77 rational. 212 The use of such terms as “bare possibility”213 and “could suggest”214 indicates the misapplication of the test of proof beyond reasonable doubt. 215 175. As to the second error, the Prosecution submits that the gist of the common purpose doctrine is that if a person knowingly participates in a criminal activity with others, he or she will be liable for all illegal acts that are natural and probable consequences of that common purpose. 216 The Trial Chamber found that the Appellant’s participation in the attack on Sivci and Jaski}i was part of the armed conflict in the territory of Prijedor municipality between May and December 1992. A central aspect of the attack was a policy to rid the region of the non-Serb population by committing inhumane and violent acts against them in order to achieve the creation of a Greater Serbia. According to the Prosecution, the only conclusion reasonably open from all the evidence is that the killing of the five victims was entirely predictable as part of the natural and probable consequences of the attack on the villages of Sivci and Jaski}i on 14 June 1992. 217 It is the Prosecution’s submission that this policy of ethnic cleansing was carried out throughout opština Prijedor against non-Serbs by various illegal means, including killings. 218 In this regard, the Appellant’s actions and presence did directly and substantially assist that policy. It follows that, regardless of which member or members of the Serb forces actually killed the five victims, the Appellant should have been found guilty under Article 7(1) of the Statute. 219 2. The Defence Case 176. The Defence submits that, in light of its finding that nobody was killed in Sivci on 14 June 1992, the Trial Chamber correctly found that it was a possibility that the five victims in Jaski}i were killed by another, distinct group of armed men, especially as nothing 212 Skeleton Argument of the Prosecution, para. 42. Judgement, para. 373: “The bare possibility that the deaths of the Jaski}i villagers were the result of encountering a part of that large force would be enough […] to prevent satisfaction beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was involved in those deaths.” 214 Ibid., para. 373: “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 which the accused took part […].” 215 T. 172 (20 April 1999). 216 Cross-Appellant’s Brief, para. 3.19. 217 Ibid., paras. 3.24, 3.27. 218 Cross-Appellant’s Brief, paras. 3.27-3.29; T. 179-180 (20 April 1999). 213 Case No.: -94-1-A 15 July 1999