5.The perpetrator killed one or more persons, including by inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the destruction of part of a population.

5.1.1.Killing by direct methods

5.1.2.Killing by indirect methods

5.1.3.Evidence that killings or attacks occurred

5. The perpetrator killed one or more persons, including by inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the destruction of part of a population.

ICTY

According to the Vasiljević Trial Chamber:

"[...] criminal responsibility for 'extermination' only attaches to those individuals responsible for a large number of deaths, even if their part therein was remote or indirect. Responsibility for one or for a limited number of such killings is insufficient."[1]

Prosecutor v. Zdravko Tolimir, Case No. IT-05-88/2-A, Judgement (AC), 8 April 2015, para. 147:

''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. 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”.''

Prosecutor v. Radovan Karadžić, Case No. IT-95-5/18-T, Public Redacted Version of Judgement Issued on 24 March 2016 – Volume I of IV (TC), 24 March 2016, paras. 483-484:

"483. The actus reus of extermination consists of “the act of killing on a large scale”. This involves “any act, omission or combination thereof which contributes directly or indirectly to the killing of a large number of individuals”. In determining what is sufficient for a finding that a large number of individuals were killed, the Tribunal’s jurisprudence has consistently held that there is no minimum numerical threshold of victims that must be reached. Furthermore, it is not necessary that the victims of extermination be precisely identified by name, and it suffices to establish that killings occurred on a mass scale. An assessment of whether the element of “massiveness” has been met must be made on a case by case basis, taking into account all the relevant factors. Relevant factors include, for example, 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. There is no requirement to establish that there was a “vast scheme of collective murder”."

"484. Trial Chambers have previously found that it was possible to establish extermination “on an accumulation of separate and unrelated incidents, meaning on an aggregated basis”. The Appeals Chamber recently stated in Tolimir that the actus reus of extermination “may be established through an aggregation of separate incidents”. The Chamber notes that, in this formulation, the possibility of accumulating “unrelated” incidents was removed. The Tolimir Appeals Chamber went on to state that for the purpose of aggregating separate incidents, it is not required that the killing be on a vast scale in a concentrated location over a short period of time. However, even with respect to separate incidents, the Appeals Chamber made it clear that killing incidents which did not form part of the same murder operation could not be accumulated for the purposes of extermination. In assessing whether specific killing incidents formed part of the same murder operation, the Tolimir Appeals Chamber also recalled that the ICTR Appeals Chamber stated 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”."

ICTR

According to the Gatete Trial Chamber:

"[t]he crime of extermination requires proof that an accused participated in a widespread or systematic killing or in subjecting a widespread number of people or systematically subjecting a number of people to conditions of living that would inevitably lead to death."[2]

According to the Kayishema Trial Chamber:

"[...] Extermination includes not only the implementation of mass killing or the creation of conditions of life that leads to mass killing, but also the planning thereof. In this event, the Prosecutor must prove a nexus between the planning and the actual killing.

"An actor may be guilty of extermination if he kills, or creates the conditions of life that kills, a single person providing the actor is aware that his act(s) or omission(s) forms part of a mass killing event.86 For a single killing to form part of extermination, the killing must actually form part of a mass killing event. An 'event' exists when the (mass) killings have close proximity in time and place."[3]

According to the Rutaganda Trial Chamber:

"By its very nature, extermination is a crime which is directed against a group of individuals. Extermination differs from murder in that it requires an element of mass destruction which is not a pre-requisite for murder."[4]

5.1.1. Killing by direct methods

5.1.2. Killing by indirect methods

5.1.3. Evidence that killings or attacks occurred