100 “common criminal purpose” as distinct from that of aiding and abetting (couched in the terms of “participating as an accomplice [in] an offence”). Although the Convention is not yet in force, one should not underestimate the fact that it was adopted by consensus by all the members of the General Assembly. It may therefore be taken to constitute significant evidence of the legal views of a large number of States. 222. A substantially similar notion was subsequently laid down in Article 25 of the Statute of the International Criminal Court, adopted by a Diplomatic Conference in Rome on 17 July 1998 (“Rome Statute”). 280 At paragraph 3(d), this provision upholds the doctrine under discussion as follows: [In accordance with this Statute, a person shall be criminally responsible and liable for punishment for a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court if that person …] (d) In any other way [other than aiding and abetting or otherwise assisting in the commission or attempted commission of a crime ] contributes to the commission or attempted commission of such a crime by a group of persons acting with a common purpose. Such contribution shall be intentional and shall either: i. Be made with the aim of furthering the criminal activity or criminal purpose of the group, where such activity or purpose involves the commission of a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court; or ii. 223. Be made in the knowledge of the intention of the group to commit the crime. The legal weight to be currently attributed to the provisions of the Rome Statute has been correctly set out by Trial Chamber II in Furund`ija.281 There the Trial Chamber pointed out that the Statute is still a non-binding international treaty, for it has not yet entered into force. Nevertheless, it already possesses significant legal value. The Statute was adopted by an overwhelming majority of the States attending the Rome Diplomatic Conference and was substantially endorsed by the Sixth Committee of the United Nations General Assembly. This shows that that text is supported by a great number of States and may be taken to express the legal position i.e. opinio iuris of those States. This is consistent See also Report of the Ad Hoc Committee established by General Assembly resolution 51/210 of 17 December th 1996, UNGAOR, 52 nd sess., 37 supp., A/52/37. 280 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.183/9, 17 July 1998. 281 “Judgement”, Prosecutor v. Anto Furundžija, Case No.: IT-95-17/1-T, Trial Chamber II, 10 December 1998, para. 227. Case No.: -94-1-A 15 July 1999