The Trial Chamber did not find that aiding and abetting had been established, principally relying on the Perisic standard. The Appeals Chamber rejected the specific direction requirement and held that the Trial Chamber erred in law.
1. Practical assistance, encouragement, or moral support with “a substantial effect on the perpetration of the crime” (¶ 104)
2. Knowledge that these acts assist the commission of the offense (¶ 104)
ACTUS REUS: Citing the Sainovic Appeal Judgment, the Appeals Chamber affirmed that “specific direction is not an element of aiding and abetting liability” (¶ 104).