## Facts

- The case concerned alleged crimes committed in the Central African Republic (CAR) during 2002–2003 by troops of the Mouvement de Libération du Congo (MLC), a Congolese armed group.
- Jean‑Pierre Bemba Gombo was alleged to be the MLC’s president and commander-in-chief and to have exercised effective authority and control over MLC forces deployed to CAR.
- The Prosecutor alleged MLC forces committed widespread murder, rape, and pillaging against civilians in CAR.
- After CAR referred the situation to the court, Bemba was arrested in Belgium (May 2008) and surrendered to the court (July 2008).
- A confirmation-of-charges hearing was held to determine whether the evidentiary threshold for committing the accused to trial was met.
- The decision addressed responsibility primarily under command responsibility (Rome Statute Article 28), along with the general mental element (Article 30) and the propriety of cumulative charging.

## Issues

1. What evidentiary standard governs confirmation of charges under Article 61(7), and how it differs from standards for arrest and conviction.
2. How Article 30’s “intent and knowledge” requirement should be interpreted, including whether it includes *dolus eventualis*.
3. What elements are required to establish command responsibility under Article 28, including effective authority/control, knowledge standards, and required preventive or repressive measures.
4. Whether, and to what extent, cumulative charging is permissible at the confirmation stage and how legal characterization should be selected.

## Decision

- The Pre-Trial Chamber confirmed charges in part and declined to confirm other proposed charges or characterizations that did not meet the confirmation standard or were improperly cumulative.
- The Chamber found substantial grounds to believe Bemba was responsible under Article 28 for:
  - Crimes against humanity: murder and rape.
  - War crimes: murder, rape, and pillaging.
- The Chamber committed Bemba to trial on the confirmed counts.
- The Chamber clarified that Article 61(7)’s “substantial grounds to believe” is higher than the “reasonable grounds to believe” required for an arrest warrant and lower than “proof beyond reasonable doubt” required for conviction.
- The Chamber interpreted Article 30 to require awareness that a consequence will occur “in the ordinary course of events,” rejecting a broader approach equating intent with mere risk-foresight associated with some domestic forms of *dolus eventualis*.
- The Chamber treated Article 28 as a distinct, omission-based form of liability grounded in a superior’s failure to prevent, repress, or report crimes by subordinates within the superior’s effective authority and control.

## Legal Principles

- Confirmation of charges requires “substantial grounds to believe,” a mid-level evidentiary threshold that screens charges before trial and is distinct from arrest and conviction standards.
- Article 30 limits the default mental element to intent and knowledge; intent as to consequences requires meaning to cause the consequence or awareness it will occur in the ordinary course of events, not merely awareness of a possibility.
- Article 28 command responsibility is distinct from direct perpetration and is based on breach of a legal duty to act; liability may arise from omission where the superior had effective authority/control, met the knowledge standard (knew or should have known/consciously disregarded information), and failed to take necessary and reasonable measures to prevent, repress, or submit the matter to competent authorities.
- Effective authority and control requires a material ability to prevent or repress crimes or to refer them for investigation and prosecution.
- Cumulative charging may be permissible at the pre-trial stage, but the Prosecutor must select the most appropriate legal characterization supported by the evidence, and the court may restrict duplicative characterizations.

## Conclusion

The Chamber committed Bemba to trial after confirming substantial grounds to believe he bore command responsibility for specified crimes against humanity and war crimes, while also providing influential interpretations of the Rome Statute’s confirmation standard, Article 30 mental elements, and Article 28 superior responsibility, including limits on cumulative charging.


Prosecutor v. Bemba, ICC-01/05-01/08-424 (Int’l Crim. Ct. Pre-Trial Chamber II 2009)