Table of contents:
Element:
6. The perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established this status
The mental element was clarified in the Strugar Trial Judgment:
"As regards the mens rea for the crime of cruel treatment, the Chamber sees no reason to depart from the reasoning expounded above in relation to the crime of murder. Accordingly, the Chamber holds that indirect intent, i.e. knowledge that cruel treatment was a probable consequence of the perpetrator's act or omission, may also fulfil the intent requirement for this crime."[1]
According to the Aleksovski Appeals Chamber,
"That judgment makes no reference to a need to prove any discriminatory intent in establishing the offence of outrages upon personal dignity. It speaks of human dignity as being the important value protected by the offence, but does not find that this imposes a requirement of a specific state of mind, discriminatory or otherwise."[2]
5.2 The conduct was not carried out in the interests of the person or persons concerned
Footnotes:
[1] ICTY, Strugar Trial Judgment, 31 January 2005, para. 261, followed by Limaj et al. Trial Judgment, 30 November 2005 para. 231.
[2] ICTY, Aleksovski Appeal Judgment,24 March 2000, para. 25.
