BRIEF APPEAL CHAMBERS OPINION Introduction This is an appeal of the Trial Chambers Decision holding that [a]lthough General

Biambi was not technically General Cedericks subordinate and although we found no e!idence that General Cederick knew that General Biambi would order the massacre at Togoland "#uare we nonetheless find Cederick criminally liable under both command responsibility and $oint criminal enterprise liability and sentence him to %& years in prison'( Standard of Review )nder *rticle %+ of the "tatute of the Tribunal the *ppeals Chamber re!iews only errors of law which ha!e the potential to in!alidate the decision of the trial chamber and errors of fact which ha!e occasioned a miscarriage of $udgment' Issue ,hether or not the Trial Chamber erred in ruling that General Cederick is liable under both command responsibility and $oint criminal enterprise liability' Discussion A. Command Responsibility )nder *rticle -./%0 of the *dditional 1rotocol 2 of 3455 to the Gene!a Con!entions of 34+4 pro!ides that6 the fact that a breach7 was committed by a subordinate does not absol!e his superiors from7 responsibility7 if he knew or had information which should ha!e enabled them to conclude in the circumstances at the time that he was committing or about to commit such a breach and if they did not take all feasible measures within their power to pre!ent or repress the breach'( 2t is crystal clear that General Cederick cannot be held accountable under the command responsibility' 8irst the Trial Chamber acknowledged the fact that Biambi was not General Cedericks subordinate' General Cederick therefore has no effecti!e control o!er Biambis act' "econd General Cederick has no knowledge or information which should ha!e enabled him to conclude that Biambi is committing a deplorable act by ordering the massacre of se!en thousand ci!ilians' Blind of the plans of Biambi General Cederick cannot be faulted for failing to make measures to pre!ent such wrongful act'

B. Joint Criminal Enterprise Liability )nder the 9oint Criminal :nterprise ;iability all the participants are responsible for acts committed on the basis of a common plan or purpose' ,as there a common design to eliminate the thousands of demonstrators< ,as there a common purpose of eradicating dissents on their administration of Togoland< The answer is ob!iously no' Conclusion :rgo the $udgment of the Trial Chamber must be re!ersed' General Cederick is not responsible for the criminal act committed by Biambi'