M.4. The contribution was made with the aim of furthering the criminal activity or criminal purpose of the group, where such activity or purpose involves the commission of a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court. OR

M.4. The contribution was made with the aim of furthering the criminal activity or criminal purpose of the group, where such activity or purpose involves the commission of a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court. OR

M.4.1. ICC

M.4.2. ICTY

M.4.3. ICTR

Ntakirutimana and Ntakirutimana Appeals Chamber held that:

"The mens rea differs according to the category of joint criminal enterprise under consideration. The basic form requires the intent to perpetrate a certain crime (this being the shared intent on the part of all co-perpetrators). The systemic form (which, as noted above, is a variant of the first), requires personal knowledge of the system of ill-treatment (whether proved by express testimony or as a matter of reasonable inference from the accused’s position of authority), as well as the intent to further this system of ill-treatment. Finally, the extended form of joint criminal enterprise, requires the intention to participate in and further the common criminal purpose of a group and to contribute to the joint criminal enterprise or, in any event, to the commission of a crime by the group. In addition, responsibility for a crime other than the one which was part of the common design 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’ – that is, being aware that such a crime was a possible consequence of the execution of that enterprise, and with that awareness, the accused decided to participate in that enterprise"[1]