78 is known as to who shot the victims or in what circumstances. 220 Accordingly, the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt was correctly applied. 221 177. In relation to the Prosecution’s common purpose submission, the Defence contends that it would have to be shown that the common purpose in which the Appellant allegedly took part included killing as opposed to ethnic cleansing by other means. 222 On the basis of the distinction between the operation in Jaski}i and the operation in Sivci where nobody was killed, the Trial Chamber was correct in concluding that it was not possible to find beyond reasonable doubt that the Appellant was involved in a criminal enterprise with the design of killing. 223 B. Discussion 1. The Armed Group to Which the Appellant Belonged Committed the Killings 178. The Trial Chamber found, amongst other facts, that on 14 June 1992, the Appellant, with other armed men, participated in the removal of men, who had been separated from women and children, from the village of Sivci to the Keraterm camp, and also participated in the calling-out of residents, the separation of men from women and children, and the beating and taking away of men in the village of Jaski}i. 224 It also found that five men were killed in the latter village. 225 179. In support of its finding that there was no proof beyond reasonable doubt that the Appellant had any part in the killing of the five men, the Trial Chamber stated: The fact that there was no killing at Sivci could suggest that the killing of villagers was not a planned part of this particular episode of ethnic cleansing of the two villages, in 219 Cross-Appellant’s Brief, para. 3.29. Defence’s Substituted Response to Cross-Appellant’s Brief, paras. 3.8-3.10; Defence’s Skeleton Argument on the Cross-Appeal, para. 2(c). 221 T. 251 (21 April 1999). 222 Defence’s Substituted Response to Cross-Appellant’s Brief, para. 3.19; Defence’s Skeleton Argument on the Cross-Appeal, para. 2(d). 223 Defence’s Substituted Response to Cross-Appellant’s Brief, paras. 3.9-3.10; Defence’s Skeleton Argument on the Cross-Appeal, para. 2(d). 224 Judgement, paras. 369, 373. 225 Ibid., paras. 370-373. 220 Case No.: -94-1-A 15 July 1999