Massiveness requirement

Notion(s) Filing Case
Appeal Judgement - 08.04.2015 TOLIMIR Zdravko
(IT-05-88/2-A)

146.    With regard to Tolimir’s argument that the killing of the three Žepa leaders was not part of the one murder operation involving the mass killings of the men of Srebrenica, the Appeals Chamber recalls that the actus reus of the crime of extermination is “the act of killing on a large scale”[1] and the mens rea is the intention to kill on a large-scale.[2] It further recalls that the crime of extermination differs from murder in that it requires an element of massiveness, which is not required for murder.[3] The Appeals Chamber has clarified that:

The assessment of “large scale” is made on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the circumstances in which the killings occurred. Relevant factors include, inter alia: the time and place of the killings; the selection of the victims and the manner in which they were targeted; and whether the killings were aimed at the collective group rather than victims in their individual capacity.[4]

147.    The actus reus of the crime of extermination may be established through an aggregation of separate incidents. It is not required that the killings be on a vast scale in a concentrated location over a short period of time.[6] The ICTR Appeals Chamber has, on the other hand, stated that “[a]s a general matter, the element of killing on a large scale cannot be satisfied by a collective consideration of distinct events committed in different locations, in different circumstances, by different perpetrators, and over an extended period of time, i.e. a period of two months”.[7]

See also paras 148-150.

[1]    Stakić Appeal Judgement, para. 259.

[2]    Popović et al. Appeal Judgement, para.701 citing Lukić and Lukić Appeal Judgement, para. 536; Stakić Appeal Judgement, para. 259. The Appeals Chamber observes that Tolimir does not specify whether he challenges the actus reus or the mens rea of the crime of extermination or both with regard to killing of the three Žepa leaders. Appeal Brief, para. 69; Reply Brief, paras 34-35.

[3]    Lukić and Lukić Appeal Judgement, para. 536; Stakić Appeal Judgement, para. 260; Ntakirutimana and Ntakirutimana Appeal Judgement, para. 516.

[4]    Lukić and Lukić Appeal Judgement, para. 538 (internal citations omitted).

[5]    Cf. Karemera and Ngirumpatse Appeal Judgement, paras 661-662.

[6]    Stakić Appeal Judgement, para. 259, affirming Stakić Trial Judgement, para. 640.

[7]    Karemera and Ngirumpatse Appeal Judgement, para. 661; Bagosora and Nsengiyumva Appeal Judgement, para. 396. The Bagosora and Nsengiyumva Appeal Judgement further specifies that in that case, each of the incidents which formed the basis of the appellant’s convictions presented distinct features and could not be said to constitute one and the same incident, referring to incidents as described in the sections addressing grounds of appeal 6-10. In the Karemera and Ngirumpatse case, the Appeals Chamber nevertheless found it permissible for the trial chamber in that particular case, to connect and aggregate sets of killings in order to meet the large-scale requirement. Karemera and Ngirumpatse Appeal Judgement, paras 661-662. The Appeals Chamber referred to sets of “massive killings throughout Rwanda by mid-July 1994”. Karemera and Ngirumpatse Appeal Judgement, paras 661-662.

Download full document
Notion(s) Filing Case
Appeal Judgement - 13.12.2004 NTAKIRUTIMANA and NTAKIRUTIMANA
(ICTR-96-10-A and ICTR-96-17-A)

516. […] The Appeals Chamber agrees with the Trial Chamber that the crime of extermination is the act of killing on a large scale.[1] The expressions “on a large scale” or “large number” do not, however, suggest a numerical minimum.[2] […]

[1] Trial Judgement, para. 813 citing Vasiljević Trial Judgement, para. 232.

[2] Kayishema and Ruzindana Trial Judgement, para. 145; Bagilishema Trial Judgement, para. 87; Kajelijeli Trial Judgement, para. 891; Media Trial Judgement, para. 1044; Kamuhanda Trial Judgement, para. 692. 

Download full document
ICTR Statute Article 3(b) ICTY Statute Article 5(b)
Notion(s) Filing Case
Appeal Judgement - 04.12.2012 LUKIĆ & LUKIĆ
(IT-98-32/1-A)

536. The Appeals Chamber recalls that the actus reus of extermination is “the act of killing on a large scale”.[1] This element of “massiveness” is what distinguishes the crime of extermination from the crime of murder.[2] The mens rea of extermination requires the intention of the perpetrator “to kill on a large scale or to systematically subject a large number of people to conditions of living that would lead to their deaths.”[3]

537. The Appeals Chamber further recalls that “large scale” does not suggest a strict numerical approach with a minimum number of victims.[4] While extermination as a crime against humanity has been found in relation to the killing of thousands,[5] it has also been found in relation to fewer killings. The Appeals Chamber recalls that in Brđanin, the killing of between 68 to 300 individuals “in light of the circumstances in which they occurred, [met] the required threshold of massiveness for the purposes of extermination.”[6] In Stakić, the trial chamber found that the killing of less than 80 individuals “independently would reach the requisite level of massiveness for the purposes of an evaluation under Article 5(b) of the Statute”.[7] In Krajišnik, while the conviction for extermination as a crime against humanity was based on the killing of at least 1,916 individuals, the trial chamber found that the killing of approximately 66 individuals during the Pionirska Street Incident satisfied the element of massiveness.[8] The ICTR and the Special Court for Sierra Leone (“SCSL”) have also found the killing of about 60 individuals and less to be sufficiently large-scale to amount to extermination.[9]

538. The assessment of “large scale” is made on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the circumstances in which the killings occurred.[10] Relevant factors include, inter alia: the time and place of the killings;[11] the selection of the victims and the manner in which they were targeted;[12] and whether the killings were aimed at the collective group rather than victims in their individual capacity.[13] In Krstić, the trial chamber qualified the victimised population and held that:

“extermination” could also, theoretically, be applied to the commission of a crime which is not “widespread” but nonetheless consists in eradicating an entire population […] made up of only a relatively small number of people. In other words, while extermination generally involves a large number of victims, it may be constituted even where the number of victims is limited.[14] […] [T]here must be evidence that a particular population was targeted and that its members were killed or otherwise subjected to conditions of life calculated to bring about the destruction of a numerically significant part of the population.[15]

The Krstić trial chamber also stated that the preparation and organisation of the crime could be considered when determining the actus reus of extermination as a crime against humanity.[16] The International Law Commission articulated that “[e]xtermination is a crime which by its very nature is directed against a group of individuals” and qualified that the individuals do not have to share any common characteristics.[17]

542. The Trial Chamber thus considered the number of victims when assessing whether the element of massiveness was met. It also took into consideration the specific circumstances of the case, such as the type of victims and, with regard to the Pionirska Street Incident, the area of origin of the victims.[18] While these factors may be taken into consideration in the assessment of whether the element of massiveness for extermination is fulfilled, they do not constitute elements of the crime of extermination as a crime against humanity.[19] Therefore, a trial chamber need not address these factors in its assessment. Milan Lukić’s arguments that the Trial Chamber inconsistently considered population density in relation to the Pionirska Street and the Bikavac Incidents therefore fail. Furthermore, as these factors do not constitute elements of the crime of extermination, there is no mens rea requirement in relation to them as suggested by Milan Lukić.

543. When referring to population density regarding the Pionirska Street Incident, the Trial Chamber essentially considered the number of individuals killed in a specific area in relation to the overall population of that area.[20] The Appeals Chamber notes that almost the entire Muslim population of Koritnik perished in the Pionirska Street Incident.[21] In these circumstances, the Trial Chamber reasonably found that the killing of 59 persons amounted to extermination as a crime against humanity. The limited reduction of the number of victims by the Appeals Chamber does not affect this conclusion.[22] Furthermore, the Appeals Chamber finds that using a single village as the reference area was not artificially narrow since Milan Lukić’s conviction rests on one incident which involved victims who were predominately from the same village.[23]

544. The Appeals Chamber further finds that the Trial Chamber did not err in finding that extermination was established in relation to the Bikavac Incident. The Trial Chamber reasonably found that the killing of at least 60 persons was sufficiently large–scale.

545. Moreover, Milan Lukić’s argument that the Tribunal and the ICTR have ensured that the element of massiveness is maintained at a high level[24] is not supported by either the jurisprudence of the Tribunal or that of the ICTR. This argument is therefore dismissed.

[1] Stakić Appeal Judgement, para. 259, referring to Ntakirutimana Appeal Judgement, para. 516.

[2] Stakić Appeal Judgement, para. 260, referring to Ntakirutimana Appeal Judgement, para. 516.

[3] Stakić Appeal Judgement, para. 260.

[4] Stakić Appeal Judgement, para. 260, referring to Ntakirutimana Appeal Judgement, para. 516. See also Bagosora and Nsengiyumva Appeal Judgement, para. 398. The ICTR Appeals Chamber accepted the Trial Chamber’s finding that parallel killings were perpetrated at the same time and qualified as having occurred on a large scale, without ascertaining a precise numerical figure.

[5] See e.g. Krstić Trial Judgement, paras 79, 84, 426, 505. See also Ntakirutimana Appeal Judgement, para. 521.

[6] Brđanin Appeal Judgement, para. 472.

[7] Stakić Trial Judgement, para. 653, referring to, inter alia, killings at Briševo where 77 Croats were killed (see Stakić Trial Judgement, para. 269). The Appeals Chamber did not address whether each incident would independently satisfy the requirement that the massiveness element had been met, but did uphold the conviction for extermination (Stakić Appeal Judgement, para. 264).

[8] Krajišnik Trial Judgement, paras 699, 720, overturned on appeal for reasons other than the massiveness requirement (Krajišnik Appeal Judgement, para. 177). See also Trial Judgement, para. 938.

[9] Setako Trial Judgement, para. 481 (30 to 40 victims) (this finding was upheld on appeal, Setako Appeal Judgement, para. 301); Sesay et al. Trial Judgement, paras 1107 (63 victims), 1271 (30 to 40 victims), 1449 (64 victims) (these findings were upheld on appeal, Sesay et al. Appeal Judgement, Chapter XII).

[10] Martić Trial Judgement, para. 63, referring to Stakić Trial Judgement, para. 640, Brđanin Trial Judgement, para. 391, Blagojević and Jokić Trial Judgement, para. 573, Krajišnik Trial Judgement, para. 716, Nahimana et al. Trial Judgement, para. 1061. See also Brđanin Appeal Judgement, para. 472, finding “that the scale of the killings, in light of the circumstances in which they occurred, meets the required threshold of massiveness for the purposes of extermination” (emphasis added).

[11] Krajišnik Trial Judgement, para. 716. This finding was not overturned on appeal.

[12] Martić Trial Judgement, fn. 120; Krajišnik Trial Judgement, para. 716; Nahimana et al. Trial Judgement, para. 1061. These findings were not overturned on appeal.

[13] Stakić Trial Judgement, para. 653; Vasiljević Trial Judgement, para. 227. These findings were not overturned on appeal.

[14] Krstić Trial Judgement, para. 501 (emphasis added). This finding was not appealed. The trial chamber in Brđanin adopted this finding (Brđanin Trial Judgement, para. 391), which was not appealed.

[15] Krstić Trial Judgement, para. 503 (emphasis added). This finding was not appealed.

[16] Krstić Trial Judgement, para. 501. This finding was not appealed. The trial chamber in Brđanin adopted this finding (Brđanin Trial Judgement, para. 391), which was not appealed.

[17] Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its forty-eighth session, 6 May - 26 July 1996, Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifty-first session, Supplement No. 10 (UN Doc. A/51/10), Article 18, p. 48.

[18] Trial Judgement, paras 943, 945, 950.

[19] See Stakić Appeal Judgement, para. 259, referring to Ntakirutimana Appeal Judgement, para. 516.

[20] The Trial Chamber considered the characteristics of Koritnik, particularly that it was a “small and less densely populated villag[e]]” (Trial Judgement, para. 943). It noted that the Muslim area of Koritnik consisted of about 20 houses and was populated by approximately 60 people (Trial Judgement, para. 335. See also Trial Judgement, para. 945).

[21] Cf. Trial Judgement, para. 335.

[22] See supra [Appeal Judgement,] para. 353. See however Separate Opinion of Judge Morrison.

[23] See Trial Judgement, para. 943.

[24] Milan Lukić Appeal Brief, para. 224.

Download full document
Notion(s) Filing Case
Appeal Judgement - 29.09.2014 KAREMERA & NGIRUMPATSE
(ICTR-98-44-A)

661.   The Appeals Chamber is mindful that, as a general matter, the element of killing on a large scale cannot be satisfied by a collective consideration of distinct events committed in different prefectures, in different circumstances, by different perpetrators, and over an extended period of time.[1] […]

[1] Bagosora and Nsengiyumva Appeal Judgement, para. 396.

Download full document
Notion(s) Filing Case
Appeal Judgement - 30.06.2016 STANIŠIĆ & ŽUPLJANIN
(IT-08-91-A)

1036. The Appeals Chamber recalls that the mens rea for extermination has been defined as the intention of the perpetrator to: (i) kill on a large scale; or (ii) systematically subject a large number of people to conditions of living that would lead to their deaths.[1] In this regard, the Appeals Chamber recalls that it has consistently held that the elements of the crime of extermination are the same as those required for murder as a crime against humanity, with the difference that extermination is killing on a large scale.[2] As such, the Appeals Chamber considers that the mens rea for extermination to “(i) kill on a large scale” can be met by establishing the mens rea for murder as a crime against humanity – i.e. the intent to: (i) kill the victim; or (ii) wilfully cause serious bodily harm which the perpetrator should reasonably have known might lead to death[3] – plus the additional intention to do so on a large scale.[4]

[1] Lukić and Lukić Appeal Judgement, para. 536; Stakić Appeal Judgement, paras 259-260. See Trial Judgement [Prosecutor v. Mićo Stanišić and Stojan Župljanin, Case No. IT-08-91-T, Judgement, 27 March 2013]], vol. 1, para. 45.

[2] Lukić and Lukić Appeal Judgement, para. 536; Stakić Appeal Judgement, para. 260. See Popović et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 701.

[3] Kvočka et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 261.

[4] In this regard, the Appeals Chamber also recalls that “[t]]he principle of individual guilt requires that an accused can only be convicted for a crime if his mens rea comprises the actus reus of the crime” (Boškoski and Tarčulovski Appeal Judgement, para. 66, quoting Naletilić and Martinović Appeal Judgement, para. 114). Thus, for a conviction of extermination, not only the actus reus but also the mens rea must encompass the large scale element.

Download full document
ICTR Statute Article 3(b) ICTY Statute Article 5(b)
Notion(s) Filing Case
Appeal Judgement - 30.06.2016 STANIŠIĆ & ŽUPLJANIN
(IT-08-91-A)

1021.  The Appeals Chamber recalls that the actus reus of extermination is “the act of killing on a large scale”.[1] It is this element of “massiveness” that distinguishes the crime of extermination from the crime of murder.[2] However, the expression “on a large scale” does not suggest a strict numerical approach with a minimum number of victims.[3] While extermination as a crime against humanity has been found in relation to the killing of thousands, it has also been found in relation to far fewer killings.[4]

1022.  The assessment of “large scale” is made on a case‑by‑case basis, taking into account the circumstances in which the killings occurred.[5] The Appeals Chamber has found that relevant factors include but are not limited to: (i) the time and place of the killings;[6] (ii) the selection of the victims and the manner in which they were targeted;[7] (iii) the type of victims;[8] (iv) whether the killings were aimed at the collective group rather than victims in their individual capacity;[9] and (v) the population density of the victims’ area of origin.[10] These factors do not constitute elements of the crime of extermination as a crime against humanity, but rather are factors which a trier of facts may take into account when assessing whether or not the “large scale” element is satisfied.[11] Moreover, separate killing incidents may be aggregated for the purpose of meeting the “large scale requirement” if the killings are considered to be part of one and the same operation.[12] Whether killings are part of the same operation must be assessed on a case‑by‑case basis taking into account the circumstances in which they occurred.[13] As held by the ICTR Appeals Chamber, collective consideration of distinct events committed in different locations, in different circumstances, by different perpetrators, over an extended period of time cannot satisfy the requirement of killing on a large scale.[14]

[…]

1027.  […] [T]he Appeals Chamber considers that while a trial chamber may take into consideration the time frame when assessing whether killings are part of the same operation,[15] the jurisprudence does not establish specific time limits as a requirement for extermination.[16] Rather, as set out above, it is the collective consideration of factors, including the time frame, which should be taken into account in determining whether the killings formed part of the same operation and thus whether they may be aggregated.[17] […]

1028.  Further, the Appeals Chamber notes that Župljanin offers no support for his statement that killings may only be aggregated when at least one of the incidents in itself is considered large scale,[18] and it finds no support for this proposition in the Tribunal’s case law.[19] […]

[1] Tolimir Appeal Judgement, para. 146; Lukić and Lukić Appeal Judgement, para. 536, referring to Stakić Appeal Judgement, para. 259, Ntakirutimana and Ntakirutimana Appeal Judgement, para. 516; Karemera and Ngirumpatse Appeal Judgement, para. 660. See Trial Judgement [Prosecutor v. Mićo Stanišić and Stojan Župljanin, Case No. IT-08-91-T, Judgement, 27 March 2013]], vol. 1, para. 44.

[2] Tolimir Appeal Judgement, para. 146; Lukić and Lukić Appeal Judgement, para. 536; Stakić Appeal Judgement, para. 260; Ntakirutimana and Ntakirutimana Appeal Judgement, para. 516. See Trial Judgement, vol. 1, para. 44.

[3] Lukić and Lukić Appeal Judgement, para. 537; Stakić Appeal Judgement, para. 260; Ntakirutimana and Ntakirutimana Appeal Judgement, para. 516.

[4] Lukić and Lukić Appeal Judgement, para. 537. In the Lukić and Lukić case, the Appeals Chamber found that the killing of 59 persons was sufficiently large so as to constitute extermination (Lukić and Lukić Appeal Judgement, para. 543). In the Akayesu case, the ICTR Appeals Chamber upheld the finding that the killing of 16 persons constituted extermination (see Akayesu Appeal Judgement, paras 423-424; Akayesu Trial Judgement, paras 737-744).

[5] Lukić and Lukić Appeal Judgement, para. 538, referring to Martić Trial Judgement, para. 63, Stakić Trial Judgement, para. 640, Brđanin Trial Judgement, para. 391, Blagojević and Jokić Trial Judgement, para. 57; Krajišnik Trial Judgement, para. 716, Nahimana et al. Trial Judgement, para. 1061. See Brđanin Appeal Judgement, para. 472, finding “that the scale of the killings, in light of the circumstances in which they occurred, meets the required threshold of massiveness for the purposes of extermination” (emphasis added).

[6] Lukić and Lukić Appeal Judgement, para. 538.

[7] Lukić and Lukić Appeal Judgement, para. 538.

[8] Lukić and Lukić Appeal Judgement, para. 542.

[9] Lukić and Lukić Appeal Judgement, para. 538.

[10] Lukić and Lukić Appeal Judgement, paras 539, 542-543.

[11] Lukić and Lukić Appeal Judgement, para. 542.

[12] Tolimir Appeal Judgement, para. 147; Karemera and Ngirumpatse Appeal Judgement, paras 661-662; Bagosora and Nsengiyumva Appeal Judgement, para. 396.

[13] Cf. Tolimir Appeal Judgement, para. 149.

[14] Karemera and Ngirumpatse Appeal Judgement, para. 661; Bagosora and Nsengiyumva Appeal Judgement, para. 396.

[15] See supra [Stanišić and Župljanin Appeal Judgement]], para. 1022.

[16] See Tolimir Appeal Judgement, para. 147, stating that “[i]]t is not required that that the killings be on a vast scale in a concentrated location over a short period of time.” See also Karemera and Ngirumpatse Appeal Judgement, para. 661; Bagosora and Nsengiyumva Appeal Judgement, para. 396.

[17] Tolimir Appeal Judgement, para. 147; Karemera and Ngirumpatse Appeal Judgement, para. 661; Bagosora and Nsengiyumva Appeal Judgement, para. 396. See supra [Stanišić and Župljanin Appeal Judgement]], para. 1022.

[18] See Župljanin Appeal Brief [Stojan [Ž]]upljanin’s Appeal Brief, 19 August 2013 (confidential; public redacted version filed on 23 August 2013, re-filed on 21 April 2016)]], para. 228.

[19] The Appeals Chamber notes that in the Brđanin case, the Trial Chamber found killings occurring in separate incidents between 22 April 1992 and 18 December 1992 to collectively amount to extermination (10 victims at Manjača detention camp, 94 victims at Omarska detention camp, 20 victims at Trnopolje detention camp, 20 victims in the Sanski Most Incident, 4 victims in front of Manjača Camp, 190 victims at Room 3 Keraterm detention camp, 200 victims at Korićanske Stijene, 11 victims at Petar Kočić elementary school, 144 victims at Biljani, 45 victims at Teslić TO). It however did not convict Brđanin for extermination, and this finding was not challenged on appeal (see Brđanin Trial Judgement, paras 436-465, 467, 478-479).

Download full document
ICTR Statute Article 3(b) ICTY Statute Article 5(b)
Notion(s) Filing Case
Appeal Judgement - 14.12.2015 NYIRAMASUHUKO et al. (Butare)
(ICTR-98-42-A)

2123.            The Appeals Chamber recalls that the actus reus of extermination is the act of killing on a large scale.[1] This is what distinguishes the crime of extermination from the crime of murder.[2] The Appeals Chamber further recalls that “large scale” does not suggest a strict numerical approach with a minimum number of victims.[3] The assessment of “large scale” is made on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the circumstances in which the killings occurred.[4] Relevant factors include, inter alia, the time and place of the killings, the selection of the victims and the manner in which they were targeted, and whether the killings were aimed at the collective group rather than victims in their individual capacity.[5]

2124.            There can be no dispute that, “taken by themselves”, the individual killings of the Tutsi girl and Ruvurajabo at the Hotel Ihuliro roadblock in late April 1994 do not meet the “large scale” requirement. The Appeals Chamber, however, is not persuaded that the Trial Chamber erred in finding that these two killings, taken collectively with the other killings for which Ntahobali was convicted, “occurred on a large scale”.

2125.            In the Bagosora and Nsengiyumva Appeal Judgement, the Appeals Chamber considered that “the Trial Chamber was unreasonable to conclude that the ‘large scale’ requirement for extermination was satisfied based on a collective consideration of events committed in different prefectures, in different circumstances, by different perpetrators, and over a period of two months.”[6] The Appeals Chamber observes that, by contrast, the two killings perpetrated at the Hotel Ihuliro roadblock were perpetrated in the same commune, in similar circumstances, by the same category of perpetrators, and approximately at the same time as the numerous killings perpetrated at the locations near the IRST, at or near the EER, and the killings of Tutsis abducted from the Butare Prefecture Office.[7] For all these events, the Trial Chamber concluded that the victims were all or predominantly of Tutsi ethnicity and were not targeted in their individual capacity but as part of a collective aim to exterminate the Tutsis.[8]

2126.            In the circumstances of this case, the Appeals Chamber finds no error in the Trial Chamber’s collective consideration of the events in relation of which Ntahobali was convicted to find him guilty of extermination as a crime against humanity for the killings perpetrated at the Hotel Ihuliro roadblock and all other killings for which he remains convicted. […]

[…]

3910.            It is unclear whether the individual killing of the eight abducted Tutsi women and girls Witness QAR testified about could be considered to meet the “large scale” requirement.[9] In any event, the Appeals Chamber finds that the Trial Chamber did not err in finding that, taken collectively with the killings perpetrated at Mugombwa Church and Kabuye Hill for which Ndayambaje was also convicted, the killing of the group of abducted women and girls “occurred on a large scale”. The Appeals Chamber observes that the killing of the abducted women and girls was perpetrated in the same commune as the Mugombwa Church massacre and not far from the Kabuye Hill attacks,[10] that Ndayambaje similarly encouraged by his presence or his words the assailants to perpetrate the crimes,[11] and that the victims were not targeted in their individual capacity but as part of a collective aim to exterminate the Tutsis.[12] The instant situation therefore differs from the situation addressed in the Bagosora and Nsengiyumva Appeal Judgement which Ndayambaje relies upon in support of his contention that the “large scale” requirement was not met regarding the killings of the abducted women and girls.[13]

See also para. 3309.

[1] See, e.g., Karemera and Ngirumpatse Appeal Judgement, para. 660; Lukić and Lukić Appeal Judgement, para. 536; Bagosora and Nsengiyumva Appeal Judgement, para. 394; Ntakirutimana Appeal Judgement, para. 516.

[2] See, e.g., Lukić and Lukić Appeal Judgement, para. 536; Stakić Appeal Judgement, para. 260, referring to Ntakirutimana Appeal Judgement, para. 516.

[3] See, e.g., Lukić and Lukić Appeal Judgement, para. 537; Rukundo Appeal Judgement, para. 185; Ntakirutimana Appeal Judgement, para. 516. See also Bagosora and Nsengiyumva Appeal Judgement, fn. 924.

[4] Lukić and Lukić Appeal Judgement, para. 538 and references cited therein.

[5] Lukić and Lukić Appeal Judgement, para. 538 and references cited therein.

[6] Bagosora and Nsengiyumva Appeal Judgement, para. 396. See also Karemera and Ngirumpatse Appeal Judgement, para. 661.

[7] See supra, Sections V.F, V.G.3, V.G.4, V.I, V.J.

[8] Trial Judgement, paras. 5783, 5784, 5844, 5852, 5854, 5870-5873, 5914, 5915. The Appeals Chamber is mindful that there is no genocidal intent requirement for the crime of extermination as a crime against humanity. However, the Appeals Chamber finds that the Trial Chamber’s findings with respect to the perpetrators’ and Ntahobali’s genocidal intent are relevant in this case to establish that the killings were directed against Tutsis as a collective group rather than victims in their individual capacities.

[9] Cf. Lukić and Lukić Appeal Judgement, para. 537.

[10] See Trial Judgement, paras. 1018, 1398, 5949.

[11] See Trial Judgement, paras. 5754, 5757, 5774, 5955.

[12] Trial Judgement, paras. 5756, 5773, 5954. The Appeals Chamber is mindful that there is no genocidal intent requirement for the crime of extermination as a crime against humanity. However, the Appeals Chamber finds that the Trial Chamber’s findings with respect to the perpetrators’ and Ndayambaje’s genocidal intent are relevant in this case to establish that the killings were directed against Tutsis as a collective group rather than victims in their individual capacities.

[13] See also supra, para. 2125.

Download full document