17. The Appeals Chamber agrees with the Appellant that, in assessing the Appellant’s level of responsibility, the Referral Bench relied solely on the factual allegations made in the Second Amended Indictment.[1] […] Accordingly, the Referral Bench had no obligation in this case to consider extrinsic evidence with regard to the Appellant’s notoriety or to his possible involvement in criminal acts other than those charged in the Second Amended Indictment.

See also “Confirmed Indictment only” supra.