Can an individual be found to have committed crimes within the meaning of international criminal law: international crimes?

Accomplices as well as principal actors may be found to have committed crimes within the meaning of international criminal law: international crimes. The concept of complicity is recognized in the caselaw, defined as personal and knowing participation, and complicity by association, whereby individuals may be rendered responsible for the acts of others because of their close and voluntary association with the principal actors in an organization that commits international crimes. Complicity rests on the existence of a shared common purpose and the knowledge that the individual in question has of the commission of the crimes (Zazai, above, at para. 27, aff’d 2005 FCA 303; Ryivuze v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FC 134, 325 F.T.R. 30, at para. 28).

Mere membership in an organization which from time to time commits international offences is not normally sufficient to bring one into the category of an accomplice. At the same time, where the organization’s primary objective is achieved by means of crimes against humanity, or it is directed to a limited, brutal purpose, membership will generally be sufficient to establish complicity (Zazai, FC, above, at para. 28; Thomas v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FC 838, 317 F.T.R. 6, at para. 23).