International Crime and Sexual Violence as a War Crime

Case Title & Citation  

• Prosecutor v Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo 
• Trial Chamber Judgment: ICC-01/05-01/08-3343 (21 March 2016) 
• Appeals Chamber Judgment: ICC-01/05-01/08-3636-Red (8 June 2018)  

Court & Judges 

This case was heard at the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague.  

• Trial Chamber 3: Judge Sylvia Steiner (Presiding), Judge Joyce Aluoch, Judge Kuniko Ozaki  
• Appeals Chamber: Panel including Judges Van den Wyngaert, Eboe-Osuji, and others 

Dates  

• Trial Judgement: 21 March 2016 
• Sentencing: 21 June 2016 
• Appeal Judgment: 8 June 2018 (final outcome) 

Parties Involved 

• Prosecution: Office of the Prosecutor, International Criminal Court (ICC)
• Accused: Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, who is a Congolese military and political leader that led the MLC (Movement for the Liberation of Congo) and is facing charges as  the commanding officer rather than as the direct perpetrator 

Background and Facts  

This case originated from the events that took place during the armed conflict in the Central  African Republic between 2002 and 2003, at this time Ange-Félix Patassé was the current  president who was facing an attempted coup by personnel that were loyal to General François  Bozizé. The current president Patassé requested assistance from their neighbouring country  the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) which is where Bemba agreed to send troops from  his militia group (the MLC) into the Central African Republic to help support the then  president’s government.  

The MLC militia group entered Bangui and its surrounding areas and remained there for  several months. During this time, reports of murder, pillaging and rape carried out by the  MLC soldiers were made by the citizens of these areas. Many of the rapes were done as a  sign of intimidation or retaliation. The homes of these civilians were looted and caused the  displacement of families.  

Even though Bemba did not commit these crimes personally or enter the Central African  Republic with his troops, he still remained the military and political leader of the MLC and  with this authority he continued to direct the operations that were taking place all the way in  from the DRC. He had received reports from his soldiers in the field and was made aware of  the overall conduct of his troops in the Central African Republic.  

This case focuses on whether Bemba’s role as a remote commander had enough control and  information to be legally responsible for the actions of his soldiers under Article 28 of the  Rome Statute, which specifically deals with command responsibility. 

Legal Issues 

Main questions brought before the Court:  

• Whether Bemba had effective control over the MLC troops he sent and were  operating in the Central African Republic? 
• Did he know or should he have known about the crimes that were being committed?
• Did he take the necessary precautions to prevent the crimes from happening?
• Did he punish any of the soldiers responsible for said crimes?  
• How should Article 28 of the Rome Statute be implemented to commanders that have  to direct and lead their soldiers from another country?  

These issues became a major element to the case of how far a commander’s responsibility can  stretch.  

Arguments of the Parties  

Prosecution’s Argument 

The prosecution argued that:  

• Bemba remained in charge of the troops even while they were operating outside of the  Democratic Republic of Congo  
• Regular communication between Bemba and his troops was present, which included  updates on the troop’s actions  
• Eary known knowledge of the rape and crime reports by Bemba 
• The superficial actions he took because of the knowledge he had of the crimes instead  of stopping them such as public statements for discipline and sending investigators 

The Prosecution stated that Bemba had both the authority and opportunity to act accordingly  but failed to do so. 

Defence’s Argument 

The defence argued the following:  

• Bemba was not in complete command of the troops because once they enter the  Central African Republic, they fell under that governments command. 
• Bemba did take actions to address these allegations and reports through  communicating with the commanders and internal investigations. 
• The crimes were not planned but were actions done by individuals who were acting  outside of their orders. 
• The Prosecution has failed to prove that Bemba had enough control over his troops to  punish these crimes, prevent or stop them especially since he was in a different  country. 
• They argued that Bemba could not be held liable for the actions and crimes committed by his troops as their commander under Article 28 of the Roman Statute. 

Final Decision  

Trial Chamber (2016)  

The Trial Chamber found Bemba guilty of the following:  

• War crimes: murder: rape, pillaging 
• Crimes against humanity: murder, rape  

He was then sentenced to 18 years in prison, which was the longest sentence the ICC has ever  issued at that time.  

The Chamber held that:  

• Bemba has enough command authority over the MLC troops that were sent to the  Central African Republic. 
• He knew or should have been notified about the crimes committed. 
• His response to the reports was not enough and did nothing to prevent any further  crimes.

Appeals Chamber (2018)  

The Appeals Chamber overturned Bemba’s conviction as a whole and proceeded to acquit him. It determined that:  

• The Trial Chamber did not properly consider the types of difficulties Bemba faced as  a commander working remotely. 
• The standard that was put and used to judge Bemba on the basis of “he should have  done” was set too high and questionable. 
• The Prosecution did not meet the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
• The suggestion of preventative measures was unrealistic under those circumstances at  the time 

This meant that Bemba was fully cleared of all the charges relating to war crimes and crimes  against humanity.  

Legal Reasoning (Ratio Decidendi) 

Trial Chamber’s Reasoning  

The Trial Chamber had applied Article 28 of the Rome Statute to come to the conclusion that  as commander:  

• Must take all reasonable and necessary actions once they are made aware of  misconduct.  
• They can be held responsible if they fail to take purposeful actions to prevent crimes  from happening. 
• Does not need to be physically present to have full control over their soldiers. 

For the Trial Chamber, the scale of these crimes and patterns should have suggested that  Bemba needed to do more. 

Appeals Chamber’s Reasoning  

The Appeals Chamber took a different approach that emphasised:  

• The Trial Chamber had failed to properly assess Bemba’s political and logistical  limits. 
• Responsibility must be judged based on what a commander realistically can do.
• Actions should not be measured with unrealistic expectations or through hindsight.  

The Appeals Chamber indicated a more cautious and narrower interpretation of a  commander’s responsibility.  

Significance of the Case 

This case still remains one of those international criminal law case decisions that are widely  discussed because:  

• It was the first ICC (International Criminal Court) conviction that was based primarily  on command responsibility.  
• It influenced later discussions on how the ICC handles cross-border conflicts and  leadership liability.  
• It dealt with sexual violence in conflict on a large scale, which made it a milestone for  victims of gender-based crimes.  
• The appeals judgment raises concerns on how gaps in accountability by commanders  and the burden of proof required to convict high-level commanders could cause some issues.  

The outcome from both the Trail Chamber and the Appeals Chamber demonstrated how  complex it can be to prosecute military leaders who operate remotely or through multi  layered chains of command. 

References 

OSCOLA Bibliography  

Primary Sources 

Prosecutor v Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo (Judgment) ICC-01/05-01/08-3343 (Trial Chamber  III, 21 March 2016) https://iccforum.com/media/background/responsibility/2016-03-21-ICC Prosecutor_v_Jean-Pierre_Bemba_Gombo-Judgment-Trial_Chamber.pdf. 

Prosecutor v Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo (Judgment on Appeal) ICC-01/05-01/08-3636-Red  (Appeals Chamber, 8 June 2018) https://www.icc  cpi.int/sites/default/files/CourtRecords/CR2018_02984.PDF. 

Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 17 July 1998, UN Doc A/CONF.183/9  (entered into force 1 July 2002) art 28 https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/2024- 05/Rome-Statute-eng.pdf accessed 21 November 2025. 

Secondary ICC Sources 

International Criminal Court, ‘Summary of the Judgment on the Appeal of Jean-Pierre Bemba  Gombo’ (8 June 2018) https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/itemsDocuments/180608- bemba-judgment-summary.pdf. 

International Criminal Court, ‘Case Information Sheet: The Prosecutor v Jean-Pierre Bemba  Gombo’ (ICC) https://www.icc cpi.int/sites/default/files/CaseInformationSheets/BembaEng.pdf. 

International Criminal Court, ‘ICC Appeals Chamber Acquits Mr Bemba of Charges of War  Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity’ (Press Release, 8 June 2018) https://www.icc cpi.int/news/icc-appeals-chamber-acquits-mr-bemba-charges-war-crimes-and-crimes-against humanity.

Academic / Journal Sources  

O’Sullivan C, ‘New court, same division: The Bemba case as an illustration of the continued  confusion regarding the command responsibility doctrine’ (2022) 35 Leiden Journal of  International Law 661 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/leiden-journal-of international-law/article/new-court-same-division-the-bemba-case-as-an-illustration-of-the continued-confusion-regarding-the-command-responsibility doctrine/7F320A0954D0A25EFF5819C17CDC6107 accessed [20 November 2025].