39 cases such as that currently under discussion, what is required for criminal responsibility to arise is some measure of control by a Party to the conflict over the perpetrators. 116 97. It is nevertheless imperative to specify what degree of authority or control must be wielded by a foreign State over armed forces fighting on its behalf in order to render international an armed conflict which is prima facie internal. Indeed, the legal consequences of the characterisation of the conflict as either internal or international are extremely important. Should the conflict eventually be classified as international, it would inter alia follow that a foreign State may in certain circumstances be held responsible for violations of international law perpetrated by the armed groups acting on its behalf. (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 98. International humanitarian law does not contain any criteria unique to this body of law for establishing when a group of individuals may be regarded as being under the control of a State, that is, as acting as de facto State officials. 117 Consequently, it is necessary to 116 See also the ICRC Commentary to Article 29 of the Fourth Geneva Convention (Jean Pictet (ed.), Commentary: IV Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, International Committee of the Red Cross, Geneva, 1958, First Reprint, 1994, p. 212): “It does not matter whether the person guilty of treatment contrary to the Convention is an agent of the Occupying Power or in the service of the occupied State; what is important is to know where the decision leading to the unlawful act was made, where the intention was formed and the order given. If the unlawful act was committed at the instigation of the Occupying Power, then the Occupying Power is responsible; if, on the other hand, it was the result of a truly independent decision on the part of the local authorities, the Occupying Power cannot be held responsible.” 117 The Appeals Chamber is aware of another approach taken to the question of imputability in the area of international humanitarian law. The Appeals Chamber is referring to the view whereby by virtue of Article 3 of the IVth Hague Convention of 1907 and Article 91 of Additional Protocol I, international humanitarian law establishes a special regime of State responsibility; under this lex specialis States are responsible for all acts committed by their “armed forces” regardless of whether such forces acted as State officials or private persons. In other words, whether or not in an armed conflict individuals act in a private capacity, their acts are attributed to a State if such individuals are part of the “armed forces” of that State. This opinion was authoritatively set forth by some members of the International Law Commission (“ILC”) (Professor Reuter observed that “[i]t was now a principle of codified international law that States were responsible for all acts of their armed forces” (Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1975, vol. I, p. 7, para. 5). Professor Ago stated that the IVth Hague Convention of 1907 “made provision for a veritable guarantee covering all damage that might be caused by armed forces, whether they had acted as organs or as private persons” (ibid., p. 16, para. 4)). This view also has been forcefully advocated in the legal literature. As is clear from the reasoning the Appeals Chamber sets out further on in the text of this Judgement, even if this approach is adopted, the test of control as delineated by this Chamber remains indispensable for Case No.: -94-1-A 15 July 1999