30 May 2013 - ICTY

49670
in this respect include temporal or geographic distance. 2216 The Appeals Chamber has further
held that in most cases, the provision of general assistance which could be used for both
lawful and unlawful activities will not be sufficient, alone, to prove that this aid was
specifically directed to crimes of principal perpetrators. 2217 Proof of specific direction in such
circumstances requires evidence establishing a direct link between the aid provided by an
accused and the relevant crimes committed by principal perpetrators. 2218 Specific direction
may involve considerations that are closely related to questions of mens rea and evidence
regarding an individual’s state of mind may serve as circumstantial evidence that assistance
he or she facilitated was specifically directed towards charged crimes. 2219 The aider and
abettor must have knowledge that his or her acts or omissions assist in the commission of the
crime of the principal perpetrator. 2220 The aider and abettor must also be aware of the
principal perpetrator’s criminal acts, although not their legal characterization, and his or her
criminal state of mind. 2221 This includes the specific intent of the principal perpetrator, if the
crime requires such intent. 2222 The aider and abettor does not, however, need to know either
the precise crime that was intended or the one that was actually committed; it is sufficient that
he or she be aware that one of a number of crimes will probably be committed, if one of those
crimes is in fact committed. 2223
2216 Perišić Appeal Judgement, para. 40.
2217 Perišić Appeal Judgement, para. 44.
2218 Perišić Appeal Judgement, para. 44.
2219 Perišić Appeal Judgement, para. 48.
2220 Vasiljević Appeal Judgement, para. 102; Blaškić Appeal Judgement, paras 45-46; Simić et al. Appeal
Judgement, para. 86; Brđanin Appeal Judgement, paras 484, 488; Blagojević and Jokić Appeal Judgement, para.
127; Nahimana et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 482; Orić Appeal Judgement, para. 43; Mrkšić and Šljivančanin
Appeal Judgement, paras 49, 146, 159; Haradinaj et al. Appeal Judgement, paras 57-58; Kalimanzira Appeal
Judgement, para. 86.
2221 Aleksovski Appeal Judgement, para. 162; Simić et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 86; Brđanin Appeal
Judgement, paras 484, 487-488; Nahimana et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 482; Orić Appeal Judgement, para.
43; Mrkšić and Šljivančanin Appeal Judgement, paras 49, 146, 159; Haradinaj et al. Appeal Judgement, paras
57-58.
2222 Krnojelac Appeal Judgement, para. 52; Krstić Appeal Judgement, para. 140; Simić et al. Appeal Judgement,
para. 86; Blagojević and Jokić Appeal Judgement, para. 127; Kalimanzira Appeal Judgement, para. 86.
2223 Blaškić Appeal Judgement, para. 50; Simić et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 86; Nahimana et al. Appeal
Judgement, para. 482; Mrkšić and Šljivančanin Appeal Judgement, paras 49, 159; Haradinaj et al. Appeal
Judgement, paras 57-58.
Case No. IT-03-69-T 448
30 May 2013