He is "ultimately" responsible by handing power to subordinates to use deadly force against unarmed anti-establishment demonstrators. Had he intervened to stop the killings the moment the troops started firing, or at the latest when the "live fire (free fire)" zones were set up by the military, then he might have escaped the charge. He didn't and hence he is culpable. Of course, he can always use the excuse in his defence that he was only following orders by someone above him.. What do you think? Should he do that?