Commission through participation in JCE
|Appeal Judgement - 28.09.2011||
160. The Appeals Chamber recalls that the actus reus for participation in a joint criminal enterprise requires: (i) a plurality of persons; (ii) the existence of a common purpose (or plan) which amounts to or involves the commission of a crime encompassed by the Statute; and (iii) the participation of the accused in this common purpose. The basic form of joint criminal enterprise, which is at issue in this case, requires that the accused must both intend the commission of the crime and intend to participate in a common plan aimed at its commission.
163. […] The Trial Chamber concluded that “Munyakazi was as much an integral part of [the] killings as those he enabled” and thus convicted him based on his role in the attacks at Shangi and Mibilizi parishes under Article 6(1) of the Statute for committing genocide and extermination as a crime against humanity. Participation in a joint criminal enterprise is a form of committing under Article 6(1) of the Statute. Therefore, a finding that Munyakazi participated in a joint criminal enterprise in connection with the crimes for which he was convicted would have no bearing on the verdict. Munyakazi’s conviction is based on his committing the crimes, which fully encapsulates his criminal conduct.
 See Brđanin Appeal Judgement, para. 364. See also Ntakirutimana Appeal Judgement, paras. 463, 466.
 See Brđanin Appeal Judgement, para. 365. See also Ntakirutimana Appeal Judgement, para. 467.
 Trial Judgement, para. 491. See also Trial Judgement, paras. 501, 508.
 Nahimana et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 478; Ntagerura et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 24; Ntakirutimana Appeal Judgement, para. 452. See also Krnojelac Appeal Judgement, para. 29, quoting Prosecutor v. Milan Milutinović et al., Case No. IT-99-37-AR72, Decision on Dragoljub Ojdanić’s Motion Challenging Jurisdiction – Joint Criminal Enterprise, 21 May 2003, para. 20.
|ICTR Statute Article 6(1) ICTY Statute Article 7(1)|