A/HRC/8/16 page 14 In some of these cases knowledge was also imputed from the position and experience of the individual in the company - for instance where the individual occupied a particular position of authority or influence.32 2. Domestic criminal liability 45. Criminal law in many States prohibits providing knowing assistance to someone who commits a crime. Even if the terminology aiding and abetting is not always used in domestic systems, the domestic standards generally resemble the international criminal law concept of aiding and abetting.33 46. A number of domestic jurisdictions allow for holding legal persons, including companies, criminally liable for at least some international crimes. Provided these jurisdictions also have aiding and abetting liability, it will generally be possible to criminally prosecute companies for aiding and abetting such crimes.34 47. The particular requirements for knowledge and the type of assistance provided will vary according to national laws.35 However, when the crime being prosecuted is a violation of international criminal law, the national courts may choose to employ international criminal law standards.36 32 See United States v. von Weizsaecker, Trials of War Criminals, vol. XIV pp. 622. 33 Anita Ramasastry and Robert C. Thompson, Commerce, Crime and Conflict: Legal Remedies for Private Sector Liability for Grave Breaches of International Law (2006), Executive Summary, p. 17, available at: www.fafo.no/liabilities. [hereinafter Fafo Report] 34 Ibid. The survey of 16 countries from a cross section of jurisdictions and regions found that 11 countries had established criminal liability for corporations. These countries were Australia, Belgium, Canada, France, India, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, South Africa, the United Kingdom and the United States (p. 13). While there were some differences in what international crimes corporations could be prosecuted for depending on whether the State was a party to and had fully incorporated the Rome Statute’s three crimes into its domestic law, all of these States had incorporated international crimes in some fashion (p. 15). Further, all of these States had legislation in place establishing aiding and abetting liability (p. 17). 35 Ibid., pp. 17-22. For instance, the concept of “corporate culture” may be a relevant element in deciding whether the company had the requisite knowledge or intent to aid or abet the commission of the crime. For more information see: “Corporate Culture as a Basis for the Criminal Liability of Corporations” prepared for the Special Representative by the law firm Allens Arthur Robinson, available at: http://www.reports-and-materials.org/ Allens-Arthur-Robinson-Corporate-Culture-paper-for-Ruggie-Feb-2008.pdf. 36 Fafo Report, p. 19.