Superior Responsibility Definition

1035 Words5 Pages
Definition and elements of superior responsibility 2. Superior responsibility is a form of liability at the international level that involves a positive duty to act to prevent omission of a crime . 3. Superior responsibility can be defined in following way: A superior, whether de jure or de facto, may be held criminally accountable under the doctrine of superior or command responsibility in connection to crimes committed by his subordinates where, at the time relevant to the charges, he was in a superior-subordinate relationship with the perpetrators, knew or, owing to the circumstances should have known that these crimes had been committed or were about to be committed and, with and despite the knowledge, wilfully and culpably failed to…show more content…
The accused either knew or under the circumstances, should have known (applies only to military commanders), that the subordinates were committing or were about to commit crimes . III. The accused failed to take the necessary and reasonable measures within his power to prevent or repress (stop and punish) the commission of the crimes or to submit the matter to the competent authorities for investigation and prosecution . IV. The crime resulted because of the accused 's failure to properly control the forces under his or her command. Difference between individual and superior responsibility 6. The difference between individual and superior responsibility is that under the individual responsibility the accused is directly committing the crime or he contributes to the commission of the crime . However, under the superior responsibility, the accused is distinct from the crime, the responsibility arises where there 's failure to prevent or punish the crime so there is no commission but omission. Analysis of all relevant facts to each element of the doctrine of superior responsibility 1. Superior-subordinate relationship 1.1. The first step is to establish the existence of a hierarchical relationship between the Accused and GNP armed…show more content…
Furthermore, he planned, ordered and instigated an attack on the Pasta ethnic group in Blueland. 1.4. Therefore, the Accused was effectively acting as a military commander. 2. Effective authority and control over the GNP armed forces 2.1. The Accused 's effective authority and control can be established with respect to him being the elected leader of the GNP. During the commission of the crimes, the Accused maintained contact with the commanders of its armed groups and detention camp commanders. He has the material ability to prevent or to punish the commission of a crime. 3. Knowledge that GNP armed forces were committing or were about to commit the crimes 3.1. Under the Article 28 of the Rome Statute there are two forms of knowledge: 1) Actual knowledge , where the superior is aware of the fact that his subordinates were about to commit or had committed crimes; and, 2) Constructive knowledge , that superior possessed information which allowed him to notice of the present and real risk of such offenses. There are different standards for military commanders and civilian
Open Document