280. As a threshold matter, the Appeals Chamber confirms that superior responsibility under Article 7(3) of the Statute encompasses all forms of criminal conduct by subordinates, not only the “committing” of crimes in the restricted sense of the term, but all other modes of participation under Article 7(1). The Appeals Chamber notes that the term “commit” is used throughout the Statute in a broad sense, encompassing all modes of responsibility covered by Article 7(1)[1] and that such a construction is clearly manifest in Article 29 (co-operation and judicial assistance) of the Statute, referring to States’ obligation to co-operate with the International Tribunal “in the investigation and prosecution of persons accused of committing serious violations of international humanitarian law.”

281. The Appeals Chamber has previously determined that criminal responsibility under Article 7(3) is based primarily on Article 86(2) of Protocol I.[2] Accordingly, the meaning of “commit”, as used in Article 7(3) of the Statute, necessarily tracks the term’s broader and more ordinary meaning, as employed in Protocol I.[3] The object and purpose of Protocol I, as reflected in its preamble, is to “reaffirm and develop the provisions protecting the victims of armed conflicts and to supplement measures intended to reinforce their application”. The preamble of Protocol I adds further that “the provisions of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and of this Protocol must be fully applied in all circumstances to all persons who are protected by those instruments.” The purpose of superior responsibility, as evidenced in Articles 86(1) and 87 of Protocol I, is to ensure compliance with international humanitarian law. Furthermore, one of the purposes of establishing the International Tribunal, as reflected in Security Council Resolution 808, is to “put an end to [widespread violations of international humanitarian law] and to take effective measures to bring to justice the persons who are responsible for them”. And, more particularly, the purpose of superior responsibility in Article 7(3) is to hold superiors “responsible for failure to prevent a crime or to deter the unlawful behaviour of [their] subordinates.”

282. In this context, the Appeals Chamber cannot accept that the drafters of Protocol I and the Statute intended to limit a superior’s obligation to prevent or punish violations of international humanitarian law to only those individuals physically committing the material elements of a crime and to somehow exclude subordinates who as accomplices substantially contributed to the completion of the crime. Accordingly, “commit” as used in Article 7(3) of the Statute must be understood as it is in Protocol I, in its ordinary and broad sense.