PART II FOCUS ON COMMAND AND SUPERIOR RESPONSIBILITY In the previous section we described the many ways perpetrators could be involved in committing a crime. Now we are going to focus on “command and superior responsibility”, one of the six general modes of liability (MOL). We are going to focus on this MOL because it is often the role that high-level, remote commanders play in committing crimes where widespread and systemic human rights violations are happening. It’s important to understand so that you can capture video footage that could help prove it! Once you have proved which crimes were committed, a remote commander can be held responsible if there is enough evidence to link the commander to the crimes on the ground. Below we will explore the three elements that lawyers must prove in order to hold the commander accountable. ELEMENT 1 Had effective command and control over his or her people. ELEMENT 2 Knew or should have known his or her people were committing crimes. ELEMENT 3 Failed to take action to stop the commission of those crimes. KEY DEFINITIONS Command and superior responsibility are basically the same thing with one key difference. Command responsibility applies to military leaders. Superior responsibility applies to civilian leaders. Here we will use the term remote commander to refer to military, paramilitary and civilian commanders. A remote commander tends to be a high-level military, paramilitary or civilian commander who does not go into the field and instead controls people from a location that is a safe distance away from the frontlines. 119 VIDEO AS EVIDENCE: PROVING RESPONSIBILITY V 1.0 FILMING “Command and superior responsibility” is the principle that leaders, both military and civilian, can be responsible for the crimes committed by their forces if they were aware of the crimes and failed to prevent them.