75.     Finally, the Appeals Chamber will consider the Prosecution submission on the Trial Chamber’s findings in paragraphs 75 and 77 of the Judgment relating to whether or not a distinction must be made between the principal offender and the other participants in a joint criminal enterprise when determining the sentence. The Trial Chamber considered that such a distinction was not necessary when assessing the maximum sentence to be passed on each individual.[1] It emphasised that the sentence should reflect the serious nature of the acts whatever their classification and that there were circumstances in which a participant in a joint criminal enterprise might deserve a higher sentence than the principal offender.[2] It also stated that the acts of a participant in a joint criminal enterprise are more serious than those of an aider and abettor to the principal offender since a participant in a joint criminal enterprise shares the intent of the principal offender whereas an aider and abettor need only be aware of that intent. The Appeals Chamber considers that the Prosecution did not show those findings to be erroneous.