323. The Appeals Chamber has, however, made it clear that, whenever an accused is charged with superior responsibility on the basis of Article 6(3) of the Statute, the material facts which must be pleaded in the indictment are: (i) that the accused is the superior of sufficiently identified subordinates over whom he had effective control – in the sense of material ability to prevent or punish criminal conduct – and for whose acts he is alleged to be responsible; (ii) the criminal acts committed by those others for whom the accused is alleged to be responsible; (iii) the conduct of the accused by which he may be found to have known or had reason to know that the crimes were about to be committed or had been committed by his subordinates; and (iv) the conduct of the accused by which he may be found to have failed to take necessary and reasonable measures to prevent such acts or to punish the persons who committed them.[1] As regards this last element, it will be sufficient in many cases to plead that the accused did not take any necessary and reasonable measure to prevent or punish the commission of criminal acts.

324. An indictment may also be defective when the material facts that the Prosecutor invokes are pleaded without sufficient specificity.[2] In this regard, the Prosecutor's characterization of the alleged criminal conduct and the proximity between the accused and the crime charged are decisive factors in determining the degree of specificity with which the Prosecutor must plead the material facts of his case in the indictment.[3]

123. The Appeals Chamber recalls that in respect of [failure to prevent or punish], in many cases it will be sufficient to plead that the accused did not take any necessary and reasonable measures to prevent or punish the commission of criminal acts.[1] This stems from the fact that the accused’s failure to prevent or punish may often be inferred from the continuing or widespread nature of the violations committed by his subordinates as alleged in the indictment.[2]

125. [A] review of the Indictment reflects that the Prosecution did not explicitly plead Ntabakuze’s failure to prevent or punish the crimes of his subordinates. However, the Appeals Chamber observes that paragraph 6.18 of the Indictment, which was specifically relied on in support of Ntabakuze’s superior responsibility, pleads that the crimes alleged in the Indictment were carried out on his orders and directives. This, in the Appeals Chamber’s opinion, gave notice to Ntabakuze that he was alleged to have failed to take the necessary measures to prevent or punish the crimes. Further notice was provided through the allegations of repeated and continuing crimes by Ntabakuze’s subordinates from the Para-Commando Battalion,[3] and the allegation at paragraph 6.44 of the Indictment that “[c]ertain units of the Para‑Commando, Reconnaissance and Presidential Guard battalions were the most implicated in these crimes”.[4]

Footnote 88:            The Appeals Chamber notes that the Prosecution appears to submit that, given the widespread nature of the massacres, and the involvement of virtually every unit of the army in perpetrating them in multiple locations throughout Kigali and other prefectures, it was “legitimate” for the Indictment to only provide examples of some locations where massacres occurred. See [Théoneste Bagosora et al. v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-98-41-A, Prosecutor’s Brief in Response to Aloys Ntabakuze’s Appeal, 7 September 2009 (“Prosecution Response Brief”)], para. 31. See also AT. 27 September 2011 p. 39. The Appeals Chamber considers this argument to be ill-founded. The Appeals Chamber has previously stated that “the facts relevant to the acts of those others for whose acts the accused is alleged to be responsible as a superior [...]] will usually be stated with less precision because the detail[s] of those acts are often unknown, and because the acts themselves are often not very much in issue”. See Muvunyi Appeal Judgement of 29 August 2008, para. 58, citing Ntagerura et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 26, fn. 82, quoting Blaškić Appeal Judgement, para. 218. However, the indictment must plead the criminal conduct of the subordinates for whom the accused is alleged to be responsible. See infra, para. 100. At a minimum, this includes pleading the location and approximate date of the alleged criminal acts and the means by which they were committed when this information is in possession of the Prosecution.

218. In accordance with the jurisprudence of the International Tribunal, the Appeals Chamber considers that in a case where superior criminal responsibility pursuant to Article 7(3) of the Statute is alleged, the material facts which must be pleaded in the indictment are:

(a) (i) that the accused is the superior[1] of (ii) subordinates sufficiently identified,[2] (iii) over whom he had effective control – in the sense of a material ability to prevent or punish criminal conduct [3]– and (iv) for whose acts he is alleged to be responsible;[4]

(b) the conduct of the accused by which he may be found to (i) have known or had reason to know that the crimes were about to be committed or had been committed by his subordinates,[5] and (ii) the related conduct of those others for whom he is alleged to be responsible.[6] The facts relevant to the acts of those others for whose acts the accused is alleged to be responsible as a superior, although the Prosecution remains obliged to give all the particulars which it is able to give, will usually be stated with less precision,[7] because the detail of those acts are often unknown, and because the acts themselves are often not very much in issue;[8] and

(c) the conduct of the accused by which he may be found to have failed to take the necessary and reasonable measures to prevent such acts or to punish the persons who committed them.[9]

219. With respect to the mens rea, there are two ways in which the relevant state of mind may be pleaded: (i) either the specific state of mind itself should be pleaded as a material fact, in which case, the facts by which that material fact is to be established are ordinarily matters of evidence, and need not be pleaded; or (ii) the evidentiary facts from which the state of mind is to be inferred, should be pleaded.[10] Each of the material facts must usually be pleaded expressly, although in some circumstances it may suffice if they are expressed by necessary implication.[11] This fundamental rule of pleading is, however, not complied with if the pleading merely assumes the existence of the legal pre-requisite.[12]

15. In any event, the argument by the prosecution that the whole of the altered contents of the two schedules related only to matters of evidence is not made out.  An indictment is required to plead the material facts upon which the prosecution relies, but not the evidence by which those material facts are to be proved.  Whether or not a fact is material depends upon the proximity of the accused person to the events for which that person is alleged to be criminally responsible.[1]  If the accused person is alleged to have personally committed the acts giving rise to the charges against him, the material facts would include such details as the identity of the victim, the place and the approximate date of the events in question, and the means by which the offence was committed.[2]  As the proximity of the accused person to those events becomes more distant, less precision is required in relation to those particular details, and greater emphasis is placed upon the conduct of the accused person himself upon which the prosecution relies to establish his responsibility as an accessory or as a superior to the persons who personally committed the acts giving rise to the charges against him.[3]

370.   […] Under certain circumstances, referring to an alleged subordinate by category can constitute sufficient notice of his or her identity.[1] However, where the Prosecution has specific information in its possession pertaining to the material facts of its case, it should expressly provide these facts in the indictment.[2]

36. [...] [T]he charges against Mladić did not implicate him as a physical perpetrator, concerned a vast amount of territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and spanned over three years. Relevant jurisprudence dictates that, while an indictment is required to plead material facts through which the Prosecution seeks to establish an accused’s criminal liability, as the proximity of the accused person to those events becomes more distant, less precision is required in relation to those particular details, and greater emphasis is placed upon the conduct of the accused person himself upon which the Prosecution relies to establish his responsibility as an accessory or a superior to the persons who personally committed the acts giving rise to the charges against him. Indeed, in cases concerning extensive and continuous criminality, specificity with respect to the timing, victims, and location of “representative” incidents of criminality may satisfy the obligation of providing sufficient notice of the nature of the crime to effectively prepare his defence.