Conviction for ordering and aiding and abetting based on same set of facts

Notion(s) Filing Case
Appeal Judgement - 19.09.2005 KAMUHANDA Jean de Dieu

77. The factual findings of the Trial Chamber support the Appellant’s conviction for aiding and abetting as well as for ordering the crimes. Both modes of participation form distinct categories of responsibility. In this case, however, both modes of responsibility are based on essentially the same set of facts: the Appellant “led” the attackers in the attack and he ordered the attackers to start the killings. On the facts of this case, with the Appeals Chamber disregarding the finding that the Appellant distributed weapons for the purposes of determining whether the Appellant aided and abetted the commission of the crimes, the Appeals Chamber does not find the remaining facts sufficiently compelling to maintain the conviction for aiding and abetting. In this case the mode of responsibility of ordering fully encapsulates the Appellant’s criminal conduct at the Gikomero Parish Compound.[1]

[1] Cf. Semanza Appeal Judgement, paras. 353, 364, Disposition (where the Trial Chamber’s convictions for aiding and abetting extermination and complicity in genocide were reversed on appeal and the Appeals Chamber entered convictions for ordering extermination and genocide (ordering) with respect to the same events).

Download full document
ICTR Statute Article 6(1) ICTY Statute Article 7(1)