5. [Particular mental element for Element 4] The perpetrator intended such building or buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals or places where the sick and wounded are collected, which were not military objectives, to be the object of the attack

5.1. Evidence showing that the protected building was intended to be the object of the attack

5.2. Evidence that the perpetrator knew the building had protected status

5. [Particular mental element for Element 4] The perpetrator intended such building or buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals or places where the sick and wounded are collected, which were not military objectives, to be the object of the attack

Prosecutor v. Jadranko Prlić, Case No. IT-04-74-T, Judgement (TC), 29 May 2013, para. 176:

"176. Like the Naletilić Chamber, the Chamber finds that for Article 3(d) of the Statute to apply, the perpetrator of the crime must act with intent to destroy the protected property."

5.1. Evidence showing that the protected building was intended to be the object of the attack

"The destruction or damage is committed wilfully and the accused intends by his acts to cause the destruction or damage of institutions dedicated to religion or education and not used for a military purpose."[1]

"As for the mens rea element for this crime, the Chamber is guided by the previous jurisprudence of the Tribunal that a perpetrator must act with a direct intent to damage or destroy the property in question. There is reason to question whether indirect intent ought also to be an acceptable form of mens rea for this crime, but that is an issue not directly raised by the circumstances of this case."[2]

5.2. Evidence that the perpetrator knew the building had protected status