201. […] To the extent that more than one person is found to have effective control over the subordinates who have committed a crime, they may all incur criminal responsibility under Article 6(3) of the Statute for their failure to prevent the crimes of their subordinates or to punish them.[1] […]

[…]

346. Furthermore, to the extent that Nizeyimana seeks to show that it was not he, but rather Muvunyi, who had the authority and material ability to prevent crimes or punish perpetrators, the Appeals Chamber considers that proof of Muvunyi’s authority does not cast doubt on that of Nizeyimana, as such power is not necessarily exclusive.[2] […]

720.   The Appeals Chamber is mindful that joint criminal enterprise and instigating, ordering, and aiding and abetting are distinct categories of responsibility and that an accused can be convicted for a crime on the basis of several categories of responsibility.[1] However, the Prosecution seeks to hold Karemera responsible for this crime through ordering, instigating, or aiding and abetting on the basis of the same essential facts that already underpin his conviction for this crime through his participation in a joint criminal enterprise […]. In these circumstances, the Appeals Chamber finds that Karemera’s responsibility for this crime through his participation in a joint criminal enterprise fully encapsulates his criminal conduct and concludes that a finding that he ordered, instigated, or aided and abetted the killings in Bisesero would have no impact on the verdict.[2]

61.     A suspect arrested by the Tribunal has the right to be informed promptly of the reasons for his or her arrest.[1] In the Semanza case, the Appeals Chamber concluded that a reference to the accused being provisionally detained “for serious violations of international humanitarian law and crimes within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal” adequately described the substance of the charges to satisfy the requirement of notice at that stage.[2] […]

150.     […] [T]he Appeals Chamber recalls that there is no requirement to specifically identify each of the persons involved in a joint criminal enterprise.[1]

[…]

605.   […] the Trial Chamber’s duty to identify the plurality of persons applies to the persons belonging to the joint criminal enterprise,[2] not necessarily to the principal perpetrators of the crime. In that regard, the Trial Chamber expressly found that the Interahamwe, soldiers, and others who carried out the vast majority of the rapes and sexual assaults were not members of the joint criminal enterprise to pursue the destruction of the Tutsi population in Rwanda.[3] The Appeals Chamber recalls that the decisive issue with regard to the principal perpetrators of the crimes is whether they were used by the accused or by any other member of the joint criminal enterprise in order to carry out the actus reus of the crimes forming part of the common purpose.[4]

632.   […] The Appeals Chamber recalls that knowledge of crimes combined with continued participation in a joint criminal enterprise can be conclusive as to a person’s intent,[1] […]

597.   […] The Appeals Chamber has confirmed that a trial chamber has the discretion to admit any relevant evidence which it deems to have probative value, even where it is not possible to convict an accused on such evidence due to lack of notice.[1]

499.   […] The Appeals Chamber recalls that the dissemination of inciting messages via the media may establish the public element of incitement, as noted by the Trial Chamber.[1]

153.   The Appeals Chamber also finds no merit in Ngirumpatse’s contention that the Trial Chamber failed to establish any connection between him and the various criminal acts or other participants in the joint criminal enterprise. In this respect, the Appeals Chamber notes that the Trial Chamber was not required to find that Ngirumpatse contributed to each criminal act, but rather that he made a significant contribution to the common purpose and that each of the crimes for which he was held responsible formed part of that purpose.[1] It is immaterial whether Ngirumpatse was out of the country while some of the criminal acts were perpetrated. A participant in a joint criminal enterprise is not required to be physically present when and where the crime is being committed.[2] […]

52.     The Appeals Chamber further recalls that decisions of individual trial chambers have no binding force on other trial chambers.[1] A trial chamber must make its own final assessment of the evidence on the basis of the totality of the evidence presented in the case before it.[2] Consequently, two reasonable triers of facts may reach different but equally reasonable conclusions when determining the probative value of the evidence presented at trial.[3] Likewise, the Appeals Chamber considers that an assessment as to whether the defence has been prejudiced by the Prosecution’s disclosure violations and whether a remedy is appropriate depends on the particular circumstances of the case.[4] An error cannot be established by simply demonstrating that other trial chambers have exercised their discretion in a different way.[5]

See also paras 257, 262, 439, 543.

121.  The Appeals Chamber recalls that a person may be found guilty of direct and public incitement to commit genocide, pursuant to Article 2(3)(c) of the Statute, if he or she directly and publicly incited the commission of genocide (actus reus) and had the intent to directly and publicly incite others to commit genocide (mens rea).[1] Such intent in itself presupposes a genocidal intent.[2]

[…]

124.  […] The Appeals Chamber observes that the Kalimanzira Appeals Chamber did not rule on the definition of the public element given by the Kalimanzira Trial Chamber, which recalled the definition from the Akayesu Trial Judgement, and did not specify whether the number of persons present is an essential factor. On the one hand, the Kalimanzira Appeals Chamber concluded that the Tribunal’s jurisprudence and other sources indicated mass communication to be a factor, implying that the public element of direct and public incitement corresponds to a large audience.[3] On the other hand, the Kalimanzira Appeals Chamber reversed the convictions on the basis that recipients of the incriminating message were not intended to be the general public.[4] It is thus unclear whether the Kalimanzira Appeals Chamber considered the size of the audience to be a requirement of public and direct incitement as opposed to whether the audience can also be selected or limited. In fact, in both the Nahimana et al. and Kalimanzira cases, the Appeals Chamber opined that the “general public” was not the recipient of the message or considered that the message was not intended to be for the general public.[5]

125.  Considering that the jurisprudence of the Appeals Chamber does not specify whether a large audience is a requirement for direct and public incitement to commit genocide, the Appeals Chamber will turn to the definition given by trial chambers,[6] which recalls the definition from the Akayesu Trial Judgement. Referring to various sources of international law, the Akayesu Trial Chamber elaborated on the definition of the public element of the crime of incitement to commit genocide. It noted a 1996 report of the International Law Commission that defined “public incitement” as “a call for criminal action to a number of individuals in a public place or to members of the general public at large by such means as the mass media, for example, radio or television”.[7] It also considered that the Civil Law systems understood words as being public when “spoken aloud in a place that were [sic] public by definition”.[8]

126.  […] [T]he Appeals Chamber does not consider that the incitement must necessarily be communicated through mass communication in order to amount to “public” incitement within the meaning of Article 2(3)(c) of the Statute. The number of individuals in the audience is not an element of the crime of direct and public incitement to commit genocide. Though the Kalimanzira Appeal Judgement noted that the Tribunal’s jurisprudence includes convictions involving “speeches made to large, fully public assemblies”, in the Appeals Chamber’s view, it does not foreclose convictions based on communications to smaller audiences when the incriminating message is given in a public space to an unselected audience. The Appeals Chamber notes that the travaux préparatoires of the Genocide Convention do not contradict, but support this position by stating that public incitement was understood as “public speeches or in the press, through the radio, the cinema or other ways of reaching the public”, though it expressly excluded “private” incitement.[9] The International Law Commission confirmed that the indispensable element of public incitement requires communicating “the call for criminal action to a number of individuals in a public place or to members of the general public at large. Thus, an individual may communicate the call for criminal action in person in a public place or by technical means of mass communication, such as by radio or television”.[10]

127.  Consequently, the Appeals Chamber detects no error in the Trial Chamber applying the definition of “public” as stated in the Muvunyi, Niyitegeka, Kajelijeli, and Akayesu Trial Judgements. Indeed, though most convictions for direct and public incitement involve mass communication, a smaller audience is also consistent with international law according to which:

[The Trial] Chamber may consider the surrounding circumstances, such as the place where the incitement occurred and whether the audience was selective [sic] or limited. Incitement is ‘public’ when conducted through speeches shouting or threats uttered in public places or at public gatherings[11]

[…]

231.  The Appeals Chamber recalls that a person may be found guilty of direct and public incitement to commit genocide, pursuant to Article 2(3)(c) of the Statute, if he or she directly and publicly incited the commission of genocide (actus reus) and had the intent to directly and publicly incite others to commit genocide (mens rea).[12] The Appeals Chamber recalls that when assessing the “public” element of the incitement, factors such as the place where the incitement occurred and whether the attendance was selected or limited can be taken into account.[13] It also recalls that the number of persons present is not an essential factor in this assessment.[14] The Appeals Chamber considers that, though not required, the number of persons and the medium through which the message is conveyed may be relevant in assessing whether the attendance was selected or limited, thereby determining whether or not the recipient of the message was the general public.[15]

[…]

386.  The Appeals Chamber is also not persuaded by the Prosecution’s submission that an inciting speech, which discussed public matters, delivered to a gathering of public officials, addressed in their function as public officials, is necessarily public. In support of this argument the Prosecution underlines that, in light of the purpose and object of the crime of incitement, inciting public officials rather than “a gathering of random members of the population” creates a greater risk that genocide will actually occur because public officials “have the authority and the means to trigger massacres”. While this may be the case, the Appeals Chamber fails to see how this supports the public nature of the incitement at the Murambi meeting.

See also paras. 129, 381, 384.