Common purpose

Notion(s) Filing Case
Appeal Judgement - 27.11.2007 SIMBA Aloys
(ICTR-01-76-A)

90. The Appeals Chamber notes that, […] it is well established that “planning” is not an element of a JCE.[1]The material element of a JCE is the “common purpose”, and it is on this basis that the Trial Chamber convicted the Appellant for his participation in a JCE. […]

[1]Kvočka et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 117 (“Joint criminal enterprise requires the existence of a common purpose which amounts to or involves the commission of a crime. The common purpose need not be previously arranged or formulated; it may materialize extemporaneously” (footnote omitted)). See also Section C-1(b), fn. 167. 

Download full document
Notion(s) Filing Case
Appeal Judgement - 23.01.2014 ŠAINOVIĆ et al.
(IT-05-87-A)

609. […] The Appeals Chamber recalls that JCE liability requires “the existence of a common purpose which amounts to, or involves, the commission of a crime” and that the common purpose need not be previously arranged or formulated; it may materialise extemporaneously.[1] Thus, while the existence of a common purpose at the time of the crimes is one of the elements of JCE liability, the date of its formation is not.[2] […]

[1] Brđanin Appeal Judgement, para. 418. See also Stakić Appeal Judgement, para. 64; Tadić Appeal Judgement, para. 227(ii). See also Vasiljević Appeal Judgement, paras 100, 109.

[2] See Brðanin Appeal Judgement, paras 364, 418; Stakić Appeal Judgement, para. 64; Kvočka et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 81; Vasiljević Appeal Judgement, para. 100; Tadić Appeal Judgement, para. 227. 

Download full document
Notion(s) Filing Case
Appeal Judgement - 23.01.2014 ŠAINOVIĆ et al.
(IT-05-87-A)

611. […] the Appeal Chamber recalls that JCE liability requires the existence of “a common plan, design or purpose” amounting to, or involving the commission of a crime.[1] Such a common plan, design, or purpose may “be inferred from the facts”,[2] including events on the ground.[3] […]

[…]

654. […] [I]n view of the magnitude of forcible displacement committed in an orchestrated manner and showing a discernible pattern as well as the extensive seizure and destruction of IDs during the forcible displacement, the Appeals Chamber is satisfied that the evidence regarding these two factors is sufficient for a reasonable trier of fact to find that the only reasonable inference is that a common purpose to forcibly displace a number of Kosovo Albanians existed.[4]

[1] Tadić Appeal Judgement, para. 227(ii) (emphasis omitted). See also Krajišnik Appeal Judgement, paras 184-185; Brđanin Appeal Judgement, paras 364, 418; Stakić Appeal Judgement, para. 64; Kvočka et al. Appeal Judgement, paras 81, 96, 117; Vasiljević Appeal Judgement, para. 100.

[2] Vasiljević Appeal Judgement, para. 100; Tadić Appeal Judgement, para. 227(ii).

[3] See, e.g., Martić Trial Judgement, paras 442-445 (affirmed by Martić Appeal Judgement, paras 92-116); Krajišnik Trial Judgement, para. 1097 (affirmed by Krajišnik Appeal Judgement, paras 192, 605-647). See also Trial Judgement [Prosecutor v. Milan Milutinović et al., Case No. IT-05-87-T, Judgement, 26 February 2009], vol. 1, para. 102.

[4] Trial Judgement, vol. 3, paras 95-96.

Download full document
Notion(s) Filing Case
Appeal Judgement - 04.12.2001 KAYISHEMA & RUZINDANA
(ICTR-95-1-A)

193.    […] Thus, there is no requirement that the plan or purpose must be previously arranged or formulated. Accordingly, while the fact of “having met physically or on telephone to undertake a common operation” may be a relevant factor to be considered, it is not constitutive of the actus reuselement required for criminal responsibility pursuant to the common purpose doctrine. […]

Download full document