[1] See Naletilić and Martinović Appeal Judgement, para. 114, fn. 257 (finding that a commander must have reason to know of the facts in question that make the conduct criminal). This is the same approach that the ICTY Appeals Chamber has taken with holding a superior responsible for other crimes which require proof of specific intent or other attendant circumstances. See, e.g., Krnojelac Appeal Judgement, para. 155 (finding that, to hold a superior responsible for torture, it must be established that the superior had information that a beating inflicted by a subordinate is for one of the prohibited purposes provided for in the prohibition against torture).

[2] Nahimana et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 524.