762. To establish the actus reus of persecution in the present case, the Trial Chamber was required to establish that the underlying acts of terrorising civilians: discriminated in fact, denied or infringed upon a fundamental right laid down in international customary or treaty law,[1] and were “of equal gravity to the crimes listed in Article 5 whether considered in isolation or in conjunction with other acts.”[2] […]

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.

107. Hartmann is incorrect in her argument that “[w]hilst the Prosecutor need not prove an actual interference with the administration of justice, proof must be made that the impugned conduct created a real risk for the administration of justice”.[1] When a court order has been violated, the Trial Chamber does not need to assess whether any actual interference took place or whether a real risk to the administration of justice has taken place because such a violation per se interferes with the administration of justice. The Appeals Chamber in the Jović case held that “[t]he language of Rule 77 shows that a violation of a court order as such constitutes an interference with the International Tribunal’s administration of justice.”[2] Thus, “[n]o additional proof of harm to the International Tribunal’s administration of justice is required”.[3]

896. The Appeals Chamber recalls that the actus reus of the crime of conspiracy to commit genocide is a concerted agreement to act for the purpose of committing genocide. While such actus reus can be proved by evidence of meetings to plan genocide, it can also be inferred from other evidence.[1] In particular, a concerted agreement to commit genocide may be inferred from the conduct of the conspirators.[2] However, as in any case where the Prosecutor seeks, on the basis of circumstantial evidence, to prove a particular fact upon which the guilt of the accused depends,[3] the existence of a conspiracy to commit genocide must be the only reasonable inference based on the totality of the evidence.

897. The Appeals Chamber takes the view that the concerted or coordinated action of a group of individuals can constitute evidence of an agreement. The qualifiers “concerted or coordinated” are important: as the Trial Chamber recognized, these words are “the central element that distinguishes conspiracy from ‘conscious parallelism’, the concept put forward by the Defence to explain the evidence in this case”.[4] The Appeals Chamber thus considers that the Appellants were not found guilty by association or by reason of the similarity of their conduct: rather, the Trial Chamber found that there had been a concerted or coordinated action and, on the basis inter alia of this factual finding, it inferred the existence of a conspiracy. […]

898. Turning to Appellant Barayagwiza’s argument, the Appeals Chamber considers that the agreement need not be a formal one.[5] It stresses in this respect that the United States Supreme Court has also recognized that the agreement required for conspiracy “need not be shown to have been explicit”.[6] The Appellant is thus mistaken in his submission that a tacit agreement is not sufficient as evidence of conspiracy to commit genocide. The Appeals Chamber recalls, however, that the evidence must establish beyond reasonable doubt a concerted agreement to act, and not mere similar conduct.

906. The Appeals Chamber finds that, even if this evidence is capable of demonstrating the existence of a conspiracy to commit genocide among the Appellants, on its own it is not sufficient to establish the existence of such a conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt. It would also have been reasonable to find, on the basis of this evidence, that the Appellants had collaborated and entered into an agreement with a view to promoting the ideology of “Hutu power” in the context of the political struggle between Hutu and Tutsi, or even to disseminate ethnic hatred against the Tutsi, without, however, going as far as their destruction in whole or in part. Consequently, a reasonable trier of facts could not conclude that the only reasonable inference was that the Appellants had conspired together to commit genocide.

29. In defining the actus reus as “persistently refusing or failing to answer a question without reasonable excuse while being a witness before the Chamber” the Trial Chamber went beyond the language found in the Rule by adding the phrase “without reasonable excuse” and replacing the word “contumaciously” with “persistently”. The Appeals Chamber notes that the additional language of “without reasonable excuse” appears to have been taken from Judge Kwon’s dissenting opinion in the Matter of Witness K12 in the Slobodan Milošević case, in which he made reference to “obstinate refusal to answer without reasonable excuse”,[1] but neither appears in the language of the Rule nor elsewhere in the jurisprudence on the interpretation of this Rule.[2] However the Appeals considers that, in any event, such an addition cannot be considered as going to the detriment of the Accused for the reason that it is an addition pro reo, i.e. it narrows the scope of the crime under this Rule.

30. The Appeals Chamber now turns to the Trial Chamber’s replacement of the word “contumaciously” with “persistently”. This follows the reasoning in the contempt proceedings against Kosta Bulatović in the Slobodan Milošević case in which the Trial Chamber referred to the accused “deliberately refus[ing] to comply with an order of the Trial Chamber to answer questions and persist[ing] in that refusal when fully advised of the position and given a further opportunity to respond.”[3] Although discussion in the jurisprudence of the meaning of “contumacious” has tended to be undertaken in the context of the mens rea,[4] if “contumacious” is defined as “persistent”, it is in fact more relevant to the actus reus than the mens rea in the sense of it being a repeated or continuous refusal. This interpretation is the most consistent with the French version of Rule 77(A)(i) which does not contain the word “contumacious” or any direct equivalent but rather states:

Dans l’exercice de son pouvoir inhérent, le Tribunal peut déclarer coupable d’outrage les personnes qui entravent délibérément et sciemment le cours de la justice, y compris notamment toute personne qui: i) étant témoin devant une Chambre refuse de répondre à une question malgré la demande qui lui en est faite par la Chambre [...]

In light of the phrase “malgré la demande qui lui en est faite par la Chambre” (despite the Chamber’s request), the crime under  Rule 77(A) of the Rules must be consider committed not when the witness merely refuses to answer a question put by one of the parties, but rather when it is a refusal maintained in the face of the Chamber’s request to answer the question of a party or a question put by the Chamber itself. Accordingly, the Appeals Chamber finds no error in the Trial Chamber’s reference to “persistently refusing or failing to answer a question” in defining the actus reus.

1765. […] [T]he Appeals Chamber observes that the participation of the aider and abettor need not be a crime in itself.[1] […]

214. The Appeals Chamber recalls that the actus reus of aiding and abetting is constituted by acts or omissions specifically aimed at assisting, encouraging, or lending moral support to the perpetration of a specific crime, and which have a substantial effect upon the perpetration of the crime.[1] Whether a particular contribution qualifies as “substantial” is a “fact-based inquiry”, and need not “serve as condition precedent for the commission of the crime.”[2]

[…]

216. The Appeals Chamber considers that it was reasonable for the Trial Chamber to conclude that Ntawukulilyayo substantially contributed to the Kabuye hill killings by encouraging Tutsis to seek refuge there and then providing reinforcements to those attempting to kill them. These acts alone suffice to constitute the actus reus of aiding and abetting. […]

277. The Appeals Chamber recalls that ordering under Article 6(1) of the Statute requires that a person in a position of authority instruct another person to commit an offence.[1] As previously held, “the actus reus of ordering cannot be established in the absence of a prior positive act because the very notion of ‘instructing’, pivotal to the understanding of the question of ‘ordering’, requires ‘a positive action by the person in a position of authority’”.[2]

283. The Appeals Chamber considers that, in the absence of any evidence that Nsengiyumva gave any instructions,[3] the mere involvement of three soldiers in civilian attire under his command[4] and the existence of a pattern of crimes being committed in and around his area of control immediately after the death of the President could not lead a reasonable trier of fact to find that the only reasonable inference was that Nsengiyumva ordered the killings perpetrated in Gisenyi town on 7 April 1994.

323. The Appeals Chamber finds that in the absence of evidence of military involvement and coordination between the military and the civilian attackers, the mere fact that the killing took place in Gisenyi town the day following President Habyarimana’s death is insufficient for a reasonable trier of fact to find that the only reasonable inference was that the unidentified civilian assailants acted upon Nsengiyumva’s orders. […]

571. Turning to the Trial Chamber’s finding that Bagosora ordered the killing of Maharangari, the Appeals Chamber observes that the Trial Chamber’s factual findings do not support its legal conclusion. In its factual findings, the Trial Chamber concluded that:

Bagosora had authority over the Rwandan army at the time of the attack […]. There is no credible evidence directly showing that Bagosora was aware of the murder of Maharangari. However, given the widespread killing throughout Kigali perpetrated by or with the assistance of military personnel, including the targeted killings on the morning of 7 April […], the Chamber is satisfied that Bagosora was aware that personnel under his authority were participating in killings.[5]

While the Trial Chamber discussed Bagosora’s awareness of the killing of Maharangari and Bagosora’s superior position, at no point did it discuss evidence that Bagosora ordered the crimes. The Trial Chamber’s factual findings therefore appear to correspond only to those which would normally be entered in relation to superior responsibility.

135. The Appeals Chamber considers that “although persecution often refers to a series of acts, a single act may be sufficient, as long as this act or omission discriminates in fact and was carried out deliberately with the intention to discriminate on one of the listed grounds.”[1] Furthermore, the acts underlying persecutions as a crime against humanity, whether considered in isolation or in conjunction with other acts, must constitute a crime of persecutions of gravity equal to the crimes listed in Article 5 of the Statute.[2]

138. The Appeals Chamber considers that the Trial Chamber failed to mention that acts of persecutions, considered separately or together, should reach the level of gravity of other crimes listed in Article 5 of the Statute. It appeared to consider, erroneously, that underlying acts are rendered sufficiently grave if they are committed with a discriminatory intent.

160. The Appeals Chamber recalls that the actus reus of ordering requires that a person in a position of authority instruct another person to commit an offence.[1] There is no requirement that the order be given in any particular form, and the existence of the order may be proven through circumstantial evidence.[2] Furthermore, it is sufficient to demonstrate that the order substantially contributed to the physical perpetrator’s criminal conduct.[3]

36. Accordingly, despite the ambiguity of the Mrkšić and Šljivančanin Appeal Judgement, the Appeals Chamber, Judge Liu dissenting, considers that specific direction remains an element of the actus reus of aiding and abetting liability. The Appeals Chamber, Judge Liu dissenting, thus reaffirms that no conviction for aiding and abetting may be entered if the element of specific direction is not established beyond reasonable doubt, either explicitly or implicitly.[1]

See also paras 26-35, 48.

The Appeals Chamber discussed the circumstances in which specific direction must be explicitly considered:

37. At the outset, the Appeals Chamber, Judge Liu dissenting, recalls that the element of specific direction establishes a culpable link between assistance provided by an accused individual and the crimes of principal perpetrators.[2] In many cases, evidence relating to other elements of aiding and abetting liability[3] may be sufficient to demonstrate specific direction and thus the requisite culpable link.

38. In this respect, the Appeals Chamber notes that previous appeal judgements have not conducted extensive analyses of specific direction. The lack of such discussion may be explained by the fact that prior convictions for aiding and abetting entered or affirmed by the Appeals Chamber involved relevant acts geographically or otherwise proximate to, and thus not remote from, the crimes of principal perpetrators.[4] Where such proximity is present, specific direction may be demonstrated implicitly through discussion of other elements of aiding and abetting liability, such as substantial contribution. For example, an individual accused of aiding and abetting may have been physically present during the preparation or commission of crimes committed by principal perpetrators and made a concurrent substantial contribution.[5] In such a case, the existence of specific direction, which demonstrates the culpable link between the accused aider and abettor’s assistance and the crimes of principal perpetrators, will be self-evident.

39. However, not all cases of aiding and abetting will involve proximity of an accused individual’s relevant acts to crimes committed by principal perpetrators. Where an accused aider and abettor is remote from relevant crimes, evidence proving other elements of aiding and abetting may not be sufficient to prove specific direction. In such circumstances, the Appeals Chamber, Judge Liu dissenting, holds that explicit consideration of specific direction is required.[6]

40. The factors indicating that acts of an accused aider and abettor are remote from the crimes of principal perpetrators will depend on the individual circumstances of each case. However, some guidance on this issue is provided by the Appeals Chamber’s jurisprudence. In particular, the Appeals Chamber has previously concluded, in discussing aiding and abetting liability, that significant temporal distance between the actions of an accused individual and the crime he or she allegedly assisted decreases the likelihood of a connection between that crime and the accused individual’s actions.[7] The same rationale applies, by analogy, to other factors separating the acts of an individual accused of aiding and abetting from the crimes he or she is alleged to have facilitated. Such factors may include, but are not limited to, geographic distance.

See also paras 42, 70.

The Appeals Chamber also discussed types of evidence that may prove specific direction.

44. The Appeals Chamber notes that previous judgements have not provided extensive analysis of what evidence may prove specific direction. However, the Appeals Chamber recalls again that the Tadić Appeal Judgement indicated that specific direction involves finding a closer link between acts of an accused aider and abettor and crimes committed by principal perpetrators than is necessary to support convictions under JCE.[8] The types of evidence required to establish such a link will depend on the facts of a given case. Nonetheless, the Appeals Chamber observes that in most cases, the provision of general assistance which could be used for both lawful and unlawful activities will not be sufficient, alone, to prove that this aid was specifically directed to crimes of principal perpetrators.[9] In such circumstances, in order to enter a conviction for aiding and abetting, evidence establishing a direct link between the aid provided by an accused individual and the relevant crimes committed by principal perpetrators is necessary.

48. […] [T]he Appeals Chamber acknowledges that specific direction may involve considerations that are closely related to questions of mens rea. Indeed, as discussed below, evidence regarding an individual’s state of mind may serve as circumstantial evidence that assistance he or she facilitated was specifically directed towards charged crimes.[10] However, the Appeals Chamber recalls again that the mens rea required to support a conviction for aiding and abetting is knowledge that assistance aids the commission of criminal acts, along with awareness of the essential elements of these crimes.[11] By contrast, as set out above, the long-standing jurisprudence of the Tribunal affirms that specific direction is an analytically distinct element of actus reus.[12]

56. The Appeals Chamber notes the Prosecution’s suggestion that the magnitude of VJ aid provided to the VRS is sufficient to prove Perišić’s actus reus with respect to the VRS Crimes in Sarajevo and Srebrenica.[13] However, the Appeals Chamber observes that while the Trial Chamber considered evidence regarding volume of assistance in making findings on substantial contribution,[14] this analysis does not necessarily demonstrate specific direction, and thus such evidence does not automatically establish a sufficient link between aid provided by an accused aider and abettor and the commission of crimes by principal perpetrators.[15] In the circumstances of this case, indicia demonstrating the magnitude of VJ aid to the VRS serve as circumstantial evidence of specific direction; however, a finding of specific direction must be the sole reasonable inference after a review of the evidentiary record as a whole.[16]

68. […] [T]he Appeals Chamber, Judge Liu dissenting, recalls that evidence regarding knowledge of crimes, alone, does not establish specific direction, which is a distinct element of actus reus, separate from mens rea.[17] Indicia demonstrating that Perišić knew of the VRS Crimes in Sarajevo and Srebrenica may serve as circumstantial evidence of specific direction; however, a finding of specific direction must be the sole reasonable inference after a review of the evidentiary record as a whole.[18]

72. […] [A]ssistance from one army to another army’s war efforts is insufficient, in itself, to trigger individual criminal liability for individual aid providers absent proof that the relevant assistance was specifically directed towards criminal activities.[19] The Appeals Chamber underscores, however, that this conclusion should in no way be interpreted as enabling military leaders to deflect criminal liability by subcontracting the commission of criminal acts. If an ostensibly independent military group is proved to be under the control of officers in another military group, the latter can still be held responsible for crimes committed by their puppet forces.[20] Similarly, aid from one military force specifically directed towards crimes committed by another force can also trigger aiding and abetting liability. However, as explained above, a sufficient link between the acts of an individual accused of aiding and abetting a crime and the crime he or she is charged with assisting must be established for the accused individual to incur criminal liability. […]

See also paras 46-47, 49-55, 57-67.

32. The Appeals Chamber recalls that when noting Article 49 (1) of Additional Protocol I, the Galić Appeals Chamber held that the crime of terror can comprise attacks or threats of attacks against the civilian population.[1] It did not limit the possible consequences of such attacks to death or serious injuries among the victims.[2] Rather, it concentrated on the assessment of whether the allegations before it would qualify for the crime of terror under international customary law.

33. The Appeals Chamber finds that the Trial Chamber misinterpreted the Galić jurisprudence by stating that “actual infliction of death or serious harm to body or health is a required element of the crime of terror”, and thus committed an error of law.Causing death or serious injury to body or health represents only one of the possible modes of commission of the crime of terror, and thus is not an element of the offence per se. What is required, however, in order for the offence to fall under the jurisdiction of this Tribunal, is that the victims suffered grave consequences resulting from the acts or threats of violence;[4] such grave consequences include, but are not limited to death or serious injury to body or health. Accordingly, because the Trial Chamber established in the present case that all the incidents imputed to the SRK constituted unlawful attacks against civilians, and thus caused death or serious injury to body or health of civilians,[5] the threshold of gravity required for the crime of terror based on those incidents has been met. Whereas the nature of the acts of violence or threats thereof constitutive of the crime of terror can vary,[6] the Appeals Chamber is satisfied that the actus reus of the crime of terror has been established in this case and does not find it necessary to explore the matter any further.

34. As for the Prosecution’s submission that the crime of terror has no result requirement provided that the underlying acts or threats of violence are “capable of spreading terror”,[7] the Appeals Chamber notes that the travaux préparatoires to Additional Protocol I show that there had been attempts among the delegations to introduce “acts capable of spreading terror” into the language of the prohibition enshrined under Article 51(2) thereof.[8] However, these proposals were not reflected in the final text of the provision.[9] In addition, the Appeals Chamber considers that the definition of the actus reus of the crime of terror suggested by the Prosecution, notably “acts capable of spreading terror”, does not necessarily imply grave consequences for the civilian population and thus does not per se render the violation of the said prohibition serious enough for it to become a war crime within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

35. The Appeals Chamber further recalls that the Galić Appeal Judgement clarifies that while “extensive trauma and psychological damage form part of the acts or threats of violence”, the “actual terrorisation of the civilian population is not an element of the crime”.[10] It should be noted, however, that evidence of actual terrorisation may contribute to establishing other elements of the crime of terror.[11] The Trial Chamber in the instant case established that the incidents had had a psychological impact on the population of Sarajevo.[12] In the circumstances of the case, such psychological impact also satisfies the required gravity threshold.[13]

150.     The Appeals Chamber further recalls that “encouragement” is a form of conduct which may lead to criminal responsibility for aiding and abetting a crime.[1] The ICTY Appeals Chamber has held that “the encouragement or support need not be explicit; under certain circumstances, even the act of being present on the crime scene (or in its vicinity) as a ‘silent spectator’ can be construed as the tacit approval or encouragement of the crime.”[2] Ngirabatware points to the fact that he was not found to have been present when the attacks and killings of Tutsis were taking place. The Appeals Chamber finds Ngirabatware’s argument to be misguided. It follows from the Trial Chamber’s relevant finding that it did not consider Ngirabatware to be a “silent spectator” who tacitly approved and encouraged the crime by his mere presence and authority. Rather, the Trial Chamber found that the encouragement provided by Ngirabatware was explicit in that, as an influential figure in Nyamyumba Commune, he distributed weapons to the Interahamwe while exhorting them to kill Tutsis.[3] In such circumstances, whether Ngirabatware was present at the crime scene is inconsequential for his responsibility for aiding and abetting to arise.[4] In view of the evidence considered and relied upon by the Trial Chamber, Ngirabatware’s claim that the Interahamwe who were manning the roadblock and committed the killings were unaware of the encouragement he provided is similarly without merit.[5]

162. The Appeals Chamber is satisfied that the Trial Chamber reasonably relied on Witness Sezirahiga’s testimony in finding that the actus reus of rape was established. It follows from the Trial Judgement that Witness Sezirahiga observed the commission of the crime from a distance of four meters.[1] Although the witness was not specifically asked about the penetration of his daughter, he clearly and constantly used the word “rape” throughout his testimony to describe what happened to her.[2] The Appeals Chamber is satisfied that this term was reasonably understood in the context of this case as sexual penetration by the witness, the Trial Chamber, and the parties.[3] In this respect, the Appeals Chamber notes that Hategekimana did not dispute at trial that Nura Sezirahiga was raped.[4] The Appeals Chamber therefore finds no merit in his challenge to this aspect of the Trial Chamber’s finding on appeal.

424. The Appeals Chamber has previously considered within the discussion of the actus reus of aiding and abetting the finding that an act or omission of an aider or abettor be “specifically directed” toward the furtherance of the crimes of the principal perpetrators.[1] The Appeals Chamber recalls, however, that “specific direction has not always been included as an element of the actus reus of aiding and abetting.”[2] It further recalls its conclusion that such a finding of specific direction “will often be implicit in the finding that the accused has provided practical assistance to the principal perpetrator which had a substantial effect on the commission of the crime”.[3] In Mrkšić and Šljivančanin, the Appeals Chamber has clarified “that ‘specific direction’ is not an essential ingredient of the actus reus of aiding and abetting”[4] and finds that there is no “cogent reason”[5] to depart from this jurisprudence.

The Appeals Chamber first delineated the crime:

69. The crime charged under Count 1 of the Indictment pursuant to Article 3 of the Statute and on the basis of Article 51(2) of Additional Protocol I and Article 13(2) of Additional Protocol II is the crime of acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population. It encompasses the intent to spread terror when committed by combatants[1] in a period of armed conflict. The findings of the Appeals Chamber with respect to grounds five, sixteen and seven will therefore not envisage any other form of terror.

The Appeals Chamber then determined that the prohibition of terror against the civilian population as enshrined in Article 51(2) of Additional Protocol I and Article 13(2) of Additional Protocol II clearly belonged to customary international law from at least the time of its inclusion in those treaties (paras 87-90). It added – Judge Schomburg dissenting – that customary international law imposed individual criminal liability for violations of the prohibition of terror against the civilian population as enshrined in Article 51(2) of Additional Protocol I and Article 13(2) of Additional Protocol II, from at least the period relevant to the Indictment (paras 91-98).

Finally, the Appeals Chamber identified the elements of this crime (see para. 102 for the actus reus and paras 103-104 for the mens rea).

25. The Appeals Chamber notes that the Trial Chamber convicted Kordić for planning, instigating, and ordering crimes pursuant to Article 7(1) of the Statute.[1] The Trial Chamber’s legal definitions of these modes of responsibility have not been appealed by any of the Parties. However, the Appeals Chamber deems it necessary to set out and clarify the applicable law in relation to these modes of responsibility insofar as it is necessary for its own decision.

26. The actus reus of “planning” requires that one or more persons design the criminal conduct constituting one or more statutory crimes that are later perpetrated.[2] It is sufficient to demonstrate that the planning was a factor substantially contributing to such criminal conduct.

27. The actus reus of “instigating” means to prompt another person to commit an offence.[3] While it is not necessary to prove that the crime would not have been perpetrated without the involvement of the accused, it is sufficient to demonstrate that the instigation was a factor substantially contributing to the conduct of another person committing the crime.[4]

28. The actus reus of “ordering” means that a person in a position of authority instructs another person to commit an offence.[5] A formal superior-subordinate relationship between the accused and the perpetrator is not required.[6]

29. The mens rea for these modes of responsibility is established if the perpetrator acted with direct intent in relation to his own planning, instigating, or ordering. 

30. In addition, the Appeals Chamber has held that a standard of mens rea that is lower than direct intent may apply in relation to ordering under Article 7(1) of the Statute. The Appeals Chamber held that a person who orders an act or omission with the awareness of the substantial likelihood that a crime will be committed in the execution of that order, has the requisite mens rea for establishing responsibility under Article 7(1) of the Statute pursuant to ordering. Ordering with such awareness has to be regarded as accepting that crime.[7]

31. A person who plans an act or omission with the awareness of the substantial likelihood that a crime will be committed in the execution of that plan, has the requisite mens rea for establishing responsibility under Article 7(1) of the Statute pursuant to planning. Planning with such awareness has to be regarded as accepting that crime.

32. A person who instigates another person to commit an act or omission with the awareness of the substantial likelihood that a crime will be committed in the execution of that instigation, has the requisite mens rea for establishing responsibility under Article 7(1) of the Statute pursuant to instigating.  Instigating with such awareness has to be regarded as accepting that crime.

146.  […] The Appeals Chamber is also not convinced that the Trial Chamber was specifically required to determine that assailants of the Night and Day Attacks heard what he said at the Cyayi centre. The Appeals Chamber recalls that the actus reus of “instigating” is to prompt another person to commit an offence.[1] It is not necessary to prove that the crime would not have been perpetrated without the involvement of the accused; it is sufficient to demonstrate that the instigation was a factor substantially contributing to the conduct of another person committing the crime.[2] Similarly, it is not required that the individuals who were instigated be the same as those who committed the crimes.[3]

918. In addition, Župljanin’s argument that the Trial Chamber was required to find that he intended coercive acts under the first category of joint criminal enterprise because the actus reus of the JCE I Crimes requires that the act inducing the departure be criminal, finds no support in the jurisprudence of the Tribunal. […] Contrary to Župljanin’s unreferenced assertion, the jurisprudence of the Tribunal does not require that persons be displaced as a result of criminal acts.[1]

3327.            The Appeals Chamber recalls that the actus reus of instigating is to prompt another person to commit an offence.[1] It is not necessary to prove that the accused was present when the instigated crime was committed[2] or that the crime would not have been perpetrated without the involvement of the accused; it is sufficient to demonstrate that the instigation was a factor substantially contributing to the conduct of another person committing the crime.[3]

3328.            […] The Appeals Chamber considers that Kanyabashi’s commitment to execute the directives and instructions announced by Kambanda and Sindikubwabo to identify and kill Tutsis does not necessarily amount to prompting the attendees or the people in Butare Prefecture to kill Tutsis.[4] In the absence of any evidence discussed by the Trial Chamber or pointed out by the Prosecution that Kanyabashi’s Speech was understood as instigating the killing of Tutsis or had any impact on the conduct of those who subsequently committed killings,[5] the Appeals Chamber finds that a reasonable trier of fact could have concluded that Kanyabashi did not instigate genocide through his speech.

243. […] Of even greater significance, there is no legal requirement that a trial chamber’s analysis as to an accused’s mens rea and actus reus be done separately […]. To the contrary, trial chambers are free to organize their judgements as they see fit so long as they fulfil their obligation to provide a reasoned opinion.[1]

[…] 

247. […] The Appeals Chamber observes that the Trial Chamber used this practice of cross-referencing throughout the Trial Judgement instead of re‑summarizing its findings of fact or summaries of evidence.[2] The Appeals Chamber recalls that trial chambers need not unnecessarily repeat considerations reflected elsewhere in the trial judgement.[3] Furthermore, nothing prevents a trial chamber from relying on the same evidence when making findings as to an accused’s actus reus and mens rea. Accordingly, the Appeals Chamber finds that Mladić does not demonstrate that the Trial Chamber used its finding of mens rea to substantiate its finding of his significant contribution or committed any error in this respect. […]