5. The perpetrator seized, detained or otherwise held hostage one or more persons.

5.1. The perpetrator seized one or more persons; OR

5.2. The perpetrator detained one or more persons; OR

5.2.1. Evidence of detention of one or more persons in an enclosed space.

5.2.2. Evidence of detention of one or more persons in other non-enclosed locations.

5.2.3. Evidence that detention constitutes an unlawful deprivation of the victim's liberty.

5.3. The perpetrator otherwise held hostage one or more persons.

6.1. The perpetrator threatened to kill such person or persons; OR

6.2. The perpetrator threatened to injure such person or persons; OR

6.3. The perpetrator threatened to continue to detain such person or persons.

5. The perpetrator seized, detained or otherwise held hostage one or more persons.

ICTY

"the Chamber finds that an individual commits the offence of taking civilians as hostages when he threatens to subject civilians, who are unlawfully detained, to inhuman treatment or death as a means of achieving the fulfilment of a condition."[1]

SCSL

The Sesay, Kallon and Gbao Trial Chamber found:

"The Chamber finds that the Prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that RUF fighters seized hundreds of UNAMSIL peacekeepers in eight attacks and detained them at locations including Teko Barracks in Makeni, Bombali District and Small Sefadu, Yengema and Tombodu in Kono District, thus fulfilling the first element of the offence of hostage taking"[2]

5.1. The perpetrator seized one or more persons; OR

5.2. The perpetrator detained one or more persons; OR

"It would, thus, appear that the crime of taking civilians as hostages consists of the unlawful deprivation of liberty, including the crime of unlawful confinement."[3]

"civilian hostages are persons unlawfully deprived of their freedom, often arbitrarily and sometimes under threat of death. However, as asserted by the Defence, detention may be lawful in some circumstances, inter alia to protect civilians or when security reasons so impel. The Prosecution must establish that, at the time of the supposed detention, the allegedly censurable act was perpetrated in order to obtain a concession or gain an advantage. The elements of the offence are similar to those of Article 3(b) of the Geneva Conventions covered under Article 3 of the Statute."[4]

5.2.1. Evidence of detention of one or more persons in an enclosed space.

5.2.2. Evidence of detention of one or more persons in other non-enclosed locations.

5.2.3. Evidence that detention constitutes an unlawful deprivation of the victim's liberty.

5.3. The perpetrator otherwise held hostage one or more persons.

"the essential element in the crime of hostage-taking is the threat concerning detainees so as to obtain a concession or gain an advantage; a situation of hostage-taking exists when a person seizes or detains and threatens to kill, injure or continue to detain another person in order to compel a third party to do or to abstain from doing something as a condition for the release of that person."[5]

SCSL

"there is evidence that RUF fighters threatened to kill, injure or detain captured UNAMSIL peacekeepers. Fighters including Kallon threatened to kill Major Jaganathan at least twice. After Sankoh's arrest, Kasoma and other captured peacekeepers at Yengema were repeatedly threatened and told that they could be killed at any time, their fates conditional on Sankoh's release."[6]

6.1. The perpetrator threatened to kill such person or persons; OR

6.2. The perpetrator threatened to injure such person or persons; OR

6.3. The perpetrator threatened to continue to detain such person or persons.