In international criminal law, three areas should be proven to support an allegation that an individual is criminally responsible for conduct: (a) The chapeaux or contextual elements (e.g., armed conflict, nexus); (b) All elements of the prohibited act as defined in the substantive law, i.e., the actus reus, including the mens rea;65 (c) The perpetrator fulfilled the criteria of a “mode of liability”. Also to be considered is: (d) Whether any defences absolve the individual of responsibility.66 As explained elsewhere, Commissions of Inquiry and other investigative bodies do not apply the same standards of proof applied in criminal investigations, and do not have the powers and, typically, resources attached to courts. An investigative body may conclude that a particular individual is responsible for an international crime when the adopted standard of proof is met with respect to each aspect from (a) to (c). When investigating the involvement of individuals in violations and crimes, investigative bodies should not only consider information that implicates individuals but also information that may exonerate them, in line with the principle of impartiality. Darfur (2005) “To render any discussion on perpetrators intelligible, two legal tools are necessary: the categories of crimes for which they may be suspected to be responsible, and the enumeration of the various ‘modes of participation’ [modes of liability] in international crimes under which the various persons may be suspected of bearing responsibility.” Report of the International Commission of Inquiry for Darfur, 2005, para. 530 As noted, the content or “elements” of the crimes themselves are generally set out in the statutes of international tribunals, in domestic legal regimes, or in customary law. The actions or omissions of the person(s) who participated in – or perpetrated – the crime (e.g., shooting a weapon, torturing, detonating a bomb, failing to punish subordinates who committed crimes) are often referred to as the actus reus. Evidence of the crime having occurred is known as “crime-based evidence”. Mens rea involves the intentionality or “mental state” of the actor, including what they knew and what they intended to achieve with their actions or omissions. It is a subjective element, not to be confused with “motive”, which refers to the outside events or triggers that prompted the perpetrator to undertake the crime (e.g., financial gain or revenge). Lower standards of proof typically employed by CoIs and similar investigative bodies make it easier to infer the existence of the requisite mens rea. When such inferences are drawn, this should be spelled out in the report. 66 In the Rome Statute, the defences are set out in art. 31. 65 COLLECTING AND ANALYSING THE INFORMATION 35