conclusion of the applicants complicity in crimes against humanity 43] The office r's conclusion with a licent's complicity in certain crimes against humanity as based on the RED's 2003 decision The RFD applied the rest se. out in Ramirez . Conuda Minister of Employment and Immigration. [19-2] / F- 206 at para 24. of DLR (4th, 17'). where the Fed .a. Count of Appeal defined coupont n term of n muexmip in an organizat princip-lly directed to a limited, brutal purpose" in the conducof its affairs. This reasoning a he case law that ensued were explicitly rejected by the Sup eme Court in Ezokola. 44] In Econola, at para o1, the Supreme Court re ected the test according to which "a conce f complicity [can leave room] for guilt by association or passive acquiescence". The Court tated that this test violated fundamental international and Canadian criminal law principles pursuant to Article 1(F)(a) of the Refugee Convention. The Court therefore set out a test that equires evaluating whether the accused "has voluntarily made a significant and knowing contribution to the organization's crime or criminal purpose" (uzokola at para 84). Application of res j idicata 45] A wealth of decisions of the Federal Court of Appeal and this Court support the pplication of res judicata, pointing out that the Minister's discretion with respect to HAC pplications cannot be applied directly or indirectly to review the facts or the RPD's conclusions The courts have also held that applicants cannot raise subsequent changes to the case law to enefit from a change in the law and therefore undermine res judicata. This situation arises in