993 providing the VRS with, inter alia, rifle grenades and rocket launchers); Prosecution Exhibits 708-726, 731-734, 737-741, 743-800 (transcripts, minutes, and other evidence related to SDC meetings and decisions taken there); Prosecution Exhibit 1232 (report from a VRS unit dated 31 January 1994 informing the VRS Main Staff that the FRY had supplied equipment including semi-automatic and automatic rifles, sub-machine guns, sniper rifles, pistols, rocket launchers, and radio sets); Prosecution Exhibit 2716, p. 1 (proposal by Perišić to the FRY President, dated 15 September 1995, noting that the Republika Srpska authorities had requested, inter alia, “help in arms, equipment and foodst[u]ffs,” and deployment of VJ brigades “for the stabilisation of the front”); Prosecution Exhibit 2766 (message from Radovan Karadžić to Perišić, dated 15 May 1994, discussing equipment shortages); T. 12 May 2009 pp. 6056-6057 (testimony by Prosecution Witness Milomir Kovačević about his participation in delivering VJ military supplies to the VRS); T. 17 February 2009 pp. 3559, 3564-3565, 3568-3570 (testimony by Prosecution Witness MP-14, attesting to VJ provision of anti-artillery rockets, grenades, rounds for machine guns and sniper-rifles, and universal rounds to the VRS).

188 See Trial Judgement, paras 1291-1302, 1624.

189 See Response, paras 46, 106, 108; AT. 30 October 2012 pp. 60-61.

190 See supra, paras 37, 56.

191 Judge Liu dissents from the assessment in this paragraph.

192 See, e.g., Trial Judgement, paras 1035-1037, 1067, 1237, 1594.

193 See Trial Judgement, paras 943-1154.

194 See, e.g., Prosecution Exhibit 1258, pp. 1-2 (VJ General Staff order of 27 December 1993 in which Perišić gave himself the power to approve or deny requests for assistance to the VRS); Prosecution Exhibit 791, p. 5 (transcript of SDC meetings on 10 and 13 January 1994 at which Perišić detailed the total cost of providing assistance to the VRS); Prosecution Exhibit 75, p. 4 (witness statement of Ðorđe Ðukić dated February 1996, indicating that trucks carrying supplies provided by the VJ went to a variety of VRS bases); Prosecution Exhibit 2716, p. 1 (proposal by Perišić to the FRY President, dated 15 September 1995, urging the provision of aid to “Northwest Bosnia”); T. 3 March 2009 pp. 3886-3887 (testimony by Prosecution Witness Mladen Mihajlović that requests from the VRS were sent through the VRS Main Staff).

195 See, e.g., Trial Judgement, para. 949, citing Defence Exhibit 452 (letter from the Office of the Chief of the VJ General Staff dated 29 October 1993, noting that a request for assistance from the Republika Srpska’s Ministry of the Interior did not fall within VJ authority); Prosecution Exhibit 1258, pp. 1-2 (VJ General Staff Order of 27 December 1993, prohibiting the provision of aid from the VJ that was not approved by Perišić).

196 See, e.g., Trial Judgement, para. 951; Prosecution Exhibit 779, pp. 55-65 (transcript of SDC meeting on 2 November 1994 at which Perišić discussed taking action against VJ personnel who provided assistance to the VRS outside official channels).

197 See Trial Judgement, paras 1319-1351.

198 See, e.g., Prosecution Exhibit 782, pp. 55-60 (transcript of SDC meeting on 7 February 1994); Prosecution Exhibit 2933, pp. 1-2 (excerpt from Mladić’s notebook on 13 December 1993); Prosecution Exhibit 2934, p. 3 (excerpt from Mladić’s notebook on 14 December 1993); Defence Exhibit 521, p. 2 (report of VRS Commander Stanislav Galić to the VRS Main Staff dated 22 December 1993); T. 15 September 2009 pp. 8951-8952 (testimony by Prosecution Witness MP-11); T. 16 September 2009 pp. 9006-9007 (testimony by Witness MP-11); T. 4 March 2009 pp. 3962-3963 (testimony by Witness Mihajlović stating that he was not aware of Perišić having bypassed official procedures for providing aid to the VRS); T. 13 April 2010 pp. 11468-11469 (testimony by Defence Witness Borivoje Jovanić indicating that ammunition from the VJ war reserves could only be provided to the VRS by decision of the SDC). The Appeals Chamber notes that a report entitled “Military Help from the So-Called FRY (Serbia and Montenegro) to the So-Called Republika Srpska /RS/”, dated August 1995 and attributed to the BiH Ministry of Foreign Affairs, claims that Perišić controlled all VRS activities, especially attacks on Srebrenica in July 1995. See Prosecution Exhibit 1830. The Appeals Chamber notes, however, that the Trial Chamber did not address this report (see generally Trial Judgement) and that the record also includes statements by Perišić indicating that he did not command the VRS in Srebrenica. See Prosecution Exhibit 2202, pp. 2-3. In the absence of any corroborating evidence, the Appeals Chamber does not consider that the report’s allegations that Perišić generally controlled VRS operations or commanded attacks in Srebrenica prove beyond reasonable doubt that he specifically directed aid towards VRS crimes.

199 AT. 30 October 2012 p. 55.

200 See Trial Judgement, paras 1390-1579, 1628-1648.

201 See supra, paras 37, 48. The Appeals Chamber, Judge Liu dissenting, recalls that specific direction establishes a culpable link between an accused aider and abettor and relevant crimes. See supra, para. 37.

202 See Krajišnik Appeal Judgement, para. 202; Stakić Appeal Judgement, para. 219.

203 See supra, para. 53.

204 See supra, para. 42.

205 See supra, paras 56-57, 64, 68-69.

206 Cf. supra, para. 53. Judge Liu dissents with respect to the specific direction requirement.

207 Relevant forms of liability, in addition to aiding and abetting, could include JCE and superior responsibility.

208 See supra, paras 37-40, 42.

209 Tadić Appeal Judgement, para. 229. See also supra, paras 70-72.

210 See Trial Judgement, paras 585, 591-596, 1658-1660, 1769, 1784, 1839.

211 Notice of Appeal, paras 55-57; Appeal, paras 315-384.

212 Appeal, para. 384.

213 See supra, para. 2.

214 See Trial Judgement, paras 761-772, 1658-1660.

215 Trial Judgement, paras 770-772.

216 See Trial Judgement, paras 867-914.

217 Trial Judgement, para. 1757.

218 Trial Judgement, para. 1659.

219 Trial Judgement, paras 297, 1729.

220 Trial Judgement, paras 3, 295, 1763.

221 See Trial Judgement, paras 1761-1769.

222 See Trial Judgement, paras 171, 1733.

223 See Trial Judgement, para. 1734.

224 Appeal, paras 319, 333-340. See also AT. 30 October 2012 pp. 33-35.

225 Appeal, paras 321, 341-376.

226 Appeal, para. 334 (emphasis in original), citing Prosecution Exhibit 197 (FRY law on the VJ).

227 Appeal, paras 335-340. See also Reply, paras 92-95; AT. 30 October 2012 pp. 33-37.

228 Appeal, paras 342-353.

229 Appeal, para. 347. See also Reply, para. 98.

230 Appeal, paras 345-346; Reply, para. 97.

231 Appeal, paras 379-382.

232 Appeal, paras 318, 323-327.

233 Appeal, para. 352.

234 Appeal, para. 339. See also Appeal, para. 331 n. 407.

235 Appeal, para. 372. See also Appeal, paras 373-375.

236 Appeal, paras 354-371.

237 Appeal, para. 356. See also Reply, paras 101-102.

238 Appeal, para. 357.

239 Appeal, para. 370. See also AT. 30 October 2012 pp. 39, 74-75.

240 Appeal, paras 358-361.

241 See Appeal, paras 362, 365.

242 Appeal, paras 364-365.

243 Response, paras 276-278.

244 Response, paras 242, 244-245, 247-250.

245 Response, para. 246.

246 Response, paras 251-253. See also AT. 30 October 2012 pp. 63-65.

247 Response, paras 255-256, 258.

248 Response, para. 257 (internal quotations omitted).

249 Response, para. 258.

250 Response, para. 259 (internal quotation omitted).

251 Response, para. 273. See also Response, paras 274-275.

252 See Response, paras 268-270.

253 Response, paras 260-272. See also AT. 30 October 2012 pp. 66-67.

254 Response, para. 272.

255 Response, para. 261.

256 Response, paras 263-267.

257 Halilović Appeal Judgement, para. 59.

258 See, e.g., Orić Appeal Judgement, para. 20; Halilović Appeal Judgement, para. 59. See also Nahimana et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 484.

259 Strugar Appeal Judgement, para. 254, citing Blaškić Appeal Judgement, para. 69.

260 See Halilović Appeal Judgement, para. 67; Hadžihasanović et al. Appeal Decision on Jurisdiction, para. 51.

261 See supra, para. 81.

262 Blaškić Appeal Judgement, para. 83.

263 Cf. Strugar Appeal Judgement, para. 254 (holding that “indicators of effective control are more a matter of evidence than of substantive law” (internal quotation omitted)).

264 See supra, paras 81-82.

265 Trial Judgement, para. 1763. See also Trial Judgement, paras 1757-1762, 1764-1769.

266 Trial Judgement, paras 1758-1759.

267 See Trial Judgement, paras 1701-1719, 1761-1762.

268 See Trial Judgement, paras 1758-1760.

269 Trial Judgement, paras 1743-1749.

270 See Trial Judgement, paras 1739-1742, 1750, 1752.

271 Trial Judgement, para. 1720, citing T. 11 May 2009 p. 5969.

272 Trial Judgement, para. 1678, citing T. 7 May 2009 p. 5924.

273 Trial Judgement, para. 1720, citing T. 29 April 2009 pp. 5740, 5762-5763.

274 See Trial Judgement, paras 1678, 1720.

275 See Trial Judgement, paras 1758-1769.

276 Kvočka et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 23.

277 Limaj et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 86 (internal citations omitted).

278 Kvočka et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 23.

279 See Kvočka et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 24. The Appeals Chamber notes, for example, that a trial chamber’s failure to discuss witness testimony has not been deemed a failure to provide a reasoned opinion when disregarded testimony was confusing, biased, or contradicted by substantial and credible contrary evidence. See Kvočka et al. Appeal Judgement, paras 483-484, 487, 582-583.

280 See, e.g., Zigiranyirazo Appeal Judgement, paras 44-46; Muvunyi Appeal Judgement, paras 144, 147 n. 321, citing Simba Appeal Judgement, para. 143 (finding that a trial chamber’s failure to explain its treatment of witness testimony, in context, constituted an error of law).

281 See, e.g., Kalimanzira Appeal Judgement, paras 195-201; Zigiranyirazo Appeal Judgement, paras 44-46; Simba Appeal Judgement, paras 142-143. Cf. Limaj et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 86; Kalimanzira Appeal Judgement, paras 99-100; Muvunyi Appeal Judgement, paras 144, 147 n. 321.

282 Trial Judgement, para. 299. Witness Rašeta remained in this position in the SVK during and after the shelling of Zagreb. See T. 7 May 2009 p. 5903. See also T. 29 April 2009 pp. 5743-5744.

283 Trial Judgement, para. 1426.

284 Trial Judgement, paras 1399, 1431.

285 Trial Judgement, para. 1426.

286 See generally Trial Judgement.

287 See Trial Judgement, paras 302, 573, 582-583, 792, 847, 883, 887, 910, 1252, 1426. The Appeals Chamber notes that the Trial Chamber also discussed Witness Rašeta’s testimony in additional paragraphs, which either established particular facts about himself, or were directly relevant to effective control. See Trial Judgement, paras 299, 1678, 1720.

288 See Trial Judgement, paras 297 n. 727, 298 n. 728, 300 n. 733, 565 n. 1647, 566 n. 1648, 781 nn. 2166-2167, 805 n. 2272, 832 n. 2345, 843 n. 2372, 845 n. 2378, 867 n. 2439, 876 n. 2466, 881 n. 2488, 1250 n. 3574, 1403 n. 4014, 1428 n. 4071, 1435 nn. 4089-4090.

289 See Trial Judgement, paras 300 n. 733, 876 n. 2466, 883, 887, 1250 n. 3574, 1435 nn. 4089-4090.

290 See Trial Judgement, paras 887, 1431. The Appeals Chamber notes that the Trial Chamber also discussed Witness Orlić’s testimony in additional paragraphs, which either established particular facts about himself or were directly relevant to effective control. See Trial Judgement, paras 299, 1720.

291 See Trial Judgement, paras 294 n. 719, 297 n. 725, 300 n. 734, 781 nn. 2166, 2168, 867 n. 2439, 924 n. 2613, 1399 n. 4004, 1659 n. 4595.

292 See supra, para. 94 n. 289.

293 See, e.g., Kvočka et al. Appeal Judgement, paras 23, 483-484, 487, 582-583. See also Simba Appeal Judgement, paras 143, 152, 155.

294 See supra, paras 93-94.

295 See supra, para. 90.

296 See Trial Judgement, paras 1678, 1720. Cf. Trial Judgement, paras 1758-1764.

297 Cf. Limaj et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 86; Kvočka et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 23.

298 Cf. Kalimanzira Appeal Judgement, paras 99-100, 195-199; Muvunyi Appeal Judgement, para. 148.

299 See Krajišnik Appeal Judgement, para. 202; Stakić Appeal Judgement, para. 219.

300 See Gotovina and Markač Appeal Judgement, para. 64.

301 Cf. Blaškić Appeal Judgement, para. 69 (holding that “indicators of effective control are more a matter of evidence than substantive law”).

302 Trial Judgement, paras 566-567.

303 Trial Judgement, paras 568-572.

304 Trial Judgement, para. 585.

305 See Trial Judgement, paras 1721-1722, 1763.

306 Trial Judgement, para. 1726, citing Prosecution Exhibit 1286, p. 3 (undated intercepted telephone conversation between Perišić and Milošević which the Trial Chamber dated to 3 May 1995). See also Trial Judgement, paras 1725, 1727, 1763.

307 Trial Judgment, para. 1728, citing Prosecution Exhibit 1286, p. 5 (undated intercepted telephone conversation between Perišić and Milošević which the Trial Chamber dated to 3 May 1995).

308 See Trial Judgement, paras 567-572, 1721.

309 See Trial Judgement, para. 1726, citing Prosecution Exhibit 1286, p. 3 (undated intercepted telephone conversation between Perišić and Milošević which the Trial Chamber dated to 3 May 1995). See also Trial Judgement, para. 1727, citing Prosecution Exhibit 1321, pp. 2-3 (undated intercepted conversation between Milošević and RSK Prime Minister Borislav Mikelić which the Trial Chamber dated to 3 May 1995).

310 See supra, para. 75.

311 Halilović Appeal Judgement, para. 67; Hadžihasanović et al. Appeal Decision on Jurisdiction, para. 51 (holding that criminal liability as a superior does not attach where crimes occurred prior to assumption of effective control). 312 See supra, paras 98-99.

313 See supra, para. 100.

314 See supra, para. 94.

315 See supra, para. 91.

316 Trial Judgement, para. 1714.

317 See Trial Judgement, paras 1716, citing Prosecution Exhibit 1138 (correspondence dated 19 July 1994 on weapons disassembly from Perišić to SVK Main Staff), 1717, citing Prosecution Exhibit 2177 (letter dated 11 May 1994 from VJ General Staff to SVK Main Staff). See also Trial Judgement, paras 1710, 1715, 1718.

318 Trial Judgement, para. 1723, citing Prosecution Exhibit 1303, pp. 3-4 (undated intercepted telephone conversation, which the Trial Chamber dated to 1 May 1995, between Perišić and a security guard of Milošević). See also Trial Judgement, para. 1724, citing Prosecution Exhibit 1373, p. 2 (undated intercepted telephone conversation between Perišić and Milošević).

319 Trial Judgement, para. 1712, citing Prosecution Exhibit 1800 (the 7 December Order).

320 The Appeals Chamber notes that the 7 December Order is addressed to, inter alia, Major General Milan Oleketić, but considers this to be a typographical error and is satisfied that the 7 December Order was sent to Čeleketić.

321 See Trial Judgement, paras 1712, 1763; 7 December Order.

322 See, e.g., Trial Judgement, para. 1763.

323 See 7 December Order (making reference to Milošević’s authority as President of Serbia).

324 Trial Judgement, para. 1712, citing Prosecution Exhibit 2857 (report from Čeleketić dated 7 December 1994 referring to 7 December Order).

325 Trial Judgement, para. 1711; Prosecution Exhibit 1925 (24 March Order).

326 Trial Judgement, para. 1711; 24 March Order, pp. 1-3.

327 See Trial Judgement, para. 1711, citing T. 8 June 2009 p. 6762 (testimony by Prosecution Witness Miodrag Starčević).

328 Trial Judgement, para. 1711.

329 See Trial Judgement, paras 1730-1734, 1764; Prosecution Exhibit 1340, p. 3 (undated telephone intercept in which Perišić confirms that Mrkšić is not taking orders from Martić). See also Prosecution Exhibit 2412, p. 1 (document dated 20 June 1995 responding to an order from Perišić).

330 See Trial Judgement, paras 1725-1730, 1764. See also Prosecution Exhibit 1340, p. 3 (undated telephone intercept in which Perišić confirms that Mrkšić is not taking orders from Martić).

331 See supra, paras 104-106.

332 See supra, paras 91, 93-94.

333 See supra, para. 91.

334 See Trial Judgement, paras 1674-1689.

335 Trial Judgement, para. 171.

336 See Trial Judgement, paras 1675-1689.

337 See Trial Judgement, para. 1759.

338 See Trial Judgement, para. 1734. See also Trial Judgement, para. 294.

339 See Halilović Appeal Judgement, para. 67; Hadžihasanović et al. Appeal Decision on Jurisdiction, para. 51.

340 See Trial Judgement, paras 866, 933, 1768.

341 See Trial Judgement, paras 841-866, 1743-1745. See also Trial Judgement, para. 1768.

342 Trial Judgement, para. 1749. See also Trial Judgement, para. 1768.

343 See Trial Judgement, paras 763-802, 1238-1263, 1750.

344 See Trial Judgement, paras 1672-1689, 1701-1752, 1755-1769.

345 See Krajišnik Appeal Judgement, para. 202; Stakić Appeal Judgement, para. 219.

346 See supra, paras 112-113.

347 See supra, para. 106; Trial Judgment, paras 1733-1734.

348 See supra, para. 109.

349 See supra, paras 98-101.

350 See supra, paras 108-111.

351 See Halilović Appeal Judgement, para. 67; Hadžihasanović et al. Appeal Decision on Jurisdiction, para. 51.

352 See supra, para. 87.

353 Trial Judgement, para. 1840.

354 Notice of Appeal, paras 58-69; Appeal, paras 385-492.

355 See supra, paras 74, 120.

1 See Appeal Judgement, paras 25-36.

2 See Appeal Judgement, para. 48.

3 See Appeal Judgement, paras 59-60.

4 See Lukić and Lukić Appeal Judgement, para. 428.

5 See Appeal Judgement, paras 45-74.

6 See Aleksovski Appeal Judgement, para. 109. See also Aleksovski Appeal Judgement, paras 107-108, 110-111.

1 Appeal Judgement, paras 73-74, 122.

2 Appeal Judgement, paras 25-36. See also Appeal Judgement, paras 37-74.

3 Appeal Judgement, paras 45-72.

4 As noted in the Appeal Judgement, this formulation varies slightly from case to case. For a list of cases using this or a similar formulation, see Appeal Judgement, nn. 70-74, citing Blagojević and Jokić Appeal Judgement, para. 127; Kvočka et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 89; Blaškić Appeal Judgement, para. 45; Vasiljević Appeal Judgement, para. 102; Krnojelac Appeal Judgement, para. 33; Kupreškić et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 254; Aleksovski Appeal Judgement, para. 163; Kalimanzira Appeal Judgement, para. 74; Muvunyi Appeal Judgement, para. 79; Seromba Appeal Judgement, para. 139; Nahimana et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 482; Muhimana Appeal Judgement, para. 189; Ntagerura et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 370; Ntakirutimana and Ntakirutimana Appeal Judgement, para. 530; Simić Appeal Judgement, para. 85; Orić Appeal Judgement, para. 43; Ntawukulilyayo Appeal Judgement, para. 214; Rukundo Appeal Judgement, para. 52; Karera Appeal Judgement, para. 321.

5 The express application of the specific direction requirement appears to have been limited to the Vasiljević case (see Vasiljević Appeal Judgement, para. 135). In my view, this tends to demonstrate that the Appeals Chamber accorded extremely limited importance to specific direction in previous cases. Moreover, I note that the specific direction “requirement” was first mentioned in the Tadić Appeal Judgement, which focused on JCE liability and only considered aiding and abetting liability by way of contrast (see Tadić Appeal Judgement, para. 229). Thus, subsequent cases have relied on language that was not intended to be a definitive statement of aiding and abetting liability.

6 See Mrkšić and Sljivančanin Appeal Judgement, para. 159; Lukić and Lukić Appeal Judgement, para. 424. See by contrast Lukić and Lukić Appeal Judgement, Separate and Partially Dissenting Opinions of Judge Mehmet Gu¨ney, paras 10-11 and Separate Opinion of Judge Agius.

7 In my view, specific direction may be a pertinent factor in evaluating the mens rea of an aider and abettor. However, I believe that specific direction is a red herring when considered in the context of the actus reus of aiding and abetting liability.

8 The remoteness of an accused from the crimes is not dispositive in assessing the actus reus of aiding and abetting liability. In this context, I believe that the crucial consideration is whether the acts of the aider and abettor had a substantial effect on the commission of the relevant crime. See Delalić et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 352.

9 If specific direction is indeed part of the actus reus of aiding and abetting liability, it could be argued that there is little difference between aiding and abetting and certain forms of commission. See Seromba Appeal Judgement, para. 171.

10 See Trial Judgement, paras 262-293, 1588.

11 Trial Judgement, para. 1588. See also Trial Judgement, para. 1602 (“the crimes charged in the Indictment were an integral part of the VRS’s war strategy”).

12 Trial Judgement, para. 1621.

13 Trial Judgement, para. 1590. See also Trial Judgement, para. 1589.

14 Trial Judgement, para. 1591.

15 Trial Judgement, para. 1591.

16 Trial Judgement, para. 1594.

17 Trial Judgement, para. 948.

18 Trial Judgement, paras 948-949, 956. See Trial Judgement, paras 943 (at a meeting on 27 September 1993, Perišić announced that “‘[s]upply of material and technical equipment to the [VRS and SVK] should be realised in accordance with the real possibilities and only upon the authorization of the Chief of the General Staff of the Yugoslav Army’”, i.e. only upon Perišić’s own authorisation (internal reference omitted)), 967 (“the evidence conclusively establishes that the SDC granted Perišić authority over the logistical assistance process”). See also Trial Judgement, paras 965-966.

19 Trial Judgement, paras 949-950, 956. See also Trial Judgement, paras 952-953.

20 Trial Judgement, para. 1008 (emphasis added). See also Trial Judgement, paras 964 (at the SDC meeting held on 10 January 1994 to discuss funding “Perišić stated that 522 million dollars and 307 million dollars were respectively required for the needs of the VRS and SVK. He subsequently pled: ‘We cannot abandon Ratko and others – they are asking for extremely expensive ammunition they use to fire on land targets. Why? Because it is very effective [. . .]’” (internal references omitted)), 968 (“[o]n 7 June 1994, Perišić personally advised the SDC that logistical assistance to the VRS and SVK was necessary and must continue [and] recommended that the SDC approve the grant of ammunition and spare parts to the VRS and SVK” (internal reference omitted)), 970 (on 21 July 1994, “Perišić did not propose discontinuing military assistance to the VRS and SVK, instead urging the SDC to increase the VJ’s budget: ‘[I]t is not possible to send supplies across the Drina river out of these reserves. But that leads to the conclusion that a budget of additional funds for this purpose should be considered.’ Slobodan Milošević and Zoran Lilić agreed with Perišić that the VJ’s budget should be raised accordingly, and the SDC went on to reach that conclusion” (emphasis in Trial Judgement) (internal references omitted)), 972 (“[o]n 7 June 1995, Perišić again encouraged the SDC to keep on authorising the VJ’s assistance to the VRS and SVK: ‘Allow us, as has been the case so far, to offer certain help to the [Republika Srpska (“RS”)] and the [RSK], primarily with spare parts and whatever we can give that will not have an impact on FRY’s combat readiness’” (internal reference omitted)). See also Trial Judgement, para. 1622 (“Perišić urged the FRY SDC to continue its policy of assisting the VRS. He notably oversaw the provision of wide-ranging logistical and technical assistance to the VRS”).

21 Trial Judgement, para. 1234 (emphasis added). See also Trial Judgement, paras 1594-1595. The Trial Chamber also noted “unequivocal” evidence that Perišić sought to provide assistance to the VRS and the SVK regardless of the United Nations Security Council’s (“UNSC”) resolutions. See Trial Judgement, para. 1005 (at a meeting with a delegation of leaders from the Serbian Orthodox Church, Perišić had said that “‘despite the unfair sanctions imposed by the international community the FRY has been assisting RS and the RSK in every respect (humanitarian, military, etc.) in order for the Serbian people to successfully defend itself [sic] and survive on its [sic] territory’. ‘Perišić promised to do everything within his power to continue helping the Serbian people’” (emphasis in Trial Judgement) (internal references omitted)).

22 Trial Judgement, para. 1234.

23 Trial Judgement, paras 793, 795.

24 Trial Judgement, para. 1622. See also Trial Judgement, para. 1613 (by seconding high-level officers to the VRS, Perišić “created the conditions” for them “to wage a war that encompassed systematic criminal actions without impediments”). In addition, the Trial Chamber noted that Perišić himself did not believe that the VRS had another significant source of assistance. See Trial Judgement, para. 1165 (“‘They rely solely on us and come to us with demands.’ In an interview conducted after the war, Perišić said, while referring to the FRY, RS and RSK, that there was ‘one single army’ that ‘was getting its logistics support mostly from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia’” (emphasis in Trial Judgement) (internal references omitted)).

25 Trial Judgement, para. 1237. See Trial Judgement, para. 1594. See also Trial Judgement, 1595 (“although the VJ was providing logistical assistance to the VRS even before Perišić became Chief of the VJ General Staff, he helped to efficiently continue this policy. Perišić recurrently urged the SDC to continue providing the VRS with extensive logistical and technical assistance free of charge, and oversaw this process in practice” (internal reference omitted)).

26 See Trial Judgement, paras 1597-1602. The Trial Chamber noted that “Karadžić admitted that ‘nothing would happen without Serbia. We do not have those resources and we would not be able to fight’. Mladić too reckoned that ‘we would not be able to live’ if the FRY suspended its assistance. At the end of the war, Mladić addressed a letter to Milošević, copying Perišić, to express his gratitude for the ‘invaluable’ assistance that the VRS had received from FRY authorities. Mladić acknowledged that:

See Trial Judgement, para. 1598 (internal references omitted).

27 Trial Judgement, para. 1623 (emphasis added).

28 See Trial Judgement, para. 1622.

29 Trial Judgement, para. 1627.

30 Trial Judgement, para. 1631 (internal references omitted).

31 Trial Judgement, para. 1620. The Trial Chamber based its conclusions regarding Perišić’s knowledge of the Sarajevo crimes on evidence which included, inter alia, diplomatic cables, some of which copied Perišić, discussing the international community’s views of shelling and sniping incidents in Sarajevo; UNSC Resolutions and international reports detailing VRS crimes, as well as related discussions by the FRY leadership; and detailed international media reports and intelligence information gathered by FRY intelligence and security organs which were presented to Perišić (see Trial Judgement, paras 1450-1456, 1461-1485, 1489-1494, 1496-1516, 1518-1521, 1633; see also Trial Judgement, paras 1390-1437).

32 Trial Judgement, para. 1579. With regard to Srebrenica, the Trial Chamber noted diplomatic cables to the FRY leadership detailing serious allegations of crimes by VRS forces in Srebrenica, some directly copying Perišić (see Trial Judgement, paras 1526, 1547-1553). In this context, the Trial Chamber also considered UNSC resolutions in April and June 1993, and April 1994, which noted that VRS forces were committing crimes against civilians in areas including Srebrenica; VRS and VJ intelligence reports; evidence of meetings between Perišić and VRS members; and media reports on crimes committed by VRS forces in Srebrenica (see Trial Judgement, paras 1526, 1529, 1532, 1534-1540, 1547-1556, 1567-1577). Significantly, the Trial Chamber noted that Perišić continued to provide the VRS with assistance after the crimes had been committed in Srebrenica. See, e.g., Trial Judgement, para. 973 (“[o]n 29 July 1995, pursuant to another briefing by Perišić, the SDC decided to ‘[c]ontinue to extend certain assistance to the Armies of [RS] and the [RSK] within limits that do not jeopardise the combat readiness of the [VJ]’. The SDC agreed that it was ‘immediately’ necessary to ‘continue extending material and expert assistance to the VRS and SVK, to the extent of VJ abilities’” (internal references omitted)).

33 Appeal, paras 16-314.

1 Ces crimes correspondent aux chefs 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 11 et 12 de l’acte d’accusation.

2 Visée spécifique est une traduction non officielle de specific direction, cette traduction se basant sur les termes qui visent spécifiquement utilisés dans l’Arrêt Tadić.

3 Voir Arrêt, par. 26-28 et par. 32 : « (. . .) the settled precedent established by the Tadić Appeal Judgement ».

4 Le paragraphe 229 de l’Arrêt Tadić indique : « Compte tenu de ce qui précède, il convient à présent de faire la distinction entre, d’une part, un acte visant à réaliser l’objectif ou dessein commun de commettre un crime et, d’autre part, le fait d’aider ou d’encourager la perpétration d’un crime. (. . .) Le complice commet des actes qui visent spécifiquement à aider, encourager ou fournir un soutien moral en vue de la perpétration d’un crime spécifique (meurtre, extermination, viol, torture, destruction arbitraire de biens civils, etc.), et ce soutien a un effet important sur la perpétration du crime. En revanche, dans le cas d’actes commis en vertu d’un objectif ou dessein commun, il suffit que la personne qui y participe commette des actes qui visent d’une manière ou d’une autre à contribuer au projet ou objectif commun. » [non soulignés dans l’original] Je note que les termes soulignés démontrent que les termes « qui visent spécifiquement à » servent à établir une comparaison. « Qui visent spécifiquement à » s’oppose à cet égard aux termes « qui visent d’une manière ou d’une autre » employés pour l’entreprise criminelle commune. Or, la visée d’une certaine manière n’est pas devenue un critère de l’entreprise criminelle commune. Sur la nature contextuelle de cette définition, voir les Arrêts Blagojević et Jokić, par. 185 et Aleksovski, par. 163.

5 Arrêt, par. 25-36.

6 Arrêt Aleksovski, par. 163.

7 Je note à titre additionnel que le paragraphe 229 de l’arrêt Tadić dont le but est de distinguer l’aide et l’encouragement de l’entreprise criminelle commune survient après un long développement consacré à l’entreprise criminelle commune et à son caractère coutumier (voir les par. 185 à 228). Ce développement est compris à cet égard dans une sous-section intitulée : « L’article 7.1) du Statut et la notion de but commun ». La complicité par aide et encouragement ne constitue donc pas le coeur du raisonnement.

8 Arrêt, par. 36.

9 Arrêt, note de bas de page 70.

10 Arrêt, par. 29 se référant aux Arrêts Simić, par. 85 et Orić, par. 43.

11 Voir par exemple les affaires Simić, Blaškić, Lukić et Lukić, Orić, Mrkšić et Šlijvanćanin, Kvočka et al., Krnojelac, Furundžija, Kordić et Čerkez, Delalić et al., Gotovina et Markač, Krajišnik, Branin, Krstić, Seromba, Nahimana et al., Kalimanzira, Rukundo, Muvunyi, Muhimana, Ntakirutimana et Ntakitutimana, Nchamihigo, Zigiranyirazo. Ndindabahizi, Gacumbitsi, et Semanza. Je note par ailleurs que la seule affaire qui tendrait à apprécier cet élément serait l’affaire Kupreškić (voir Arrêt Kupreškić et al., par. 283 : « Cependant, la simple présence de l’accusé devant l’hôtel Vitez ne saurait être assimilée à un acte visant précisément à aider, encourager ou soutenir moralement les auteurs de persécutions. »)

12 Voir par exemple l’Arrêt Ntagerurera et al., par. 375. Je note à cet égard la phrase suivante : « La Chambre d’appel considère que les constatations de la Chambre de première instance ne permettent pas d’établir que l’omission d’Imanishimwe visait spécifiquement à offrir à ses soldats la possibilité d’aller perpétrer le massacre, ni qu’il avait connaissance de l’assistance qu’il leur apportait. » Voir également les Arrêts Ntawukulilyayo, par. 215-216; Vasiljević, par. 134-135; Blagojević et Jokić, par. 194-199; Karera, par. 322; Renzaho, par. 337.

13 Arrêt, par. 41.

14 Jugement, par. 126.

15 Jugement, note de bas de page 258. La Chambre de première instance, en se référant également à l’Arrêt Blagojević et Jokić, a donc bien noté que la visée spécifique pouvait s’analyser de fac¸on implicite à travers l’effet substantiel même si elle en a conclu à juste titre que cet élément n’était pas exigé de fac¸on explicite.

16 Arrêt Lukić et Lukić, par. 424 (traduction non officielle).

17 Arrêt, par. 41 (« while the relevant phrasing of the Mrkšić and Šljivančanin Appeal Judgement is misleading »).

18 A titre additionnel, je note que l’Arrêt Gotovina et Markač, lequel est un arrêt récent, ne mentionne aucunement la visée spécifique alors qu’il indique les éléments pertinents (« as relevant ») de la complicité par aide et encouragement, à savoir l’effet substantiel et la mens rea requise (cf. par. 127 : « The Appeals Chamber first recalls, as relevant, that for an individual to be held liable for aiding and abetting, he must have substantially contributed to a crime and must have known that the acts he performed assisted the principal perpetrator’s crime » [notes de bas de page omises]). De même, l’Arrêt Branin montre dans le cadre de son analyse que l’effet substantiel et la mens rea sont les deux éléments à considérer dans le cadre de la complicité par aide et encouragement (cf. par. 496). De même, l’Arrêt Delalic et al. ne mentionne aucunement la visée spécifique (par. 352).

19 Arrêt, par. 36.

20 Arrêt, par. 32 et 35, « settled precedent ». voir également par. 36 « remains » et « reaffirms » et par. 48 « longstanding jurisprudence ».

21 Voir les paragraphes correspondant à l’examen de novo des éléments du dossier. Arrêt, par. 43, 45-69.

22 Voir les Arrêts Orić par. 43; Mrkšić et Šlijvanćanin, par. 159; Blagojević et Jokić par. 189. Je note cependant que l’affaire Blagojević et Jokić n’a pas entièrement exclu des considérations de mens rea. Voir par. 189 : « La Chambre d’appel considère également que, dans la mesure ou` cette finalité de l’aide fait implicitement partie intégrante de l’élément matériel de la complicité par aide et encouragement, lorsque l’accusé a sciemment pris part à un crime et que sa participation a eu un effet important sur sa perpétration (. . .) » [non souligné dans l’original].

23 Arrêt Blagojević et Jokić, par. 189.

24 A titre d’exemple, il convient de noter que le présent arrêt fait état de la manière dans laquelle Perišić a distribué l’aide de la VJ à la VRS, ce qui implique nécessairement une analyse de la mens rea. Arrêt, par. 66 : « The manner in which Perišić distributed VJ aid to the VRS also does not demonstrate specific direction ». Voir également Arrêt, par. 59 et 61.

25 Arrêt, par. 68 : « However, the Appeals Chamber, Judge Liu dissenting, recalls that evidence regarding knowledge of crimes, alone, does not necessarily establish specific direction, which is a distinct element of actus reus, separate from mens rea ». Voir également Arrêt, par. 48 : « The Appeals Chamber also underscores that its analysis of specific direction will exclusively address actus reus » et « (. . .) the long-standing jurisprudence of the Tribunal affirms that specific direction is an analytically distinct element of actus reus ».

26 Voir par exemple Arrêt, par. 63 : « However, the record contains no evidence suggesting that the benefits provided to seconded soldiers and officers – including VJ-level salaries, housing, and educational and medical benefits – were tailored to facilitate the commission of crimes. » Voir également Arrêt, par. 65 : « In addition, the Appeals Chamber notes that the Trial Chamber found that bullets and shells recovered from crime sites in Sarajevo and Srebrenica were not proved beyond reasonable doubt to have originated from the VJ (. . .) » [notes de bas de page omises].

27 Voir les Arrêts Mrkšić et Šljivančanin, par. 81; Simić, par. 85; Blaškič, par. 48; Blagojević et Jokić, par. 187; Rukundo, par. 52; Aleksovski, par. 164.

28 Voir par exemple les Arrêts Gacumbitsi, par. 140; Ndindabahizi, par. 117; Blaškić, par. 48.

29 Arrêt, par. 39 et 70.

30 Arrêt, par. 42.

31 Arrêt Simić, par. 85, Arrêt Blaškić, par. 48.

32 Arrêt, par. 38.

33 La mens rea comprend deux volets, à savoir la connaissance par l’accusé des crimes commis par les auteurs principaux (ou de la probabilité qu’ils se commettent) et la connaissance que les actes de l’accusé assistent la commission des crimes. Voir Arrêt Mrkšič et Šlijvanćanin, par. 159 : « The aider and abettor must know that his omission assists in the commission of the crime of the principal perpetrator. »; Arrêt Blaškić, par. 49 : « Le fait que le complice sache que ses actes contribuent à la perpétration d’un crime par l’auteur principal suffit à établir l’élément moral de la complicité. » Voir les Arrêts Haradinaj, par. 57 : « The aider and abettor must have knowledge that his or her acts assist in the commission of the crime of the principal perpetrator. »; Gotovina et Markać, par. 127 : « The Appeals Chamber first recalls, as relevant, that for an individual to be held liable for aiding and abetting, he must have substantially contributed to a crime and must have known that the acts he performed assisted the principal perpetrator’s crime. »; Blagojević et Jokić, par. 127 : « L’élément moral de la complicité par aide et encouragement s’analyse comme le fait pour le complice de savoir que les actes qu’il accomplit contribuent à la perpétration d’un crime précis par l’auteur principal. Dans le cas de crimes supposant une intention spécifique comme la persécution ou le génocide, le complice doit connaıˆtre celle de l’auteur principal. »

34 Traduction de « Perišić’s relevant actions were intended. »

35 Arrêt, par. 60 : « Having reviewed the relevant evidence, the Appeals Chamber, Judge Liu dissenting, also finds no proof that Perišić supported the provision of assistance specifically directed towards the VRS’s criminal activities. Instead, evidence on the record suggests that Perišić’s relevant actions were intended to aid the VRS’s overall war effort. » [non souligné dans l’original].

36 Voir Arrêt, par. 60 et 61.

1 Motion for an Extension of Time to File a Notice of Appeal, 13 September 2011, para. 14.

2 Prosecution Response to Defence Motion for Extension of Time, 15 September 2011, para. 2.

3 Decision on Momčilo Perišić’s Motion for an Extension of Time to File a Notice of Appeal, 16 September 2011, pp. 1-2.

4 Notice of Appeal of Momčilo Perišić, 8 November 2011. See also Corrigendum to Mr. Perišić’s Notice of Appeal, 7 February 2012.

5 Mr. Perišić’s Request for an Extension of Time to File his Appeal Brief, 21 November 2011, para. 8.

6 Prosecution Response to Defence Motion for Extension of Time to File Appeal Brief, 22 November 2011, para. 2.

7 Decision on Momčilo Perišić’s Motion for an Extension of Time to File his Appeal Brief, 24 November 2011, pp. 1-2.

8 Mr. Perišić’s Motion for Leave to Exceed the Word Limit for the Appeal Brief, 25 January 2012, paras 1, 6, 13.

9 Response to Defence Motion to Exceed Word Limit for Appeal Brief, 26 January 2012, para. 1.

10 Decision on Momčilo Perišić’s Motion for Leave to Exceed the Word Limit for the Appeal Brief, 30 January 2012, pp. 2-3.

11 Appeal Brief of Momčilo Perišić, 6 February 2012 (confidential). A final public redacted version was filed on 10 April 2012. See also Book of Authorities for the Appeal Brief of Momčilo Perišić, 6 February 2012.

12 Prosecution Response to Momčilo Perišić’s Appeal Brief, 19 March 2012 (confidential). A public redacted version was filed on 12 April 2012. See also Book of Authorities to Prosecution Response to Momčilo Perišić’s Appeal Brief, 19 March 2012.

13 Reply of Momčilo Perišić to Prosecution’s Response Brief, 3 April 2012 (confidential). A public redacted version was filed on 7 November 2012. See also Book of Authorities for the Reply Brief of Momčilo Perišić, 3 April 2012.

14 Order Assigning Judges to a Case Before the Appeals Chamber, 14 September 2011, p. 2.

15 See Order Designating a Pre-Appeal Judge, 16 September 2011, p. 1.

16 Order Designating a Pre-Appeal Judge, 16 September 2011, p. 1.

17 Order Replacing a Judge in a Case Before the Appeals Chamber, 7 March 2012, p. 1.

18 Order Replacing a Judge in a Case Before the Appeals Chamber, 23 May 2012, p. 1.

19 The parties agreed that certain status conferences need not be held.

20 Motion on Behalf of Momčilo Perišić Seeking Permission for a Legal Consultant to Appear Before the Appeals Chamber During the 30 October 2012 Appeal Oral Hearing, 29 October 2012 (public with confidential annexes), paras 1, 5.

21 AT. 30 October 2012 p. 11.

22 Scheduling Order for Appeal Hearing, 24 September 2012, p. 1.

23 Addendum to the Scheduling Order for Appeal Hearing, 15 October 2012, pp. 1-2.