3. The conduct took place in the context of a manifest pattern of similar conduct directed against that group or was conduct that could itself effect such destruction.

3.1. The conduct took place in the context of a manifest pattern of similar conduct.

3.2. The conduct was conduct that could itself effect such destruction.

3. The conduct took place in the context of a manifest pattern of similar conduct directed against that group or was conduct that could itself effect such destruction.

Prosecutor v. Édouard Karemera et al., Case No. ICTR-98-44-A, Judgement (AC), 29 September 2014, para. 596:

"596. Paragraph 66 of the Indictment describes the rapes as intended to “destroy” the Tutsi ethnic identity as a group. The chapeau paragraph for Count 5 as well as paragraph 70 of the Indictment also describe the rapes of Tutsi women and girls as “widespread” and “systematic”. Therefore, the Indictment signals the Prosecution’s intent to prove the existence of rapes on a large scale reflecting a pattern of conduct. The Trial Chamber’s findings that, from April to June 1994, Tutsi women and girls were raped and sexually assaulted on a systematic and large scale basis throughout Rwanda further reflect that the Prosecution was not necessarily in a position to provide greater specificity in the Indictment. Ngirumpatse advances no argument as to why greater specificity would be required."

3.1. The conduct took place in the context of a manifest pattern of similar conduct.

3.2. The conduct was conduct that could itself effect such destruction.