ELEMENT 1 Prove They Had Effective Command And Control Over Their People To be held accountable for crimes via command or superior responsibility, a remote commander must have what is called “effective command and control over the people that committed the crimes”. In other words, the commander must have the actual power to make and execute decisions. It’s not enough that a commander have power granted by a legal document or constitution. He or she actually has to be in charge of the troops who committed the crimes. Let’s look at two examples and a Field Note to understand what effective command control means. EXAMPLE: Effective Command in England Question: Which of the below is the effective commander of the British Armed Forces in 2015? A: The Queen of England B: Prime Minister Cameron C: Chief of Defence Staff Sir Houghton ? D: Other Answer: According to England’s constitution, the Queen of England is the Commander-in-Chief of the UK’s Armed Forces. However, in practice, the British government has authority over the military and commands the Armed Forces through the Ministry of Defence. So, if you answered B or C, you have a good understanding of the principle behind effective command! In other words, the Queen has command power only on paper, not in practice. The Prime Minister and Commander-in-Chief have effective command. Since the Queen only has power-on-paper and not power-in-fact, she can’t be held accountable for the actions of the UK’s armed forces (unless, of course, things change in England!). The Prime Minister and Commander-in-Chief on the other hand, can be held accountable. 120 VIDEO AS EVIDENCE: PROVING RESPONSIBILITY V 1.0 FILMING KEY PRINCIPLE