The defense of duress provides that an individual who commits a crime under the threat of serious bodily harm is excused from criminal responsibility. The defense traditionally was not available under the common law to an individual who kills another person although it might be considered in mitigation of punishment. Civil law countries are divided on this question, and some countries, along with the International Criminal Court, recognize duress as a defense when the crime is proportionate to the threatened harm. In 1995, Draen Erdemovi, a low-ranking member of the Bosnian Serb Army, was involved in an ethnic conflict against Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats following the breakup of Yugoslavia. A number of unarmed, civilian Muslim men were detained by Serb forces and transported to an open field. These men ranged in age from 17 to 70 and, under the law of war, were classified as either unarmed civilians or prisoners of war. In either case, they were legally required to be treated in a humanitarian fashion. Erdemovi was ordered to participate in the execution of the detainees, which resulted in the killing of an estimated 1,200 individuals over a period of five hours. Erdemovi admitted at his trial to killing between 10 and 100 individuals. He claimed that when he resisted participation, "they told me: 'If you're sorry for them, stand up, line up with them and we will kill you too.'" Erdemovi was concerned about his wife and child and complied with the order. He testified he would have been killed had he failed to participate, having witnessed another soldier killed for resisting orders. The detainees would have been killed even if Erdemovi had refused to partici-pate. Erdemovi was the only low-level participant in the slaughter who was charged and convicted by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, which considered Erdemovi's duress defense in Prosecutor v. Erdemovi (Case No. IT-96-22-A [Oct. 1997]). How would you decide this as a judge?