Notwithstanding the symbolic importance of the ICC's first indictment of a woman, the gender framing of the indictment of Simone Gbagbo may be the wrong one. Her indictment reflects perhaps an even more significant change in who international criminal tribunals deem most responsible for crimes and, therefore, indict. Most of the indictments handed down by international courts to date have focused on those at the top of standard hierarchies of power—military commanders, governmental officials, or the leaders of armed rebellions. In contrast, Simone Gbagbo held no official position in government; she wore no military uniform; she did not personally commit any of the crimes charged. Yet, the ICC Prosecutor alleges that Simone Gbagbo was part of "Mr. Gbagbo's inner circle," that she "participated in all the meetings during the relevant period," and that she "instructed pro-Gbagbo forces" to commit crimes against individuals who posed a threat to President Gbagbo's power.

The ICC was established to hold accountable those "most responsible" for international crimes. In many cases, those most responsible will be senior military commanders, heads of state, or other government officials. International criminal law has developed several legal mechanisms, such as command responsibility and joint criminal enterprise, to hold individuals at the top of formal hierarchies to account for the crimes they ordered or were allegedly committed by their subordinates. The Statute of the ICC reaffirms, numerous times, that "official capacity.... as a government official.... shall in no case exempt a person from criminal responsibility." As demonstrated by the ICC's indictments of former Libyan head of state Mummar Qadafi and Sudanese president Omar al-Bashir, the tribunal has been able to work its way legally and practically up chains of command to hold senior government officials who ordered, rather than directly committed, international crimes to account. But, in focusing on such high profile heads of state or senior officials, international criminal tribunals may have overlooked those whose influence is not sourced in formal authority. The indictment of Simone Gbagbo, however, recognizes that those most responsible for international crimes may not be government leaders or militia commanders, but rather civilians with extraordinary influence.

Ultimately, the indictment charges that Simone Gbagbo acted as the "alter ego of her husband." That claim, of course, is a gendered one in and of itself. The fact that Simone Gbagbo was married to Laurent Gbagbo should be legally irrelevant. No one should be criminally responsible for his or her marital choices—even very, very bad ones. The ICC's indictment might better have been written to say that she was the "alter ego of the president," regardless of whether she was married to him. Looking beyond semantics, the indictment recognizes that the responsibility for post-election violence in Cote d'Ivoire did not follow traditional lines of military hierarchy, political office, or even group membership. In the Simone Gbagbo indictment, the court reaches beyond these hierarchies to recognize de facto power and influence. The relevant question in determining who is most responsible and should be held accountable is not one of official rank, but rather who conceived of the plan, who was in a de facto position to order the attacks or even to whisper that they should be conducted. Given the realities of violence and conflict today, shifting legal and popular understandings of responsibility from hierarchies of command to de facto authority and influence is an important move toward ending impunity.