text: arime. In any case, responsibility remained individualr it dependod on the role played by the person concerned in the perpetration of the arime, even if it wae aggravated by the exiatenae of an organisation within which the perpetrators acted. On that point ,one member observed that if the Commission Gpted for the principle of individual responsibility embodied in the second alternative text, paragraph (2) would be superfluous, booauae the Code already aontained a provision on individual reeponaibility. 65 . One member strmsed that the principle of individual reeponsibility should be treated to the fullest possible extent as the bash principle in the case of war crimes. The notion of conspiracy, if the Commission decided to include it in tho draft Code, should apply only to crimes against peace and genocide, as provided in article III of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of tha Crime of Qonocide. 64. Several members claw no roe1 contradiction between tho principle of individual reeponsibility and that of collective responeibility. One member thought that the two al.ternativo toxts proposed for paragraph (2) were more in the nature of complementary provisioner the first defined the crime of conspiracy, while the second doterminod the dogroe of culpability and hence the penalties incurred by the various participants in the conspiracy. In his view, if the text of the draft article were recarvt on those lines, it would probably attract goneral approval. Each participant in a conspiracy was responsible not only for the acts he personally committed, but also for all - 26 -the aots aommitted aolleatively by all the partiee to the conepiracy, even if he himself had not been present at the time of their commission. The degree of aulpability and the penalty imposed should, howewr, be related to the partiaipation of sash individual in the execution. of the aommcln plan.
analysis: The text appears to be discussing a legal framework or code, specifically addressing the principles of responsibility and culpability in the context of war crimes and conspiracy. The language used is formal and technical, suggesting a focus on legal or judicial matters. The discussion also implies a consideration of collective responsibility, which is often relevant in the context of international law and human rights.