[1] Trial Judgement, paras 42, 58, 60-61, 66, 312-313, 316, 319, 325, 328, 380, 383, 385, 552, 555, 560 and 564.

[2] Trial Judgement, paras 555, 560, 564 and 574.

[3] See also for: Planning: Kordić and Čerkez Appeal Judgement, paras 26, 29 and 31; Nahimana et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 479. Instigating: Kordić and Čerkez Appeal Judgement, paras 27, 29 and 32; Karera Appeal Judgement, paras 317-318; Nahimana et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 480. See also, e.g., Gacumbitsi Appeal Judgement, 99 and 105-108, affirming the Trial Chamber’s finding that Gacumbitsi is responsible for instigating, referring to, in particular, Trial Judgement, paras 213, 215 and 328, where physical perpetrators are described as a “group of attackers on which the bourgmestre had influence”, and “young men who, being in the neighbourhood, heard the bourgmestre’s instigation”. Ordering: Galić Appeal Judgement, para. 176; Kordić and Čerkez Appeal Judgement, paras 28-30; Karera Appeal Judgement, para. 211; Nahimana et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 481; Gacumbitsi Appeal Judgement, para. 182; Semanza Appeal Judgement, para. 361. See also, e.g., Blaškić Appeal Judgement, paras 588 (fn. 1195) and 597, finding Blaškić responsible for ordering, and confirming the Trial Chamber’s findings, in particular paras 688, 693, 699 and 735, in which physical perpetrators are referred to as the “HVO” or “HVO soldiers” and the “Military Police”; Gacumbitsi Appeal Judgement, paras 184-187, finding Gacumbitsi responsible for ordering, and referring to, in particular, Trial Judgement, paras 98, 152, 154, 163, 168 and 171-173, where physical perpetrators are referred to as “conseillers”, the “communal police”, “gendarmes”, and the “Interahamwe”; Semanza Appeal Judgement, para. 363, finding Semanza responsible for ordering, and confirming the Trial Chamber’s findings, in particular in paras 178 and 196, where physical perpetrators are described as “soldiers”, “gendarmes”, and the “Interahamwe”. Cf. for superior responsibility: Orić Appeal Judgement, para. 35; Blagojević and Jokić Appeal Judgement, para. 287; Blaškić Appeal Judgement, para. 216, with reference to Prosecutor v. Milorad Krnojelac, Case No. IT-97-25-PT, Decision on the Defence Preliminary Motion on the Form of the Indictment, 24 February 1999, paras 38 and 40. As regards joint criminal enterprise: Krajišnik Appeal Judgement, paras 156-157.