M.2. The perpetrator had purpose of facilitating the commission of the crime

M.2. The perpetrator had purpose of facilitating the commission of the crime

Prosecutor v. Vojislav Šešelj, Case No. IT-03-67-T, Judgement – Volume 1 (TC), 31 March 2016, para. 353:

"353. […] Moreover, the aider and abettor must have known that these acts had contributed to the perpetration of the crime and been aware of the essential elements of the crime, including of the intent of the principal perpetrator, without necessarily knowing the exact crime that was intended or committed."

Prosecutor v. Nikola Sainovic, Case No. IT-05-87-A, Judgement (AC), 23 January 2014, paras. 1760, 1172:

"1172. Pavkovic argues that the Trial Chamber erred in finding that he demonstrated support for arming the non-Albanian population and simultaneously disarmed the Kosovo Albanian population. In particular, he contests the Trial Chamber’s assessment of evidence with regard to his involvement in the arming."

"1760. The Appeals Chamber further finds unpersuasive Lazarevic’s contention that the Trial Chamber reached contradictory findings by stating that he attempted to use VJ forces to relocate the Kosovo Albanian civilians in a non-violent way and that he also aided and abetted their forcible displacement. The Appeals Chamber recalls that an aider and abettor need not possess the intent to further the crime but only knowledge that his acts or omissions assist the commission of such crime. The Trial Chamber found it significant that, despite the orders to protect civilians in combat areas, Lazarevic continued to order joint VJ and MUP operations in Kosovo and VJ units continued to be involved in the forcible displacement of Kosovo Albanian civilians. The Appeals Chamber has found no error in the Trial Chamber’s conclusion that Lazarevic was aware of the widespread forcible displacement of Kosovo Albanians and that this was at least in part due to the actions of the VJ. Moreover, none of the reports from subordinate units complying with Lazarevic’s orders for the protection of the civilian population related to the locations where forcible displacement had taken place. In light of these considerations, the Appeals Chamber finds that a reasonable trier of fact could have relied on Lazarevic’s orders in relation to the protection of civilians in a limited manner and finds no contradiction in the Trial Chamber’s findings in this regard. The Appeals Chamber therefore dismisses Lazarevic’s arguments."