5. The perpetrator was in a position of effective command or control over the subordinate forces to which the declaration or order was directed.

5.1. Existence of a de facto or a de jure position of authority; OR

5.1.1. Evidence of a de jure position of authority.

5.1.2. Evidence of a de facto position of authority.

5.2. Existence of effective control over subordinate forces.

5. The perpetrator was in a position of effective command or control over the subordinate forces to which the declaration or order was directed.

5.1. Existence of a de facto or a de jure position of authority; OR

"All the facts and circumstances must [...] be considered to determine whether the accused was in fact responsible. [...] The rank of the accused, the duties and responsibilities of the accused by virtue of the command he held, the training of the men under his command, their age and experience, anything relating to the question whether the accused either ordered, encouraged or verbally or tacitly acquiesced in the killing of prisoners, or wilfully failed in his duty as a military commander to prevent, or to take such action as the circumstances required to endeavour to prevent, the killing of prisoners, were matters affecting the question of the accused's responsibility."[1]

5.1.1. Evidence of a de jure position of authority.

5.1.2. Evidence of a de facto position of authority.

5.2. Existence of effective control over subordinate forces.