A/HRC/8/14* page 8 international law. As such, deportations across constantly changing frontlines are insufficient under customary international law to ground a conviction for deportation.14 Further, following a review of ICTY jurisprudence and of relevant legal instruments, including article 49 of the fourth Geneva Convention relative to the protection of civilian persons in time of war, of 12 August 1949, the Appeals Chamber considered that the mens rea of the offence does not require an intent that the deportees should not return.15 The Appeals Chamber added that the participation of an NGO in facilitating displacements does not in and of itself render an otherwise unlawful transfer lawful.16 12. Nevertheless, the Appeals Chamber in Stakić concluded that “individuals who are displaced within the boundaries of the State or across de facto borders not within the definition of deportation remain protected by the law. Punishment for such forcible transfers may be assured by the adoption of proper pleading practices in the Prosecution’s indictments - it need not challenge existing concepts of international law”.17 (d) Individual criminal responsibility 13. In Stakic, the Appeals Chamber reviewed the Trial Chamber’s application of “co-perpetratorship”,18 rather than joint criminal enterprise, as a mode of liability of the accused. The Appeals Chamber held that such a mode of liability is new to the jurisprudence of the Tribunal, and the question of whether it is within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is an issue of general importance warranting the scrutiny of the Appeals Chamber, proprio motu. The Appeals Chamber thus intervened to assess whether the mode of liability applied by the Trial Chamber is consistent with the jurisprudence of the Tribunal. The Appeals Chamber found that the Trial Chamber erred in conducting its analysis of the responsibility of the appellant within the framework of “co-perpetratorship”, and stated that “this mode of liability, as defined and applied by the Trial Chamber, does not have support in customary international law, or in the settled jurisprudence of the Tribunal”.19 Thus, the Appeals Chamber then applied the correct legal framework - that of joint criminal enterprise - and held that the factual findings of the Trial Chamber support liability of the accused pursuant to the first and third categories of joint criminal enterprise. 14 Ibid., para. 303. 15 Ibid., para. 307. 16 Ibid., para. 286 17 Ibid., para. 302. 18 Ibid., para. 58. 19 Ibid., para. 62.