5. The perpetrator deported or transferred one or more persons to another State or to another location.

5.1.1. Evidence of deportation.

5.1.2. Evidence of transfer.

5.1.3. Evidence of displacement applicable in both deportation and transfer

5. The perpetrator deported or transferred one or more persons to another State or to another location.

"There are two general grounds under international law according to which displacement of persons is legitimate: it may be carried out either for the security of a civilian population or for imperative military reasons. In either case, the chief distinction between an illegitimate forcible displacement and a permissible evacuation is that, in the case of the latter, "persons thus evacuated [are] transferred back to their homes as soon as the hostilities in the area in question have ceased." It is therefore unlawful to use evacuation measures as a pretext to forcibly dislocate a population and seize control over a territory."[1]

"[T]he jurisprudence of the Tribunal indicates that an agreement concluded by military commanders or other representatives of the parties in a conflict per se cannot make a displacement lawful. Such agreement per se 'does not have any implications on the circumstances under which transfer is lawful. Military commanders or political leaders cannot consent on behalf of the individual.' In addition, the assistance by humanitarian agencies, such as UNPROFOR, ICRC, and NGOs, in facilitating displacements, does not of itself render an otherwise unlawful transfer lawful. The determination as to whether a transferred person had a genuine choice is one to be made within the context of the particular case being considered."[2]

5.1.1. Evidence of deportation.

5.1.2. Evidence of transfer.

5.1.3. Evidence of displacement applicable in both deportation and transfer