The modes of liability found under article 25(3) of the Rome Statute is the cause for a continuing debate within the International community. Complicity in a crime exists as a punishable offence in almost every modern legal system, in the Rome Statute it is captured by article 25(3)(c) as well as 25(3)(d). It does, however, exist uncertainty as to what differentiates them from each other. This thesis aims to find such a difference and clarity on what aspects are relevant to apply one or the other. To do this it compares the articles specifically in relation to three different topics. Firstly, if the crime being committed by a group with a common purpose entails a difference. Secondly, the physical elements demanded by the two articles are compared. Thirdly, the mental element required. This thesis argues that the group aspect and physical element does not entail enough of a difference between article 25(3)(c) and (d). Instead it seems like the mental element is the important factor where 25(3)(c) demands a higher mens rea than 25(3)(d).