325. The Appeals Chamber recalls that in order to find an individual liable for the commission of a crime through a basic joint criminal enterprise:

[a] trier of fact must find beyond reasonable doubt that a plurality of persons shared the common criminal purpose; that the accused made a contribution to this common criminal purpose; and that the commonly intended crime […] did in fact take place. Where the principal perpetrator is not shown to belong to the [joint criminal enterprise], the trier of fact must further establish that the crime can be imputed to at least one member of the joint criminal enterprise, and that this member – when using the principal perpetrator – acted in accordance with the common plan. In establishing these elements, the Chamber must, among other things: identify the plurality of persons belonging to the [joint criminal enterprise] (even if it is not necessary to identify by name each of the persons involved); specify the common criminal purpose in terms of both the criminal goal intended and its scope (for example, the temporal and geographic limits of this goal, and the general identities of the intended victims); make a finding that this criminal purpose is not merely the same, but also common to all of the persons acting together within a joint criminal enterprise; and characterize the contribution of the accused in this common plan. On this last point, the Appeals Chamber observes that, although the contribution need not be necessary or substantial, it should at least be a significant contribution to the crimes for which the accused is to be found responsible.[1]

77. The Appeals Chamber recalls that the actus reus for the first and third categories of JCE liability consists of: (i) a plurality of persons; (ii) the existence of a common plan, design, or purpose which amounts to or involves the commission of a crime provided for in the Statute; and (iii) the participation of the accused in the common design involving the perpetration of one of the crimes provided for in the Statute.[1] The mens rea element for the first category of JCE liability is the intent to perpetrate a certain crime (this being the shared intent on the part of all co-perpetrators).[2] For the third category, it is the intention to participate in and further the criminal activity or the criminal purpose of a group and to contribute to the JCE or in any event to the commission of a crime by the group. In addition, responsibility for a crime other than the one agreed upon in the common plan arises only if, under the circumstances of the case: (i) it was foreseeable that such a crime might be perpetrated by one or other members of the group; and (ii) the accused willingly took that risk.[3]