A/HRC/8/16 page 13 the commission of the crime.25 However, aiding and abetting has not required that the individual share the same criminal intent as the principal, or even desire that the crime occur.26 It is also not necessary to show that the accused knew either the precise crime that was intended and which was actually committed, but only that one of several possible crimes might be committed.27 43. The knowledge requirement can be established through direct and indirect or circumstantial evidence. Therefore objective facts can be used to infer the subjective mental state of the accused,28 and constructive knowledge could be inferred even where the accused has not explicitly expressed that they had such knowledge or in fact denied they had knowledge.29 44. What would be required to prove knowledge on the part of a company would depend on the context. The international criminal law cases imposing liability on individuals for their role in abuse by companies during the Second World War imputed knowledge to individuals by looking to information readily available to the company representative about the perpetrator at the time the company provided the assistance. This included records of meetings,30 or the context of the business transaction, such as unusually large orders for harmful chemical substances.31 25 The ICC has yet to interpret the Rome Statute’s provision on aiding and abetting, which states that liability will arise if “for the purpose of facilitating” a crime, an individual, “aids, abets or otherwise assists in its commission or its attempted commission, including providing the means for its commission”. There is some disagreement whether the words “for the purpose of” place an additional requirement that what has been used in the ad hoc tribunals and what is now considered custom, that is whether there is an extra requirement of proof that the contribution was given for the purpose of facilitating a crime. 26 Simić (ICTY Appeals Chamber), 28 November 2006, para. 86; and Aleksovski (ICTY Appeals Chamber), 24 March 2000, para. 162. 27 Blaskic (ICTY Appeals Chamber), 29 July 2005, para. 50; and Simić (ICTY Appeals Chamber), 28 November 2006, para. 86. 28 See United States v. Carl Krauch, et al (The Farben Case), Trials of War Criminals, vol. VIII, p. 1187; Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal (1947), vol. 1, Judgment, pp. 305-306; Tadic (ICTY Trial Chamber), 7 May 1997, paras. 675-676 and 689; Akayesu (ICTR Trial Chamber), 2 September 1998, para. 548; and Aleksovski (ICTY Trial Chamber), 25 June 1999, para. 65. 29 Limaj (ICTY Trial Chamber), 30 November 2005, para. 518; see also Fofana & Kondewa (Special Court for Sierra Leone Trial Chamber), 7 August 2007, para. 231. 30 The Zyklon B case Trial of Bruno Tesch and two others, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, vol. I, p. 95, available at: http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/WCC/zyklonb.htm. 31 Ibid., p. 101.