ii
(a) International Humanitarian Law.......................................................................... 35
(b) The Notion of Control: The Need for International Humanitarian
Law to Be Supplemented by General International Rules Concerning
the Criteria for Considering Individuals to be Acting as
De Facto State Organs ........................................................................................ 39
(c) The Notion of Control Set Out By the International Court of Justice
in Nicaragua........................................................................................................ 40
(i) Two Preliminary Issues .................................................................................... 41
(ii) The Grounds On Which the Nicaragua Test Does Not
Seem To Be Persuasive................................................................................... 47
a. The Nicaragua Test Would Not Seem to Be Consonant With
the Logic of the Law of State Responsibility................................................. 47
b. The Nicaragua Test is at Variance With Judicial and State Practice............ 51
4. The Factual Relationship Between the Bosnian Serb Army
and the Army of the FRY.......................................................................................... 62
5. The Status of the Victims.......................................................................................... 72
(a) The Relevant Rules.............................................................................................. 72
(b) Factual Findings .................................................................................................. 74
C. Conclusion.................................................................................................................... 75
V. The Second Ground of Cross-Appeal by the Prosecution:
the Finding of Insufficient Evidence of Participation in the Killings in Jaski}i.............. 76
A. Submissions of the Parties............................................................................................ 76
1. The Prosecution case................................................................................................. 76
2. The Defence Case...................................................................................................... 77
B. Discussion..................................................................................................................... 78
1. The Armed Group to Which the Appellant Belonged Committed the Killings........ 78
2. The Individual Criminal Responsibility of the Appellant for the Killings ............... 80
(a) Article 7(1) of the Statute and the Notion of Common Purpose ......................... 80
(b) The Culpability of the Appellant in the Present Case ....................................... 106
3. The Finding of the Appeals Chamber..................................................................... 107
C. Conclusion.................................................................................................................. 108
VI. The Third Ground of Cross-Appeal By the Prosecution:
the Trial Chamber’s Finding That Crimes Against Humanity
Cannot Be Committed For Purely Personal Motives.................................................... 109
A. Submissions of the Parties.......................................................................................... 109
1. The Prosecution Case.............................................................................................. 109
2. The Defence Case ................................................................................................... 111
B. Discussion................................................................................................................... 111
1. Article 5 of the Statute ............................................................................................ 112
2. The Object and Purpose of the Statute.................................................................... 114
3. Case-law as Evidence of Customary International Law ......................................... 115
C. Conclusion.................................................................................................................. 121
Case No.: -94-1-A
15 July 1999