101 with the view that the mode of accomplice liability under discussion is well-established in international law and is distinct from aiding and abetting. 282 224. As pointed out above, the doctrine of acting in pursuance of a common purpose is rooted in the national law of many States. Some countries act upon the principle that where multiple persons participate in a common purpose or common design, all are responsible for the ensuing criminal conduct, whatever their degree or form of participation, provided all had the intent to perpetrate the crime envisaged in the common purpose. If one of the participants commits a crime not envisaged in the common purpose or common design, he alone will incur criminal responsibility for such a crime. These countries include Germany283 and the Netherlands. 284 Other countries also uphold the principle whereby if persons take part in a common plan or common design to commit a crime, all of them are criminally responsible for the crime, whatever the role played by each of them. However, in these countries, if one of the persons taking part in a common criminal plan or enterprise perpetrates another offence that was outside the common plan but nevertheless foreseeable, those persons are all fully liable for that offence. These countries include civil law systems, such as that of France285 and Italy. 286 282 Even should it be argued that the objective and subjective elements of the crime, laid down in Article 25 (3) of the Rome Statute differ to some extent from those required by the case law cited above, the consequences of this departure may only be appreciable in the long run, once the Court is established. This is due to the inapplicability to Article 25(3) of Article 10 of the Statute, which provides that “?ngothing in this Part shall be interpreted as limiting or prejudicing in any way existing or developing rules of international law for purposes other than this Statute”. This provision does not embrace Article 25, as this Article appears in Part 2 of the Statute, whereas Article 25 is included in Part 3. 283 See Para. 25(2) of the Strafgesetzbuch: “Begehen mehrere die Straftat gemeinschaftlich, so wird jeder als Täter bestraft (Mittäter)”. (“If several persons commit a crime as co-perpetrators, each is liable to punishment as a principal perpetrator.” (unofficial translation)). The German case law has clearly established the principle whereby if an offence is perpetrated that had not been envisaged in the common criminal plan, only the author of this offence is criminally responsible for it. See BGH GA 85, 270. According to the German Federal Court (in BGH GA 85, 270): “Mittäterschaft ist anzunehmen, wenn und soweit das Zusammenwirken der mehreren Beteiligten auf gegenseitigem Einverständnis beruht, während jede rechtsverletzende Handlung eines Mittäters, die über dieses Einverständnis hinausgeht, nur diesem allein zuzurechnen ist”. (“There is co-perpetration (Mittäterschaft) when and to the extent that the joint action of the several participants is founded on a reciprocal agreement (Einverständnis), whereas any criminal action of a participant (Mittäter) going beyond this agreement can only be attributed to that participant.” (unofficial translation)). 284 In the Netherlands, the term designated for this form of criminal liability is “medeplegen”. (See HR 6 December 1943, NJ 1944, 245; HR 17 May 1943, NJ 1943, 576; and HR 6 April 1925, NJ 1925, 723, W 11393). 285 See Article 121-7 of the Code pénal, which reads: “Est complice d’un crime ou d’un délit la personne qui sciemment, par aide ou assistance, en a facilité la préparation ou la consommation. Est également complice la personne qui par don, promesse, menace, ordre, abus d’autorité ou de pouvoir aura provoqué à une infraction ou donné des instructions pour la commettre”. (“Any person who knowingly has assisted in planning or committing a crime or Case No.: -94-1-A 15 July 1999