[1] Galić Appeal Judgement, para. 175, referring to Blaškić Appeal Judgement, para. 663 and Ntagerura et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 334. See also Tadić Appeal Judgement, para. 188: “This provision [Article 7(1) of the Statute] covers first and foremost the physical perpetration of a crime by the offender himself, or the culpable omission of an act that was mandated by a rule of criminal law.”

[2] The most comprehensive statement of these requirements can be found in the Ntagerura et al. Trial Judgement, para. 659, cited by Ntagerura et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 333: “[I]n order to hold an accused criminally responsible for an omission as a principal perpetrator, the following elements must be established: (a) the accused must have had a duty to act mandated by a rule of criminal law; (b) the accused must have had the ability to act; (c) the accused failed to act intending the criminally sanctioned consequences or with awareness and consent that the consequences would occur; and (d) the failure to act resulted in the commission of the crime.”

[3] “The Appeals Chamber leaves open the possibility that in the circumstances of a given case, an omission may constitute the actus reus of aiding and abetting”, Blaškić Appeal Judgement, para. 47; see also Simić Appeal Judgement, para. 85, fn. 259. In the Simić Appeal Judgement (para. 133), the Appeals Chamber upheld Simić’s conviction for aiding and abetting persecutions (confinement under inhumane conditions) inter alia for the “deliberate denial of adequate medical care to the detainees”. But this was understood as “active participation in the crime of persecutions”, Simić Appeal Judgement, para. 82, fn. 254.