1 ICC, Regulations of the Court, Regulation 55 (Dec. 18, 2007 Google Scholar), http://www.icc-cpi.int/NR/rdonlyres/DF5E9E76-F99C-410A-85F4-01C4A2CE300C/0/ICCBD010207ENG.pdf [hereinafter Regulation 55].

2 Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06-2205 OA 15 OA 16, Judgment on the Appeals of Mr. Lubanga Dyilo and the Prosecutor against the Decision of Trial Chamber I of 14 July 2009 Entitled “Decision Giving Notice to the Parties and Participants that the Legal Characterisation of the Facts may be Subject to Change in Accordance with Regulation 55(2) of the Regulations of the Court,” ¶ 77 (Dec. 8, 2009), http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc790147.pdf [hereinafter Lubanga Appeals Judgment]; Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07 OA 13, Judgment on the Appeal of Mr. Germain Katanga Against the Decision of Trial Chamber II of 21 November 2012 Entitled “Decision on the Implementation of Regulation 55 of the Regulations of the Court and Severing the Charges Against the Accused Persons,” ¶ 22 (Mar. 27, 2013), http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1573822.pdf [hereinafter Katanga Appeals Judgement].

3 Lubanga Appeals Judgment, supra note 2, ¶ 112.

4 Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08, Decision Giving Notice to the Parties and Participants that the Legal Characterisation of the Facts may be Subject to Change in Accordance with Regulation 55(2) of the Regulations of the Court (Sep. 21, 2012), http://amicc.org/docs/doc1472172.pdf. The Trial Chamber denied leave to appeals its decision. Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08, Public Redacted Version of “Decision on ‘Defence Request for Leave to Appeal the Decision on the Temporary Suspension of the Proceedings Pursuant to Regulation 55(2) of the Regulations of the Court and Related Procedural Deadlines’” (Jan. 11, 2013), http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1541327.pdf.

5 Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges (Sep. 30, 2008), http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc571253.pdf.

6 Katanga Appeals Judgement, supra note 2, ¶ 2.

7 Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07, Decision on the Implementation of Regulation 55 of the Regulations of the Court and Severing the Charges Against the Accused Persons (Nov. 21, 2012), http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1529337.pdf [hereinafter Trial Chamber Decision]; Katanga Appeals Judgement, supra note 2, ¶ 3. In the same decision, the Chamber also unanimously severed the proceedings against Mr. Ngudjolo and later, by Judgment of December 18, 2012, acquitted him. Prosecutor v. Mathieu Ngudjolo, Case No. ICC-01/04-02/12, Judgment Pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute (Dec. 18, 2012), http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1579080.pdf; Katanga Appeals Judgement, supra note 2, ¶ 3.

8 Trial Chamber Decision, supra note 7, ¶¶ 5-6.

9 Id. ¶¶ 14-52.

10 Id. ¶ 1 (Van den Wyngaert, J., dissenting), http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1511676.pdf.

11 Id. ¶ 10.

12 Id. ¶¶ 1-58.

13 Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07, Decision on the “Defence Request for Leave to Appeal the Decision 3319,” ¶ 4 (Dec. 28, 2009), http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1532429.pdf; Katanga Appeals Judgement, supra note 2, ¶ 9.

14 Katanga Appeals Judgement, supra note 2, ¶¶ 11-24 (citations omitted).

15 The Appeals Chamber also, based on a plain reading of Regulation 55(1) and Article 74(2), rejected Mr. Katanga’s argument that only “material facts,” as opposed to “subsidiary or collateral fact,” may be the subject of a change in the legal characterization. Id. ¶ 50.

16 Id. ¶¶ 25-58.

17 Id. ¶¶ 59-105.

18 Id. ¶ 10 (Tarfusser, J., dissenting).

19 Id. ¶ 11.

20 Id. ¶ 22.

21 Id. ¶¶ 22-27.

22 The Trial Chamber by majority, Judge Van den Wyngaert dissenting, provided such detail in a May 2013 decision. Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07, Décision Relative à la Transmission D’éléments Juridiques et Factuels Complémentaires (Norme 55-2 et 3 du Règlement de la Cour) (May 20, 2013), http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1594418.pdf.

1 ICC-01/04-01/07-T-80-ENG.

2 “Declaration of closure of submission of evidence”, 7 February 2012, ICC-01/04-01/07-3235-tENG (hereinafter: “Declaration of Closure of Submission of Evidence”).

3 “Mémoire final”, ICC-01/04-01/07-3251-Conf; a corrigendum, ICC-01/04-01/07-3251-Conf-Corr and a public redacted version, ICC-01/04-01/07-3251-Corr-Red, were subsequently filed.

4 “Defence Closing Brief’, ICC-01/04-01/07-3266-Conf; a corrigendum, ICC-01/04-01/07-3266-Conf-Corr2, and a public redacted version, ICC-0I/04-01/07-3266-Corr2-Red, were subsequently filed.

5 ICC-01/04-01/07-T-336-ENG to ICC-01/04-01/07-T-340-ENG.

6 ICC-01/04-01/07-3319-tENG/FRA.

7 Impugned Decision, p. 29; the French original reads: “que le mode de responsabilité retenu à l’encontre de Germain Katanga est susceptible de faire l’objet d’une requalification juridique sur le fondement de l’article 25-3-d du Statut”.

8 Impugned Decision, paras 9, 59, 62 and p. 30.

9 “Jugement rendu en application de l’article 74 du Statut”, ICC-01/04-02/12-3.

10 ICC-01/04-01/07-3327.

11 Decision Granting Leave to Appeal, p. 9.

12 ICC-01/04-01/07-3339 (OA 13).

13 “Decision on the request for suspensive effect of the appeal against Trial Chamber II’s decision on the implementation of regulation 55 of the Regulations of the Court”, ICC-01/04-01/07-3344 (OA 13).

14 ICC-01/04-01/07-3347 (OA 13); a corrigendum, ICC-01/04-01/07-3347-Corr (OA 13), was filed on 22 January 2013.

15 “Decision on the application of victims to participate in the appeal against Trial Chamber II’s decision on the implementation of regulation 55 of the Regulations of the Court”, 17 January 2013, ICC-0l/04-01/07-3346 (OA 13).

16 Legal Representative of Victims Group 2, “Submissions of the Legal Representative of child soldier victims on the Defence’s ‘Document in Support of the Appeal Against the “Decision on the implementation of regulation 55 of the Regulations of the Court and severing the charges against the accused persons””’, ICC-01/04-01/07-3348-tENG (OA 13) (hereinafter: “Legal Representative of Victims Group 2 Observations”); Legal Representative of Victims Group 1,“Observations of the Legal Representative on the Defence’s document in support of appeal against Trial Chamber II’s decision No. 3319 (implementation of regulation 55 of the Regulations of the Court)”, ICC-01/04-01/07-3349-tENG (OA 13) (hereinafter: “Legal Representative of Victims Group 1 Observations”).

17 “Defence Reply to the Legal Representatives’ Observations on the Defence’s Document in Support of Appeal against the Decision on the Implementation of Regulation 55”, ICC-01/04-01/07-3350 (OA 13) (hereinafter: “Response to the Victims’ Observations”).

18 Decision Granting Leave to Appeal, para. 4; see also Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 11.

19 See Document in Support of the Appeal, paras 13-29, 67-94.

20 See Document in Support of the Appeal, paras 13-21, 30-66.

21 Impugned Decision, para. 15.

22 Impugned Decision, para. 17. See also paras 16, 18.

23 Document in Support of the Appeal, paras 26-27.

24 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 26.

25 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 26.

26 Document in Support of the Appeal, para.

27 See also Response to the Victims’ Observations, para. 6. 27 Response to the Victims’ Observations, para. 4.

28 Response to the Victims’ Observations, para. 6.

29 Response to the Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 26.

30 Response to the Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 27.

31 Response to the Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 29.

32 Response to the Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 30.

33 Response to the Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 31.

34 Legal Representative of Victims Group 1 Observations, paras 13-23; Legal Representative of Victims Group 2 Observations, paras 24-31.

35 ICC-0l/04-01/07-T-333-Red2-ENG CT2.

36 Declaration of Closure of Submission of Evidence.

37 ICC-01/04-01/07-T-336-ENG to ICC-01/04-01/07-T-340-ENG.

38 It is noted that if the Trial Chamber decides to re-open the hearing, it will need to repeat the procedure set out in rule 141 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence when closing the evidence.

39 “Judgment on the appeals of Mr Lubanga Dyilo and the Prosecutor against the Decision of Trial Chamber I of 14 July 2009 entitled ‘Decision giving notice to the parties and participants that the legal characterisation of the facts may be subject to change in accordance with Regulation 55(2) of the Regulations of the Court’”, 8 December 2009, ICC-01/04-01/06-2205 (OA 15 OA 16) (hereinafter: “Lubanga OA 15 OA 16 Judgment”), para. 77 (footnote omitted).

40 See Lubanga OA 15 OA 16 Judgment, para. 76.

41 Lubanga OA 15 OA 16 Judgment, para. 77.

42 26 June 2008, ICC-0l/04-01/07-649-Anx1A.

43 26 September 2008, ICC-01/04-01/07-716-Conf. A public redacted version of the Decision on the Confirmation of Charges was registered on l October 2008 (ICC-01/04-01/07-717). All references to the Decision on the Confirmation of Charges in this judgment are to the public redacted version.

44 3 November 2009, ICC-01/04-01/07-1588-Anx l.

45 “Decision on the Filing of a Summary of the Charges by the Prosecutor”, 21 October 2009, ICC-01/04-0 l/07-1547-tENG.

46 The abbreviation used for the “Force de Résistance Patriotique en Ituri”.

47 The abbreviation used for the “Front des Nationalistes et Intégrationnistes”.

48 Amended Document Containing the Charges, para. 63. See also paras 65, 66, 90.

49 Amended Document Containing the Charges, para. 91. See also para. 94.

50 Amended Document Containing the Charges, para. 92. See also paras 42, 44, 63-78 ,85, 87.

51 Amended Document Containing the Charges, para. 93.

52 Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, para. 275. See also, for instance, paras 281, 413.

53 Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, paras 466-539.

54 Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, paras 540-572.

55 Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, para. 540.

56 Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, para. 543.

57 Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, paras 545-547.

58 Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, para. 548.

59 Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, para. 555.

60 Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, para. 555.

61 See, for instance, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, paras 548, 555-558, footnote 733.

62 Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, para. 560.

63 Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, para. 561.

64 Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, paras 562-569.

65 See, in particular, examples contained within the Summary of the Charges, paras 60-88.

66 For instance, the Prosecutor stated at footnote 131, with reference to paragraph 65 of the Amended Document Containing the Charges, that the planning meeting that was alleged to have taken place in Aveba in early 2003 was attended by Mr Katanga and “most of the FRPI commanders”, specifying the names of those individuals.

67 Impugned Decision, para. 5.

68 Impugned Decision, para. 5.

69 Impugned Decision, para. 6. The original French version of the Impugned Decision reads: “[. . .] la qualification juridique des faits relative au mode de participation de Germain Katanga est susceptible d’être modifiée”.

70 Impugned Decision, para. 7. See also para. 6.

71 Impugned Decision, para. 8. See also para. 12.

72 Impugned Decision, para. 10. See also paras 11, 21, 22, 31.

73 Impugned Decision, para. 22.

74 Impugned Decision, para. 23.

75 Impugned Decision, para. 24.

76 Impugned Decision, para. 26.

77 Impugned Decision, para. 27.

78 Impugned Decision, para. 28.

79 Impugned Decision, para. 29.

80 Impugned Decision, para. 29 [footnote omitted].

81 Impugned Decision, para. 30.

82 Impugned Decision, para. 30.

83 Impugned Decision, para. 32.

84 Impugned Decision, para. 31.

85 Impugned Decision, paras 33, 40.

86 “Décision relative à la mise en oeuvre de la norme 55 du Règlement de la Cour et prononçant la disjonction des charges portées contre les accusés”, 21 November 2012, ICC-01/04-01/07-3319, pp. 33-61.

87 Dissenting Opinion, paras 12-23.

88 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 67.

89 Document in Support of the Appeal, paras 68-70, referring to the Lubanga OA 15 OA 16 Judgment, fn. 163 and the Dissenting Opinion, para. 13.

90 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 71. See also Dissenting Opinion, paras 14-17.

91 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 75.

92 See Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, para. 555 (ii).

93 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 75.

94 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 75.

95 Document in Support of the Appeal, paras 76-77.

96 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 77. See also Dissenting Opinion, para. 22.

97 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 78.

98 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 78, referring to Dissenting Opinion, paras 21-22. See also Dissenting Opinion, paras 18-20.

99 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 82. See also paras 79-81.

100 Document in Support of the Appeal, paras 83-90.

101 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 87.

102 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 89.

103 Response to the Victims’ Observations, paras 15-23.

104 Response to the Victims’ Observations, paras 17-18.

105 Response to the Victims’ Observations, para. 21.

106 Response to the Victims’ Observations, para. 21.

107 Response to the Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 49.

108 Response to the Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 62.

109 Legal Representative of Victims Group 1 Observations, paras 24-27; Legal Representative of Victims Group 2 Observations, paras 32-39.

110 Legal Representative of Victims Group 1 Observations, paras 25-26.

111 Legal Representative of Victims Group 2 Observations, para. 34.

112 Legal Representative of Victims Group 2 Observations, para. 33.

113 Legal Representative of Victims Group 2 Observations, para. 35.

114 Legal Representative of Victims Group 2 Observations, para. 36.

115 See generally Lubanga OA 15 OA 16 Judgment, paras 89-93.

116 See Lubanga OA 15 OA 16 Judgment, para. 91: “Thus, the purpose of [article 74 (2) of the Statute] was to bind the Chamber to the factual allegations in the charges”.

117 The footnote reads as follows: “In the view of the Appeals Chamber, the term ’facts’ refers to the factual allegations which support each of the legal elements of the crime charged. These factual allegations must be distinguished from the evidence put forward by the Prosecutor at the confirmation hearing to support a charge (article 61 (5) of the Statute), as well as from background or other information that, although contained in the document containing the charges or the confirmation decision, does not support the legal elements of the crime charged”.

118 Impugned Decision, para. 27.

119 Impugned Decision, para. 29.

120 Impugned Decision, para. 28. See also para. 33.

121 Impugned Decision, para. 30. See also para. 33.

122 Impugned Decision, para. 29.

123 Impugned Decision, paras 55, 57.

124 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 82.

125 Impugned Decision, para. 11.

126 Impugned Decision, para. 13.

127 Impugned Decision, para. 20.

128 Impugned Decision, para. 18.

129 Impugned Decision, para. 19.

130 Impugned Decision, paras 21-34, as summarised above.

131 Impugned Decision, paras 35-39.

132 Impugned Decision, para. 40.

133 Impugned Decision, para. 20.

134 Impugned Decision, para. 47.

135 Impugned Decision, para. 49 (footnote omitted).

136 Impugned Decision, para. 51.

137 Impugned Decision, para. 52.

138 Impugned Decision, paras 43-46.

139 Impugned Decision, para. 44.

140 Impugned Decision, paras 53-57.

141 Dissenting Opinion, paras 53, 58. See, generally, paras 24-57 of the Dissenting Opinion.

142 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 39. See also paras 30-44.

143 Document in Support of the Appeal, paras 52-55. See also paras 56-62.

144 See Impugned Decision, paras 16, 18, 22 and 37.

145 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 44. See also para. 36; Response to the Victims’ Observations, paras 8-10.

146 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 14A.

147 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 34.

148 Document in Support of the Appeal, paras 37-38, referring to paras 36 and 40-41 of the Dissenting Opinion. See, generally, paras 36-47 of the Dissenting Opinion.

149 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 37. See also para. 38.

150 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 42.

151 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 91.

152 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 92.

153 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 93. See also Response to the Victims’ Observations, para. 32.

154 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 43. See also Dissenting Opinion, paras 42-43.

155 See Response to the Victims’ Observations, paras 13-14.

156 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. l4D.

157 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 50.

158 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 14A.

159 Response to the Document in Support of the Appeal, paras 32-34.

160 Response to the Document in Support of the Appeal, paras 35-40.

161 Response to the Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 42. See also paras 43-47.

162 Response to the Document in Support of the Appeal, paras 63-70.

163 Response to the Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 64. See also paras 65 and 67.

164 Response to the Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 67.

165 Response to the Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 68.

166 Response to the Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 70.

167 Response to the Document in Support of the Appeal. para. 69.

168 Response to the Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 72.

169 Response to the Document in Support of the Appeal, paras 72-3.

170 Legal Representative of Victims Group 1 Observations, paras 29-49; Legal Representative of Victims Group 2 Observations, paras 40-53.

171 Legal Representative of Victims Group 1 Observations, paras 34, 36; Legal Representative of Victims Group 2 Observations, para. 45.

172 Legal Representative of Victims Group 1 Observations, para. 43; Legal Representative of Victims Group 2 Observations, para. 52.

173 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. l4E.

174 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 94. See also para. l4E.

175 Response to the Victims’ Observations, para. 21.

176 Response to the Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 75.

177 Response to the Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 75.

178 Response to the Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 76.

179 Response to the Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 76.

180 Legal Representative of Victims Group 1 Observations, para. 37. See also Legal Representative of Victims Group 2 Observations, para. 45.

181 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 65, referring to the Dissenting Opinion, paras 28-32.

182 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 66. See also paras 63-65.

183 Response to the Document in Support of the Appeal, paras 84-85.

184 Response to the Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 85. See also para. 86.

185 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 45.

186 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 46.

187 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 48.

188 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 49.

189 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 50.

190 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 51.

191 Response to the Victims’ Observations, para. 33.

192 Response to the Victims’ Observations, para. 31.

193 Response to the Document in Support of the Appeal, paras 78 and 79.

194 Legal Representative of Victims Group 1 Observations, paras 50-55; Legal Representative of Victims Group 2 Observations, paras 54-57.

195 Regulation 55 (2) of the Regulations of the Court.

196 Regulation 55 (3) (a) of the Regulations of the Court.

197 Regulation 55 (3) (b) of the Regulations of the Court.

198 Lubanga OA 15 OA 16 Judgment, para. 85. See also para. 100.

199 Impugned Decision, paras 53-57.

200 See ECtHR, Chamber, Dallos v. Hungary, “Judgment”, 1 March 2001, application no. 29082/95; Chamber, Sipavičius v. Lithuania, “Judgment”, 21 February 2002, application no. 49093/99; Grand Chamber, Pélissier and Sassi v. France, “Judgment”, 25 March 1999, application no. 25444/94 (hereinafter: “Pélissier and Sassi v. France”); Chamber, Bäckström and Andersson v. Sweden, “Final Decision as to the Admissibility”, 5 September 2006, application no. 67930/0 1.

201 Péllisier and Sassi v. France, paras 52, 62; ECtHR, Chamber, Borisova v. Bulgaria, “Judgment”, 21 December 2006, application no. 56891/00, para. 41; Chamber, Varela Geis v. Spain, “Arrêt”, 5 March 2013, application no. 61005/09, para. 44.

202 Péllisier and Sassi v. France, paras 52-54, 62; Chamber, Drassich v. Italy, “Arrêt”, 11 December 2007, application no. 25575/04, para. 34; Chamber, Mattoccia v. Italy, “Judgment”, 25 July 2000, application no. 23969/94, paras 60-61.

203 See, in particular, Impugned Decision, paras 26-30.

204 See Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 94. See also Dissenting Opinion, para. 17.

205 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 66.

206 Lubanga OA 15 OA 16 Judgment, para. 77.

1 Majority Judgment, para. 17.

2 The closest the Majority gets to clarifying its approach in this particular respect is to be found in paragraph 57 of the Majority Judgment, stating that “[a]ny change from, for example, being alleged to be a principal to being a1leged to have in fact been an accessory will always necessarily involve a change in the characterisation of the role”.

3 ECtHR, Chamber, Zhupnik v. Ukraine, “Judgment”, 9 December 2010, application no. 20792/05, para. 37; Chamber, Abramyan v. Russia, “Judgment”, 9 October 2008, application no. 10709/02 (hereinafter: “Abramyan v. Russia”), para. 34; Grand Chamber, Pélissier and Sassi v. France, “Judgment”, 25 March 1999, application no. 25444/94 (hereinafter: “Pélissier and Sassi v. France”), para. 52.

4 Pélissier and Sassi v. France, para. 59.

5 ECtHR, Chamber, Sadak and others v. Turkey (No.1), “Judgement”, 17 July 2001, applications nos. 29900/96, 2990 l/96, 29902/96 and 29903/96, paras 54 and 56.

6 Abramyan v. Russia, para. 36.

7 Werle, G., “Individual Criminal Responsibility in Article 25 ICC Statute”, 5 Journal of International Criminal Justice (2007), p. 953, at pp. 953-975 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Weigend, T., “Intent, Mistake of Law, and Co-perpetration in the Lubanga Decision on Confirmation of Charges”, 6 Journal of International Criminal Justice (2008), p. 471, at pp. 471-487 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 Pre-Trial Chamber I, Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, “Decision on the Confirmation of charges”, 29 January 2007, ICC-01/04-01/06-803-tEN, paras 317-367; Pre-Trial Chamber I, Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, “Decision on the Confirmation of charges”, 30 September 2008, ICC-01/04-01/07-716, paras 487-538. 9 ICC-01/04-01/06-2842, Separate Opinion of Judge Adrian Fulford, pp. 1-14.

10 ICC-01/04-01/06-2842, Separate Opinion of Judge Adrian Fulford, para. 7.

11 Any case brought under article 28 of the Statute would inevitably be under the same sword of Damocles, in case the Chamber decides to shift from “knew” to “should have known”. The scenario is not hypothetical: such a broad approach has indeed been recently followed by Trial Chamber III in the Bemba case, where the possibility that the judges may determine that the accused “should have known”, as opposed to “knew”, prompted the Chamber to invoke regulation 55 (Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, “Decision giving notice to the parties and participants that the legal characterisation of the facts may be subject to change in accordance with Regulation 55(2) of the Regulations of the Court”, 21 September 2012, ICC-01/05-01/08-2324). Whilst it would not be appropriate to discuss this precedent here in detail, it is nevertheless worth mentioning as a concrete example of the practical consequences entailed by a broad reading of regulation 55 of the Regulations of the Court.

12 See Trial Chamber II, Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, “Décision relative à la mise en oeuvre de la norme 55 du Règlernent de la Cour et prononçant la disjonction des charges portées contre les accusés”, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Van den Wyngaert, 21 November 2012, ICC-01/04-01/07-3319, para. 5, highlighting that this practice “marks a significant difference with the ad hoc tribunals, where cases usually proceed on alternative charges”.

13 Pre-Trial Chamber II, Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, “Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for Leave to Appeal the ‘Decision Pursuant to Article 61 (7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo’”, 18 September 2009, ICC-01/05-01/08-532, para. 56 (referencing regulation 55 in the context of justifying a decision to decline to confirm cumulative charges); “Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo”, 15 June 2009, ICC-01/05-01/08-424, para. 203.

14 Majority Judgment, para. 95.

15 Majority Judgment, para.102.

16 Majority Judgment, para. 98.

17 Majority Judgment, paras 56, 95, 96.

18 Majority Judgment, para. 101.

19 Majority Judgment, para. 102.