161. The Appeals Chamber recalls that

[i]n the context of genocide, however, “direct and physical perpetration” need not mean physical killing; other acts can constitute direct participation in the actus reus of the crime.

The jurisprudence makes clear that “committing” is not limited to direct and physical perpetration and that other acts can constitute direct participation in the actus reus of the crime.  The question of whether an accused acts with his own hands, e.g. when killing people, is not the only relevant criterion.  The Appeals Chamber therefore finds, Judge Liu dissenting, that the Trial Chamber erred in law by holding that “committing” requires direct and physical perpetration of the crime by the offender. To remedy this error, the Appeals Chamber will apply the correct legal standard—i.e., whether Athanase Seromba’s actions were “as much an integral part of the genocide as were the killings which [they] enabled.”  In so doing, it will determine whether, as the Prosecution has argued on appeal, the Trial Chamber’s factual conclusions and the evidence contained in the trial record support the conclusion that Athanase Seromba became a principal perpetrator of the crime itself by approving and embracing as his own the decision to commit the crime and thus should be convicted for committing genocide.

162. The Appeals Chamber considers that the law should be applied to the factual findings of the Trial Chamber, taken as a whole. It is on this basis that the Appeals Chamber will determine the proper mode of liability under Article 6(1) of the Statute. In cases of ambiguity reference may be made, pursuant to Rules 109 and 118(A) of the Rules, to the record on appeal.

171. On the basis of these underlying factual findings, the Appeals Chamber finds that Athanase Seromba approved and embraced as his own the decision of Kayishema, Ndahimana, Kanyarukiga, Habarugira, and other persons to destroy the church in order to kill the Tutsi refugees. It is irrelevant that Athanase Seromba did not personally drive the bulldozer that destroyed the church. What is important is that Athanase Seromba fully exercised his influence over the bulldozer driver who, as the Trial Chamber’s findings demonstrate, accepted Athanase Seromba as the only authority, and whose directions he followed. The Appeals Chamber finds, Judge Liu dissenting, that Athanase Seromba’s acts, which cannot be adequately described by any other mode of liability pursuant to Article 6(1) of the Statute than “committing”, indeed were as much as an integral part of the crime of genocide as the killings of the Tutsi refugees.[1] Athanase Seromba was not merely an aider and abetter but became a principal perpetrator in the crime itself.

172. The Appeals Chamber observes, Judge Liu dissenting, that Athanase Seromba’s conduct was not limited to giving practical assistance, encouragement or moral support to the principal perpetrators of the crime, which would merely constitute the actus reus of aiding and abetting.[2] Quite the contrary, the findings of the Trial Chamber allow for only one conclusion, namely, that Athanase Seromba was a principal perpetrator in the killing of the refugees in Nyange church. The Appeals Chamber therefore finds that Athanase Seromba’s conduct can only be characterized as “committing” these crimes.

173. The Appeals Chamber recalls that an accused evinces the requisite mens rea for committing a crime when he acts with an intent to commit that crime.[3] This stands in contrast to the mens rea for aiding and abetting, which “is indicated by the requirement that the act of participation be performed with knowledge that it will assist the principal in the commission of the criminal act.”[4]

Also see infra on Judge Liu’s Dissenting Opinion.

430. In holding that the crime of genocide does not require the existence of a State policy, the Trial Chamber relied on, inter alia, the Krstić, Jelisić, and Kayishema and Ruzindana Appeal Judgements.[1] […] In the Jelisić Appeal Judgement, the Appeals Chamber held that “the existence of a plan or policy is not a legal ingredient of the crime”,[2] while in Kayishema and Ruzindana the ICTR Appeals Chamber stated that “a genocidal plan is not a constituent element of the crime of genocide”.[3] Although these judgements do not explicitly address the issue of State policy, the Appeals Chamber considers that if a policy is not a legal requirement, it follows that State policy cannot be a legal requirement. Thus, the question of whether the existence of a State policy is required for the crime of genocide has already been considered by the Tribunal.

26. The Appellant […] contests the Trial Chamber’s finding that he possessed the requisite mens rea for genocide arguing that the Trial Chamber inferred his intent from his alleged presence at the crime sites alongside the assailants whose intent was to kill the Tutsi under a “spontaneous” JCE.[1] In his view, for the crime of genocide to occur, the intent to commit genocide must be formed prior to the commission of genocidal acts.[2] The Appeals Chamber finds no merit in this submission. The inquiry is not whether the specific intent was formed prior to the commission of the acts, but whether at the moment of commission the perpetrators possessed the necessary intent. The Trial Chamber correctly considered whether the Appellant and the physical perpetrators possessed genocidal intent at the time of the massacres.[3] The Appellant’s argument on this point is therefore without merit.

In the Trial Judgement, the Trial Chamber decided that the elements of genocide had to be considered separately in relation to each specific group targeted, in that case Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats; it held that targeted group of genocide could not be defined negatively, in that case as the “non-Serbs”.[1] After considering inter alia the plain text of Article 4 of the Genocide Convention, its drafting history, commentaries thereof, and exploring the Prosecution’s arguments based on a subjective definition of genocide, the Appeals Chamber concluded that the targeted group of genocide can only be defined positively.[2] It held the following:

25. […] First, contrary to what the Prosecution argues, the Krstić and Rutaganda Trial Judgements do not suggest that target groups may only be defined subjectively, by reference to the way the perpetrator stigmatises victims. The Trial Judgement in Krstić found only that “stigmatisation … by the perpetrators” can be used as “a criterion” when defining target groups – not that stigmatisation can be used as the sole criterion. Similarly, while the Rutaganda Trial Chamber found national, ethnical, racial, and religious identity to be largely subjective concepts, suggesting that acts may constitute genocide so long as the perpetrator perceives the victim as belonging to the targeted national, ethnical, racial, or religious group, it also held that “a subjective definition alone is not enough to determine victim groups, as provided for in the Genocide Convention.”[3] Other Trial Judgements from the ICTR have also concluded that target groups cannot be only subjectively defined.[4]

26. Second, the Appeals Chamber notes that whether or not a group is subjectively defined is not relevant to whether a group is defined in a positive or a negative way, which is the issue now before the Chamber. Consequently, when a target group is defined in a negative manner (for example non-Serbs), whether the composition of the group is identified on the basis of objective criteria, or a combination of objective and subjective criteria, is immaterial as the group would not be protected under the Genocide Convention.

524. As recalled by the Appeals Chamber of ICTY in Jelisic, the Statute[1] defines the specific intent required for the crime of genocide as “the intent to accomplish certain specific types of destruction”[2] against a targeted group. Pursuant to the Statute, therefore, specific intent implies that the perpetrator seeks to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group as such, by means of the acts enumerated under Article 2 of the said Statute.[3] In order to prove specific intent, it must be established that the enumerated acts were directed against a group referred to under Article 2 of the Statute and committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, the said group as such.

525. The crime of genocide sometimes implies several offenders participating in the commission of the crime. The Appeals Chamber concurs with the Appellant that in order to find a person guilty of genocide, it must be established that such a person was personally possessed of the specific intent to commit the crime at the time he did so. Nonetheless, as stated by the Appeals Chamber in Kayishema/Ruzindana, “explicit manifestations of criminal intent are […] often rare in the context of criminal trials”.[4] In the absence of explicit, direct proof, the dolus specialis may therefore be inferred from relevant facts and circumstances.[5] Such an approach prevents perpetrators from escaping convictions simply because such manifestations are absent.[6] The validity of this interpretation was confirmed by the Appeals Chambers of both ad hoc Tribunals.[7] With respect to the facts and circumstances from which specific intent may be inferred, the ICTY Appeals Chamber in Jelisic stated that such facts are, inter alia:

[…] the general context, the perpetration of other culpable acts systematically directed against the same group, the scale of atrocities committed, the systematic targeting of victims on account of their membership of a particular group, or the repetition of destructive and discriminatory acts.[8] (Emphasis added)

The ICTY Appeals Chamber also indicated that the existence of a plan or policy is not “a legal ingredient” of the crime of genocide,[9] but that proving the existence of such a plan or policy may facilitate proof of the crime.[10] Moreover, the Kayishema/Ruzindana Appeal Judgement reveals that making anti-Tutsi utterances or being affiliated to an extremist anti-Tutsi group is not a sine qua non for establishing dolus specialis.[11] The Appeals Chamber holds the view that establishing such a fact may, nonetheless, facilitate proof of specific intent.

528. […] The Appeals Chambers of the International Tribunal and the ICTY also confirmed that in the absence of explicit, direct evidence, specific intent may be inferred from other facts, such as the general context and the perpetration of other acts systematically directed against a given group. Such an approach does not imply that the guilt of an accused may be inferred only from his affiliation with “a guilty organisation.”

1032. […] [T]he Appeals Chamber would recall that the crime of genocide inter alia requires the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group as such. Persecution, like the other acts enumerated in Article 3 of the Statute, must have been committed as part of a widespread and systematic attack on a civilian population. It was therefore open to the Trial Chamber to enter cumulative convictions under Articles 2(3)(a) and 3(h) of the Statute on the basis of the same acts. […]

496. […][T]he acts committed against Hutu political opponents cannot be perceived as acts of genocide, because the victim of an act of genocide must have been targeted by reason of the fact that he or she belonged to a protected group. In the instant case, only the Tutsi ethnic group may be regarded as a protected group under Article 2 of the Statute and Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide,[1] since the group of “Hutu political opponents” or the group of “Tutsi individuals and Hutu political opponents” does not constitute a “national, ethnical, racial or religious group” under these provisions.[2] Furthermore, although the jurisprudence of the ad hoc Tribunals acknowledges that the perception of the perpetrators of the crimes may in some circumstances be taken into account for purposes of determining membership of a protected group,[3] in this instance neither the Trial Chamber nor the Prosecutor cited any evidence to suggest that the Appellants or the perpetrators of the crimes perceived Hutu political opponents as Tutsi. In other words, in the present case Hutu political opponents were acknowledged as such and were not “perceived” as Tutsi. Even if the perpetrators of the genocide believed that eliminating Hutu political opponents was necessary for the successful execution of their genocidal project against the Tutsi population, the killing of Hutu political opponents cannot constitute acts of genocide.

363. The Appeals Chamber recalls that proof of the existence of a “high level genocidal plan” is not required in order to convict an accused of genocide[1] or for the mode of liability of instigation to commit genocide.[2] Accordingly, the Appeals Chamber finds no error on the part of the Trial Chamber in considering as unnecessary proof of a nexus between the Appellant’s crimes and a national campaign.

136. […] The Appeals Chamber recalls that, with respect to mens rea, an indictment may plead either (1) the state of mind of the accused, in which case the facts by which that state of mind is to be established are matters of evidence, and need not be pleaded; or (2) the evidentiary facts from which the state of mind is to be inferred.[1]

137. In the instant case, the Indictment pleaded that the Appellant had “the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, an ethnic or racial group as such”,[2] thus providing sufficient notice to the Appellant of the allegation that he possessed the specific intent to commit genocide. The Indictment therefore did not have to plead that the Appellant participated in recruiting young Hutu men for militia training as Impuzamugambi.

53. The words “as such,” [in Article 2(2) of the ICTR Statute] however, constitute an important element of genocide, the “crime of crimes.”[1] It was deliberately included by the authors of the Genocide Convention in order to reconcile the two diverging approaches in favour of and against including a motivational component as an additional element of the crime. The term “as such” has the effet utile of drawing a clear distinction between mass murder and crimes in which the perpetrator targets a specific group because of its nationality, race, ethnicity or religion.[2] In other words, the term “as such” clarifies the specific intent requirement. It does not prohibit a conviction for genocide in a case in which the perpetrator was also driven by other motivations that are legally irrelevant in this context. Thus the Trial Chamber was correct in interpreting “as such” to mean that the proscribed acts were committed against the victims because of their membership in the protected group, but not solely because of such membership.

See also paragraphs 49–52.

The Appellant Kanyarukiga requests the exclusion of Witness YAU’s evidence as in his submission this evidence relates to material facts not properly pleaded in the operative indictment.[1]

9. The Appeals Chamber recalls that there are two ways in which mens rea may be pleaded: (i) either the specific state of mind itself should be pleaded as a material fact, in which case, the facts by which that material fact is to be established are ordinarily matters of evidence, and need not be pleaded; or (ii) the evidentiary facts from which the state of mind is to be inferred, should be pleaded.[2]

10. In the present case, the Indictment pleads as a material fact the specific state of mind alleged in relation to the counts of genocide and complicity in genocide, in particular that Kanyarukiga acted “with the intent to destroy the Tutsi population in whole [or] in part”.[3] Given that the Indictment pleads as a material fact the specific state of mind alleged, the facts by which his mens rea is to be established are matters of evidence and need not be pleaded.[4]

616. The Appeals Chamber notes that there is no appellate jurisprudence which addresses the specific cumulative convictions for genocide and murder as a violation of the laws or customs of war. However, the ICTR Appeals Chamber has upheld cumulative convictions for war crimes, as a broad category, and genocide based on the materially distinct elements of genocide and war crimes.[1] Relevantly, genocide requires proof of specific intent while war crimes require proof of the existence of a nexus between the alleged crimes and the armed conflict.[2]

See also para. 617.

261. The Appeals Chamber first observes that the Trial Chamber correctly stated that the prominence of the targeted portion of the protected group is a relevant factor in determining whether the perpetrator intended to destroy at least a substantial part of the protected group.[1] Indeed, as the Trial Chamber held, “genocidal intent may […] consist of the desired destruction of a more limited number of persons selected for the impact that their disappearance would have on the survival of the group as such”.[2] This holding is consistent with other trial judgements of the Tribunal,[3] as well as the Appeals Chamber’s own jurisprudence. The Appeals Chamber recalls, in this respect, that “[i]f a specific part of the group is emblematic of the overall group, or is essential to its survival, that may support a finding that the part qualifies as substantial within the meaning of Article 4” of the Statute.[4]

262. The Commission of Experts Report, on which the Trial Chamber relied as support for its legal analysis vis-à-vis the killings of the three Žepa leaders,[5] states, in relevant part:

[i]f essentially the total leadership of a group is targeted, it could also amount to genocide. Such leadership includes political and administrative leaders, religious leaders, academics and intellectuals, business leaders and others – the totality per se may be a strong indication of genocide regardless of the actual numbers killed. A corroborating argument will be the fate of the rest of the group. The character of the attack on the leadership must be viewed in the context of the fate or what happened to the rest of the group. If a group has its leadership exterminated, and at the same time or in the wake of that, has a relatively large number of the members of the group killed or subjected to other heinous acts, for example deported on a large scale or forced to flee, the cluster of violations ought to be considered in its entirety in order to interpret the provisions of the Convention in a spirit consistent with its purpose.[6]

263. The Appeals Chamber finds no legal error in the Trial Chamber’s statement that the selective targeting of leading figures of a community may amount to genocide and may be indicative of genocidal intent.[7] The Appeals Chamber is not persuaded that the commission of genocide through the targeted killings of only the leaders of a group suggests that the leaders of the group are subject to special, stronger protection than the other members of the group, as Tolimir suggests. Recognising that genocide may be committed through the killings of only certain prominent members of the group “selected for the impact that their disappearance would have on the survival of the group as such”[8] aims at ensuring that the protective scope of the crime of genocide encompasses the entire group, not just its leaders. […]

264. […] For a finding of genocide it suffices that the leaders were “selected for the impact that their disappearance would have on the survival of the group as such”.[9] Genocide may be committed even if not all leaders of a group are killed – even though targeting “the totality [of the leadership] per se may be a strong indication of genocide regardless of the actual numbers killed”.[10]

265. […] The Appeals Chamber recalls that according to the Commission of Experts Report and as the Trial Chamber itself recognised, “[t]he character of the attack on the leadership must be viewed in the context of the fate or what happened to the rest of the group […] at the same time or in the wake of that” attack.[11] As the Trial Chamber found, the selective targeting of a protected group’s leadership may amount to genocide only if the leaders are selected because of “the impact that their disappearance would have on the survival of the group as such”.[12] The impact of the leaders’ disappearance may of course be assessed only after the leaders are attacked. Only by considering what happened to the rest of the protected group at the same time or in the wake of the attack on its leadership could “the impact that [the leaders’] disappearance would have on the survival of the group as such” be assessed.[13]

[…]

267. The Appeals Chamber has already established that the Trial Chamber did not err in finding that the only reasonable inference from the evidence was that the three Žepa leaders suffered a violent death at the hands of their Bosnian Serb captors.[14] However, the Trial Chamber failed to explain how their detention and killings – committed weeks after the entire Žepa population had been forcibly transferred from the enclave – had any impact “on the survival of the group as such”.[15] The Trial Chamber accepted in its conclusion that there was such an impact, but it did not consider or analyse whether or how the killings of the three Žepa leaders after the Bosnian Muslim civilian population of Žepa had been transferred to safe areas of BiH specifically affected the ability of those removed civilians to survive and reconstitute themselves as a group.[16] A finding that Žepa’s Bosnian Muslims lost three of their leaders[17] does not suffice to infer that those civilians were affected by the loss of their leaders in a way that would threaten or tend to contribute to their physical destruction as a group.

[…]

269. In this context, particularly in light of the fact that the forcible transfer operation of Žepa’s Bosnian Muslims had been completed before the three Žepa leaders were detained and killed and in the absence of any findings as to whether or how the loss of these three prominent figures affected the ability of the Bosnian Muslims from Žepa to survive in the post-transfer period, the inference of genocidal intent was not the only reasonable inference that could be drawn from the record. In the view of the Appeals Chamber, the evidence does not allow for the conclusion that the murders of the three Žepa leaders had a significant impact on the physical survival of the group as such so as to amount to genocide. There is, in sum, no sufficient evidentiary support for the finding that Hajrić, Palić, and Imamović were killed “with the specific genocidal intent of destroying part of the Bosnian Muslim population as such”.[18] […]

218. This conclusion, of course, does not amount to a conclusion that the Bosnian Muslims of Žepa were not the victims of genocide. The Appeals Chamber emphasises that the only question addressed here is whether the Trial Chamber erred in finding that the forcible transfer operation in Žepa – which the Trial Chamber distinguished from the transfer operation in Srebrenica and analysed separately vis-à-vis the actus reus of Article 4(2)(b) of the Statute – inflicted on the transferred Muslim population serious mental harm, as that term is used in Article 4(2)(b) of the Statute and the Genocide Convention. This question does not involve the definition of the protected group. In this sense, the Appeals Chamber recalls its earlier conclusion that the Trial Chamber did not err in holding that the Bosnian Muslims of Žepa are, along with the Muslims of Srebrenica and Eastern BiH in general, members of the protected group.[1] By virtue of being “within the targeted part of the protected group”, the Bosnian Muslims of Žepa were among the ultimate victims of the genocidal enterprise against the Muslims of Eastern BiH.[2]

[…]

236. As clarified above, and consistent with the Appeals Chamber’s recent case law, all members of the protected group as defined by the Trial Chamber – i.e., “the Bosnian Muslim population of Eastern Bosnia and in particular, of the enclaves of Srebrenica, Žepa and Goražde”[3] – were the victims of the genocidal acts of Article 4(2)(a) and 4(2)(b) of the Statute (killings and acts causing serious mental harm), by virtue of being “within the targeted part of the protected group”.[4] In this and the previous subsections, the Appeals Chamber only finds that the displaced Bosnian Muslims of Žepa were not the direct victims of the specific genocidal act defined in Article 4(2)(b) and Article 4(2)(c) of the Statute – acts causing serious mental harm and acts deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the protected group’s physical destruction in whole or in part. The Appeals Chamber’s conclusions do not diminish the status of Žepa’s Muslim populations as victims of the genocide committed against the entire protected group by means of (i) the killings of Srebrenica’s male population (which qualifies as a genocidal act under both Article 4(2)(a) and 4(2)(b) of the Statute) and (ii) the forcible transfer operation of Srebrenica’s women, children, and elderly (which qualifies as a genocidal act under Article 4(2)(b) of the Statute).[5]

500. The ICTY Appeals Chamber has explained, on several occasions, that an individual who aids and abets other individuals committing a specific intent offence may be held responsible if he assists the commission of the crime knowing the intent behind the crime.[1] More recently, as the Prosecution argued at the Appeal hearing, in the Krstić case the ICTY Appeals Chamber considered that the same principle applies to the Statute’s prohibition of genocide and that “[t]he conviction for aiding and abetting genocide upon proof that the defendant knew about the principal perpetrator’s genocidal intent is permitted by the Statute and case-law of the Tribunal.”[2] In reaching this conclusion, the Krstić Appeals Chamber derived aiding and abetting as a mode of liability from Article 7(1) of the ICTY Statute, but also considered that aiding and abetting constitutes a form of complicity, suggesting that complicity under Article 2 of the ICTR Statute and Article 4 of the ICTY Statute would also encompass aiding and abetting, based on the same mens rea, while other forms of complicity may require proof of specific intent.

501. The Appeals Chamber endorses this view and finds that a conviction for aiding and abetting genocide upon proof that the defendant knew about the principal perpetrator’s genocidal intent is permitted by the Statute and case-law of this Tribunal. […]

The Trial Chamber determined that Blagojević was complicit in genocide by allowing Bratunac Brigade resources and personnel to be used in connection with the forcible transfer from Potočari and the mistreatment and murder of the Bosnian Muslim detainees in Bratunac town.[1] For the Trial Chamber, the forcible transfer of the women and others was a “manifestation of the specific intent to rid the Srebrenica enclave of its Bosnian Muslim population” and the killings and mistreatment at Bratunac town were a similar “manifestation of this intent to destroy the group.”[2]

122. The main question for the Appeals Chamber is whether, in the absence of knowledge about the mass killings, the above findings form a sufficient basis to conclude that Blagojević knew of the principal perpetrators’ genocidal intent. It follows from the Krstić Appeal Judgement that the existence of the mass killings which followed the take-over of Srebrenica was key to the finding that genocide had been committed.[3] In this respect, the Appeals Chamber stated: “[t]he main evidence underlying the Trial Chamber’s conclusion that the VRS forces intended to eliminate all the Bosnian Muslims of Srebrenica was the massacre by the VRS of all men of military age from that community.”[4] Moreover, the Appeals Chamber also placed significant weight on Radislav Krstić’s awareness of the mass killings in determining that he had knowledge of the genocidal intent of the principal perpetrators.[5] In this respect, the Appeals Chamber refers to its assessment of the impact of Radislav Krstić’s awareness of the forcible transfer operation, the separations in Potočari, and the detention and mistreatment of Bosnian Muslim men in Bratunac town on his knowledge of the genocidal intent of the principal perpetrators.[6]

123. The Appeals Chamber notes that genocidal intent may be inferred, among other facts, from evidence of other culpable acts systematically directed against the same group.[7] Thus, the Appeals Chamber accepts that the forcible transfer operation, the separations, and the mistreatment and murders in Bratunac town are relevant considerations in assessing whether the principal perpetrators had genocidal intent.[8] However, the Appeals Chamber is not convinced by the Trial Chamber’s reasoning that the forcible transfer operation alone or coupled with the murders and mistreatment in Bratunac town would suffice to demonstrate the principal perpetrators’ intent to “destroy” the protected group.[9] The Krstić Appeal Judgement clearly held that “forcible transfer does not constitute in and of itself a genocidal act”, and it is simply a relevant consideration as part of the overall factual assessment.[10] Similarly, the Appeals Chamber notes that “opportunistic killings” by their very nature provide a very limited basis for inferring genocidal intent. Rather, as the Appeals Chamber determined in the Krstić Appeal Judgement, these culpable acts simply assist in placing the mass killings in their proper context.[11] Consequently, no reasonable trier of fact could find beyond a reasonable doubt that, without knowledge of the mass killings, Blagojević’s awareness of the other facts related to the forcible transfer operation shows that he had knowledge of the principal perpetrators’ genocidal intent.[12]

364.   In the case at bar, the Trial Chamber found Musema guilty of genocide (Count 1) and of extermination as a crime against humanity (Count 5) on the basis of the same set of facts.  Musema requests the reversal of the conviction for extermination.  The issue is whether such double conviction is permissible.

365.   Applying the provisions of the test articulated above, the first issue is whether a given statutory provision has a materially distinct element not contained in the other provision, an element being regarded as materially distinct from another if it requires proof of a fact not required by the other.

366.   Genocide requires proof of an intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group; this is not required by extermination as a crime against humanity.  Extermination as a crime against humanity requires proof that the crime was committed as a part of a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population, which proof is not required in the case of genocide.

367.   As a result, the applicable test with respect to double convictions for genocide and extermination as a crime against humanity is satisfied; these convictions are permissible.  Accordingly, Musema’s ground of appeal on this point is dismissed.

8. It is well established that where a conviction for genocide relies on the intent to destroy a protected group “in part,” the part must be a substantial part of that group. The aim of the Genocide Convention is to prevent the intentional destruction of entire human groups, and the part targeted must be significant enough to have an impact on the group as a whole. […]

9. The question has also been considered by Trial Chambers of the ICTR, whose Statute contains an identical definition of the crime of genocide.  These Chambers arrived at the same conclusion.  In Kayishema, the Trial Chamber concluded, after having canvassed the authorities interpreting the Genocide Convention, that the term “‘in part’ requires the intention to destroy a considerable number of individuals who are part of the group.”  This definition was accepted and refined by the Trial Chambers in Bagilishema and Semanza, which stated that the intent to destroy must be, at least, an intent to destroy a substantial part of the group.

[…]

12. The intent requirement of genocide under Article 4 of the Statute is therefore satisfied where evidence shows that the alleged perpetrator intended to destroy at least a substantial part of the protected group.  The determination of when the targeted part is substantial enough to meet this requirement may involve a number of considerations.  The numeric size of the targeted part of the group is the necessary and important starting point, though not in all cases the ending point of the inquiry.  The number of individuals targeted should be evaluated not only in absolute terms, but also in relation to the overall size of the entire group.  In addition to the numeric size of the targeted portion, its prominence within the group can be a useful consideration.  If a specific part of the group is emblematic of the overall group, or is essential to its survival, that may support a finding that the part qualifies as substantial within the meaning of Article 4.

13. The historical examples of genocide also suggest that the area of the perpetrators’ activity and control, as well as the possible extent of their reach, should be considered.  Nazi Germany may have intended only to eliminate Jews within Europe alone; that ambition probably did not extend, even at the height of its power, to an undertaking of that enterprise on a global scale.  Similarly, the perpetrators of genocide in Rwanda did not seriously contemplate the elimination of the Tutsi population beyond the country’s borders.  The intent to destroy formed by a perpetrator of genocide will always be limited by the opportunity presented to him.  While this factor alone will not indicate whether the targeted group is substantial, it can - in combination with other factors - inform the analysis.

14. These considerations, of course, are neither exhaustive nor dispositive.  They are only useful guidelines.  The applicability of these factors, as well as their relative weight, will vary depending on the circumstances of a particular case.

See also para. 8 (part) and paras. 9–11.

32. In determining that genocide occurred at Srebrenica, the cardinal question is whether the intent to commit genocide existed.  While this intent must be supported by the factual matrix, the offence of genocide does not require proof that the perpetrator chose the most efficient method to accomplish his objective of destroying the targeted part.  Even where the method selected will not implement the perpetrator’s intent to the fullest, leaving that destruction incomplete, this ineffectiveness alone does not preclude a finding of genocidal intent.  The international attention focused on Srebrenica, combined with the presence of the UN troops in the area, prevented those members of the VRS Main Staff who devised the genocidal plan from putting it into action in the most direct and efficient way.  Constrained by the circumstances, they adopted the method which would allow them to implement the genocidal design while minimizing the risk of retribution.

33. The Trial Chamber - as the best assessor of the evidence presented at trial - was entitled to conclude that the evidence of the transfer [of women, children, and elderly within the Sebrenica enclave to other areas of Muslim-controlled Bosnia] supported its finding that some members of the VRS Main Staff intended to destroy the Bosnian Muslims in Srebrenica.  The fact that the forcible transfer does not constitute in and of itself a genocidal act[6] does not preclude a Trial Chamber from relying on it as evidence of the intentions of members of the VRS Main Staff.  The genocidal intent may be inferred, among other facts, from evidence of “other culpable acts systematically directed against the same group.”

Inferring intent from the factual circumstances of the crime:

[…]

34. The Defence also argues that the record contains no statements by members of the VRS Main Staff indicating that the killing of the Bosnian Muslim men was motivated by genocidal intent to destroy the Bosnian Muslims of Srebrenica.[8]  The absence of such statements is not determinative.  Where direct evidence of genocidal intent is absent, the intent may still be inferred from the factual circumstances of the crime.[9]  The inference that a particular atrocity was motivated by genocidal intent may be drawn, moreover, even where the individuals to whom the intent is attributable are not precisely identified.  If the crime committed satisfies the other requirements of genocide, and if the evidence supports the inference that the crime was motivated by the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a protected group, a finding that genocide has occurred may be entered.

35. In this case, the factual circumstances, as found by the Trial Chamber, permit the inference that the killing of the Bosnian Muslim men was done with genocidal intent.  As already explained, the scale of the killing, combined with the VRS Main Staff’s awareness of the detrimental consequences it would have for the Bosnian Muslim community of Srebrenica and with the other actions the Main Staff took to ensure that community’s physical demise, is a sufficient factual basis for the finding of specific intent.  The Trial Chamber found, and the Appeals Chamber endorses this finding, that the killing was engineered and supervised by some members of the Main Staff of the VRS.[10]  The fact that the Trial Chamber did not attribute genocidal intent to a particular official within the Main Staff may have been motivated by a desire not to assign individual culpability to persons not on trial here.  This, however, does not undermine the conclusion that Bosnian Serb forces carried out genocide against the Bosnian Muslims.

229. The Appeals Chamber agrees that the crimes’ commission in Kalimanzira’s own prefecture and not at the national level is not a relevant fact for the purpose of assessing their gravity. The genocide that was committed in Rwanda between 6 April 1994 and 17 July 1994, which resulted in the killings of hundreds of thousands of Tutsis, is indivisible.[1] […]

141. The Appeals Chamber notes that the Trial Chamber correctly set forth the requisite elements of the mens rea for genocide and extermination as a crime against humanity. In particular, the Trial Chamber observed that for genocide an accused must act “with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group as such”. With respect to extermination as a crime against humanity, the Trial Chamber recalled that an accused must “intend to kill persons on a massive scale or to subject a large number of people to conditions of living that would lead to their death in a widespread or systematic manner.” The Trial Chamber further observed that the perpetrator must have acted with knowledge that his acts formed part of a widespread or systematic attack against the civilian population on national, political, ethnic, racial, or religious grounds.

142. The Trial Chamber established Munyakazi’s intent to participate in the crimes based on his personal participation and leadership role in attacks, which resulted in the death of thousands of mostly Tutsi civilians. The Appeals Chamber can identify no error in this approach. The Appeals Chamber has held that an accused’s intent to participate in a crime may be inferred from circumstantial evidence, including his active participation in an attack. Indeed, contrary to Munyakazi’s suggestion, “[t]he inquiry is not whether the specific intent was formed prior to the commission of the acts, but whether at the moment of commission the perpetrators possessed the necessary intent.” The lack of evidence concerning Munyakazi’s personal views about Tutsis does not undermine the reasonableness of the Trial Chamber’s findings. Furthermore, the evidence of his active participation in the killing of thousands of Tutsi civilians at two parishes reasonably demonstrates that he possessed both genocidal intent and the requisite intent for extermination as a crime against humanity, that is, the intent to kill on a large scale with awareness that the crimes formed part of a widespread and systematic attack against Tutsi civilians.

163.    The Appeals Chamber notes that a “persistent pattern of conduct” is not a legal ingredient of the crime of genocide as defined in Article 2 of the Statute […].

169.    Article 2 of the Statute provides that “[g]enocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, such as …”, the relevant acts in the instant case being genocide by killing members of the group and causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group. The Appeals Chamber finds that there is no legal ingredient in Article 2 of the Statute, which requires the establishment of a nexus between the manner in which a genocide was carried out and the personal circumstances of an accused. Similarly, the provision does not require proof that an accused had certain means at his disposal to prepare and commit genocide. The financial situation of an accused would normally not be of major importance to the question of whether he could be held liable for genocide.

170.    Furthermore, genocide is not a crime that can only be committed by certain categories of persons.  As evidenced by history, it is a crime which has been committed by the low-level executioner and the high-level planner or instigator alike. […]

367.    […] The Appeals Chamber remarks that there is no hierarchy of crimes under the Statute, and that all of the crimes specified therein are “serious violations of international humanitarian law”,[1] capable of attracting the same sentence. The actual sentence imposed depends, of course, upon the evaluation of the various factors referred to in the Statute and the Rules. The Appeals Chamber finds that the Trial Chamber’s description of genocide as the “crime of crimes” was at the level of general appreciation, and did not impact on the sentence it imposed. Furthermore, upon examining the statements of the Trial Chamber, it is evident that the primary thrust of its finding as to the gravity of the offences relates to the fact that genocide in itself is a crime that is extremely grave. Such an observation is correct, and for these reasons, there was no error in its finding on this point.

3322.            The Appeals Chamber has held in relation to genocide that “committing” under Article 6(1) of the Statute, which envisions the physical perpetration of a crime, does not only mean physical killing and that other acts can constitute direct participation in the actus reus of the crime.[1] The question is whether an accused’s conduct was “as much an integral part of the [crimes] as were the killings which it enabled.”[2] In the cases where the Appeals Chamber has concluded that an accused’s role constituted an integral part of the crimes, the accused were present at the crime scene and conducted, supervised, directed, played a leading role, or otherwise fully exercised influence over the physical perpetrators.[3]

3323.            Even if the Appeals Chamber were to overturn the Trial Chamber’s findings that Kanyabashi’s Speech was not inflammatory and did not substantially contribute to the subsequent killings, it is not convinced that Kanyabashi’s approval of Kambanda’s and Sindikubwabo’s Speeches, his position of authority, and the contents of his speech are sufficient to qualify Kanyabashi’s overall conduct as that of “committing” genocide. The Appeals Chamber considers that, where it is not established that the accused was present at the scene of the crimes, conducted, supervised, directed, played a leading role, or otherwise fully exercised influence over the physical perpetrators, making a speech days, if not weeks, before the physical perpetration of killings cannot be deemed to constitute “direct participation in the actus reus” of the killings. Nor can such circumstances compel the conclusion that the conduct of the individual who gave the speech was as much an integral part of the genocide as were the killings which it allegedly enabled. In the view of the Appeals Chamber, the notion of commission by playing an integral part in the crime is not as expansive as the Prosecution argues in the present case. […]

576. The Appeals Chamber recalls that, where a conviction for genocide relies on the intent to destroy a protected group “in part”, the targeted part must be a substantial part of that group.[1] The ICTY Appeals Chamber in the Krstić case identified the following non-exhaustive and non-dispositive guidelines that may be considered when determining whether the part of the group targeted is substantial enough to meet this requirement: (i) the numeric size of the targeted part as the necessary starting point, evaluated not only in absolute terms, but also in relation to the overall size of the entire group; (ii) the targeted part’s prominence within the group; (iii) whether the targeted part is emblematic of the overall group or essential to its survival; and/or (iv) the perpetrators’ areas of activity and control, as well as the possible extent of their reach.[2] The applicability of these factors, together with their relative weight, will vary depending on the circumstances of the particular case.[3]

See also para. 577.

[…]

578. The Appeals Chamber recalls that, because the intent to destroy formed by perpetrators of genocide will always be limited by the opportunity presented to them, the perpetrators’ areas of activity and control, as well as the possible extent of their reach, should be considered when determining whether the part of the protected group they intended to destroy was substantial. [4]In this respect, the Trial Chamber determined that, from the perspective of the physical perpetrators, the Count 1 Communities were the only parts of the Bosnian Muslim group within their respective areas of control, and that the perpetrators’ authority did not extend beyond each of the Count 1 Municipalities in which they committed prohibited acts. [5]The Appeals Chamber considers that these conclusions, when viewed in the light of the Trial Chamber’s finding that the perpetrators intended to destroy the Count 1 Communities,[6] evince that the perpetrators targeted as substantial a part of the overall Bosnian Muslim group for destruction as they could. While this factor alone will not indicate whether the targeted group is substantial, it can – in combination with other factors – inform the analysis.[7] The Trial Chamber in the present case considered this factor, among others, in its analysis concluding that the physical perpetrators did not have the intent to destroy the Count 1 Communities as a substantial part of the Bosnian Muslim group. [8] […]

580. The Appeals Chamber recalls that it is not just any impact on a protected group that supports a finding of genocidal intent; rather, it is the impact that the destruction of the targeted part will have on the overall survival of that group which indicates whether there is intent to destroy a substantial part thereof.[9] […]

[…]

588. As recalled above, where a conviction for genocide relies on the intent to destroy a protected group “in part”, the targeted part must be a substantial part of that group.[10] […]

589. The Appeals Chamber recalls ₣…ğ that a substantiality assessment considers the impact that the destruction of the targeted part will have on the overall survival of that group.[11] Noting that the Count 1 Communities collectively comprised approximately 6.7 per cent of the Bosnian Muslim group,[12] the Appeals Chamber considers that a reasonable trier of fact could reasonably have concluded that the Count 1 Communities, individually as well as cumulatively, formed “a relatively small part” thereof.[13] The Appeals Chamber therefore concludes that a reasonable trier of fact could also have found that the destruction of the Count 1 Communities, individually as well as cumulatively, was not sufficiently substantial to have an impact on the group’s overall survival at the relevant time.[14]

See also paras. 577-581.