Principal perpetrators

Notion(s)	Filing	Case
Joint criminal enterprise \| Membership in a criminal enterprise \| Principal perpetrators	Appeal Judgement - 29.09.2014	KAREMERA & NGIRUMPATSE (ICTR-98-44-A)
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] show footnotes [1] Gotovina and Markač Appeal Judgement, para. 89. [2] See supra, para. 145. [3] [Karemera and Ngirumpatse] Trial Judgement, para. 1487. [4] Kvočka et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 168. Download full document
Notion(s)	Filing	Case
Joint criminal enterprise \| Principal perpetrators	Appeal Judgement - 08.06.2021	MLADIĆ Ratko (MICT-13-56-A)
193. […] [T]he Appeals Chamber further recalls that members of a joint criminal enterprise may be held responsible for crimes carried out by principal perpetrators, provided that the crimes can be imputed to at least one member of the joint criminal enterprise and that the latter – when using the principal perpetrators – acted in accordance with the common objective.[1] show footnotes [1] See Stanišić and Župljanin Appeal Judgement, para. 119; Šainović et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 1256; Krajišnik Appeal Judgement, para. 225; Martić Appeal Judgement, para. 168; Brđanin Appeal Judgement, para. 413. Download full document
Notion(s)	Filing	Case
Joint criminal enterprise \| Membership in a criminal enterprise \| Principal perpetrators	Appeal Judgement - 31.05.2023	STANIŠIĆ & SIMATOVIĆ (MICT-13-96-A)
498. […] The Appeals Chamber further recalls that a trial chamber’s duty is to identify the plurality of persons belonging to the joint criminal enterprise and not necessarily the principal perpetrators of the crime.[1] Indeed, the decisive issue with regard to principal perpetrators of the crimes is whether they were used by the accused or by any other joint criminal enterprise member to carry out the actus reus of the crimes forming part of the common criminal purpose.[2] In this regard, there is no requirement that a chamber establish how each physical perpetrator was used to commit the crimes, provided that the chamber identifies that one or more members of the joint criminal enterprise used the forces to which these physical perpetrators belonged in furtherance of the common plan.[3] show footnotes [1] See Karemera and Ngirumpatse Appeal Judgement, para. 605. [2] See Karemera and Ngirumpatse Appeal Judgement, para. 605, referring to Kvočka et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 168. [3] See Ðorđević Appeal Judgement, para. 165, referring to Krajišnik Appeal Judgement, paras. 235-237. Download full document
Notion(s)	Filing	Case
Joint criminal enterprise \| Principal perpetrators \| Responsibility for crimes committed by non-members of the JCE	Appeal Judgement - 31.05.2023	STANIŠIĆ & SIMATOVIĆ (MICT-13-96-A)
544. […] [T]he Appeals Chamber recalls that when all the elements of joint criminal enterprise liability are met, each member is “appropriately held liable also for those actions of other [joint criminal enterprise] members, or individuals used by them, that further the common criminal purpose”.[1] However, an individual cannot be held responsible for the crimes of the joint criminal enterprise committed during a time when he or she was not a member of it.[2] […] 545. The Appeals Chamber further recalls that, to hold a member of a joint criminal enterprise liable for crimes committed by principal perpetrators who are not members of the joint criminal enterprise, it has to be shown that the crime can be imputed to one member of the joint criminal enterprise, and that this member – when using a principal perpetrator – acted in accordance with the common plan.[3] Such a link is established by showing that the member of the joint criminal enterprise used the non-member to commit the actus reus of the crime forming part of the common criminal purpose.[4] The establishment of a link between the crime in question and a member of the joint criminal enterprise is a matter to be assessed on a case-by-case basis.[5] Factors indicative of such a link include evidence that the member of the joint criminal enterprise explicitly or implicitly requested the non-member to commit such a crime or instigated, ordered, encouraged, or otherwise availed himself of the non-member to commit the crime.[6] As a matter of law, there is no requirement that a chamber establish how each physical perpetrator was used to commit the crimes, provided that the chamber identifies that one or more members of the joint criminal enterprise used the forces to which these physical perpetrators belonged in furtherance of the common plan.[7] show footnotes [1] Prlić et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 1545; Martić Appeal Judgement, para. 172. See also Brđanin Appeal Judgement, para. 431. [2] See Prlić et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 1985; Karemera and Ngirumpatse Appeal Judgement, n. 25. [3] Mladić Appeal Judgement, para. 193 and references cited therein. [4] Krajišnik Appeal Judgement, paras. 225, 226; Brđanin Appeal Judgement, para. 410. [5] Krajišnik Appeal Judgement, para. 226. [6] Krajišnik Appeal Judgement, para. 226. [7] See Ðorđević Appeal Judgement, para. 165, referring to Krajišnik Appeal Judgement, paras. 235-237. Download full document