A/HRC/42/CRP.3 to provide it with services and resources, with the knowledge that these services might result in crimes under international law, the relevant business officials risk criminal liability.83 44. Under the rules of aiding and abetting, the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL) found that a perpetrator must have provided substantial assistance to the commission of a crime, must have had knowledge that the contribution would assist the commission of the crime, or at least have had awareness as to the substantial likelihood that the contribution would render assistance, and was aware of the crime’s “essential elements”, including the state of mind of the principal offender.84 The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) has held that the assistance must be specifically directed at a crime 85 but the accused does not need to know the exact crime that was intended and committed. It is not necessary that the person allegedly aiding and abetting knows the precise crime that was intended and that was committed but the person must be aware of the essential elements of the crime committed by the principal offender, including the principal offender’s state of mind.86 However, the aider and abettor does not need to share the intent of the principal offender87 nor do they even need to know who is committing the crime.88 The tribunal determined that, if the accused was “aware that one of a number of crimes will probably be committed, and one of those crimes is in fact committed, [the accused] has intended to facilitate the commission of that crime, and is guilty as an aider and abettor”.89 Activities that amount to a substantial contribution to the crime have been found by a number of international criminal courts to include allowing resources one is in control of and responsible for to be used by the principal perpetrators in the commission of the crime. The Appeals Chamber of the Special Court for Sierra Leone indicated that substantial contribution includes “providing financial support to an organisation committing crimes.” 90 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 “Developments in international criminal law and the case of business involvement in international crimes,” International Review of the Red Cross, Volume 94 Number 887 Autumn 2012. International Commission of Jurists Corporate Complicity & Legal Accountability: Report of the International Commission of Jurists Expert Legal Panel on Corporate Complicity in International Crimes, Volume 2: Criminal Law and International Crimes, 2008, p. 40-41. SCSL, Prosecutor v. Charles Ghankay Taylor, Case No. SCSL-03-01-T, Judgement (Trial Chamber II), 18 May 2012. ICTY, Prosecutor v. Momčilo Perišic´, Case No. IT-04-81-A, Judgement (Appeal Chamber), 28 January 2013, paragraph 29. Judgment, Nahimana, Barayagwiza and Ngeze (‘Media’) (ICTR-99-52-A), Appeals Chamber, 28 November 2007, § 482; Judgment, Perišić (IT-04-81-T), Trial Chamber, 6 September 2011, § 130; Judgment, Karemera et al. (ICTR-98-44-T), Trial Chamber, 2 February 2012, § 1430; Judgment, Brima, Kamara and Kanu (‘AFRC’) (SCSL-2004-16-A), Appeals Chamber, 22 February 2008, § 242243; Judgment, Fofana and Kondewa (‘CDF’) (SCSL-04-14-A), Appeals Chamber, 28 May 2008, § 367; Special Tribunal for Lebanon, Interlocutory Decision on the Applicable Law: Terrorism, Conspiracy, Homicide, Perpetration, Cumulative charging, STL-II-OI/I/AC/RI76bis, Appeals Chamber, 16 February 2011, § 227; Judgment, Haradinaj at al. (IT-04-84bis-T), Trial Chamber, 29 November 2012, § 627; Judgment, Tolimir (IT-05-88/2-T), Trial Chamber, 12 December 2012, § 911; Judgment, Stanišić and Župljanin (IT-08-91-T), Trial Chamber, 27 March 2013, § 108; Judgment, Stanišić and Simatović (IT-03-69-T), Trial Chamber, 30 May 2013, § 1264; Šainović et al. (IT-05-87A), Appeals Chamber, 23 January 2014, § 1773; Judgment, Popović et al. (IT-05-88-A), Appeals Chamber, 30 January 2015, §§ 1751, 1754 and 1794; Judgment, Karadžić (IT-95-5/18-T), Trial Chamber, March 24, 2016, § 577; Judgment, Mladić, (IT-09-92-T), Trial Chamber, November 22, 2017, § 3567. Judgment, Seromba (ICTR-2001-66-I), Trial Chamber, 13 December 2006, § 309; Judgment, Popović et al. (IT-05-88-A), Appeals Chamber, 30 January 2015, § 1794; Judgment, Šešelj (IT-03-67-T) March 31, 2016, Trial Chamber, § 353; Judgment, Mladić, (IT-09-92-T), Trial Chamber, November 22, 2017, § 3567. Judgment, Brđanin (IT-99-36-A), Appeals Chamber, 3 April 2007, §§ 108 and 355; Judgment, Ngirabatware (MICT-12-29-A), December 18, 2014, Appeals Chamber, § 149. ICTY, Prosecutor v. Tihomir Blaškić, Case No.: IT-95-14-A, Judgement (Appeals Chamber), 29 July 2004, para. 50. For a number of other examples, see Judgment, Taylor (SCSL-04-01-T), Appeals Chamber, 26 September 2013, § 369. See, e.g., Flick Case; Bagaragaza Sentencing Judgment, para. 25 (Bagaragaza provided a substantial amount of money for the purpose of buying alcohol to motivate the Interahamwe to continue with the killings). 17