477.    As correctly recalled by the Trial Chamber, acts other than physical perpetration can constitute direct participation in the actus reus of a crime.[1] The question is whether an accused’s conduct “was as much an integral part of the genocide as were the killings which it enabled”.[2] In the cases where the Appeals Chamber has concluded that an accused’s role constituted an integral part of the crimes, the accused were present at the scene of the crime and participated, supervised, directed, played a leading role, or otherwise fully exercised influence over the perpetrators.[3] However, in this case, the Trial Chamber did not find that Nzabonimana was present during the attack and, further, did not find that he supervised, played a leading role, or fully exercised influence over the perpetrators.

478.    Consequently, the Prosecution has failed to demonstrate that the Trial Chamber erred in not concluding that Nzabonimana committed genocide and extermination, or alternatively murder, as a crime against humanity at the Nyabikenke commune office.