CILRAP » Case Matrix Network » CMN Knowledge Hub » Means of Proof Digest » Art. 6 Genocide » Art. 6(c) Conditions of life » 5. The perpetrator inflicted certain conditions of life upon one or more persons.

Element:

5. The perpetrator inflicted certain conditions of life upon one or more persons.

A. Evidentiary comment:

After the decision in Brđanin (Trial Judgment, para. 905), it is unclear whether evidence of acts used to establish genocidal acts under article 6(b) (or indeed other paragraphs of article 6) can also be used in respect of article 6(c). There is nothing in the Statute or the Elements of Crimes which suggest that evidence of a particular act or acts might not be used in respect of genocide charged under more than one of the paragraphs of article 6. The Trial Chamber in Brđanin gave no explanation for its view that paragraphs 6(a) and 6(b) should be read as mutually exclusive. The view of the ICTR Trial Chamber in Kayishema (para. 116) that rape could constitute a condition of life under article 6(c) would seem to suggest that an act may be relevant under more than one paragraph of article 6, since rape would surely also be relevant to a charge under article 6(b).

Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brđanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Judgement (TC), 1 September 2004, 905:

"905. The Indictment and the Prosecution Final Brief allege that some acts that amount to the infliction of serious bodily or mental harm can also be characterised as the deliberate infliction of conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction.²²⁵⁴ The Trial Chamber has only considered whether these amounted to conditions calculated to bring about physical destruction when it has not already found them to amount to "causing serious bodily or mental harm".²²⁵⁵"

"2254. Indictment, para. 37(3); Prosecution Final Brief, fn. 991: "rape and some of the other crimes described above in relation to serious bodily and mental harm can also be characterised as 'conditions of life' ".

2255. See Schabas, Genocide in International Law, p. 167 (s omitted): "[u]nlike the charges defined in paragraphs (a) and (b), the offence of deliberately imposing conditions of life calculated to bring about the group’s destruction does not require proof of a result. The conditions of life must be calculated to bring about the destruction, but whether or not they succeed, even in part, is inmaterial. If a result is achieved, then the proper charge will be paragraphs (a) or (b)"."

Prosecutor v. Milomir Stakić, Case No. IT-97-24-T, Judgment (TC), 31 July 2003, paras. 517, 518:

"517. "Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part" under sub-paragraph (c) does not require proof of a result. The acts envisaged by this sub-paragraph include, but are not limited to, methods of destruction apart from direct killings such as subjecting the group to a subsistence diet, systematic expulsion from homes and denial of the right to medical services.¹⁰⁹² Also included is the creation of circumstances that would lead to a slow death, such as lack of proper housing, clothing and hygiene or excessive work or physical exertion.¹⁰⁹³

518. […] The Trial Chamber in Akayesu held that the expression "should be construed as the methods of destruction by which the perpetrator does not immediately kill the members of the group, but which, ultimately, seek their physical destruction".¹⁰⁹⁵ […]"

"1092. Akayesu Trial Judgement, paras 505-6.

1093. Kayishema and Ruzindana Trial Judgement, paras 115-116.

[…]

1095. Akayesu Trial Judgement, para. 505."

Prosecutor v. Ignace Bagilishema, Case No. ICTR-95-1A-T, Judgment (TC), 7 June 2001, para. 90:

"90. The "creation of conditions of life leading to the mass killing" of others include, for example imprisoning a large number of people and withholding the necessities of life, so that mass death results; or introducing a deadly virus into a population and preventing medical care, with the same result." [N.B. This paragraph relates to extermination, not genocide, hence the reference to the result of a mass death which is not a requirement for the crime of genocide by inflicting conditions of life]

Prosecutor v. Georges Rutaganda, Case No. ICTR-97-20-T, Judgement (TC), 6 December 1999, para. 52:

"52. In the opinion of the Chamber, the words "deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part", as indicated in Article 2(2)(c) of the Statute [genocide], are to be construed "as methods of destruction by which the perpetrator does not necessarily intend to immediately kill the members of the group", but which are, ultimately, aimed at their physical destruction. The Chamber holds that the means of deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction, in whole or in part, include subjecting a group of people to a subsistence diet, systematic expulsion from their homes and deprivation of essential medical supplies below a minimum vital standard."

Prosecutor v. Clément Kayishema and Obed Ruzindana, Case No. ICTR-95-1-T, Judgement (TC), 21 May 1999, paras. 115 – 116, 146 :

"115. The Trial Chamber concurs with the explanation within the Draft Convention, prepared by the U.N. Secretariat which interpreted this concept to include circumstances which will lead to a slow death, for example, lack of proper housing, clothing, hygiene and medical care or excessive work or physical exertion.⁵⁷

116. It is the view of the Trial Chamber that "deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part," includes methods of destruction which do not immediately lead to the death of members of the group. The Chamber adopts the above interpretation.⁵⁸ Therefore the conditions of life envisaged include rape, the starving of a group of people, reducing required medical services below a minimum, and withholding sufficient living accommodation for a reasonable period, provided the above would lead to the destruction of the group in whole or in part."

"57. Nehemiah Robinson, the Genocide Convention: A Commentary (1960), p. 123.

58. Robinson, supra, pp. 63-64."

"146. The act(s) or omission(s) may be done with intention, recklessness, or gross negligence. The ‘creation of conditions of life that lead to mass killing’ is the institution of circumstances that ultimately causes the mass death of others. For example: Imprisoning a large number of people and withholding the necessities of life which results in mass death; introducing a deadly virus into a population and preventing medical care which results in mass death. […]"[N.B. This paragraph relates to extermination, not genocide, hence the reference to the result of a mass death which is not a requirement for the crime of genocide by inflicting conditions of life]

Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu, Case No. ICTR-96-4-T, Judgement (TC), 2 September 1998, paras. 505 – 506:

"505. The Chamber holds that the expression deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part, should be construed as the methods of destruction by which the perpetrator does not immediately kill the members of the group, but which, ultimately, seek their physical destruction.

506. For purposes of interpreting Article 2(2)(c) of the Statute, the Chamber is of the opinion that the means of deliberate inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction, in whole or part, include, inter alia, subjecting a group of people to a subsistence diet, systematic expulsion from homes and the reduction of essential medical services below minimum requirement."

Attorney-General of Israel v. Adolf Eichmann, Judgement (District Court of Jerusalem) (1968) 36 ILR 5, para.196:

"196. As we see it, the first and second counts of the indictment complement each other in describing the activities connected with the Final Solution: The first count describes the killing of Jews as a result of the implementation of the Final Solution, and, therefore, the second count must be limited to those Jews who were subjected to conditions of life which were such as to bring about the physical extermination through the implementation of the Final Solution, but remained alive. We shall, therefore, relate this count, for instance, to those Jews who were deported to Auschwitz during the period of the Final Solution, and there put to hard labour, with the intention of killing them, too, in time, in some way; but who were saved because of the advance of the Soviet army. We do not think that the conviction of the second count should also include those Jews who were not saved, as if, in their case, there were two separate actions: first, subjection to living conditions calculated to bring about their physical destruction, and later the physical destruction itself."

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 546-548:

"546. The acts punishable under Article 4(2)(c) are construed as “the methods of destruction by which the perpetrator does not immediately kill the members of the group, but which, ultimately, seek their physical destruction”. Contrary to the acts prohibited by Articles 4(2)(a) and 4(2)(b), this provision does not require proof of that a result was attained; as such, it does not require proof that the conditions actually led to death or serious bodily or mental harm of members of the protected group. When such “a result is achieved, the proper charge will be paragraphs (a) or (b)” of Article 4."

''547. Examples of such acts include, but are not limited to, subjecting the group to a subsistence diet; failing to provide adequate medical care; systematically expelling members of the group from their homes; and generally creating circumstances that would lead to a slow death such as the lack of proper food, water, shelter, clothing, sanitation, or subjecting members of the group to excessive work or physical exertion. Yet, Article 4(2)(c) applies only to acts that are deliberately calculated to cause a group’s physical destruction and, as such, these acts must be clearly distinguished from those acts designed to bring about the dissolution of the group.''

''548. In the absence of direct evidence of whether the conditions of life imposed on the group were deliberately calculated to bring about its physical destruction, a chamber can be guided by the objective probability of these conditions leading to the physical destruction of the group in part. The actual nature of the conditions of life, the length of time that members of the group were subjected to them, and the characteristics of the group such as its vulnerability are illustrative factors to be considered in evaluating the criterion of probability.''

5.1.1.C ommon Means of Proof.

P.1. Evidence of the length of time for which the conditions of life were imposed.

A. Legal source/authority and evidence:

Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brđanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Judgement (TC), 1 September 2004, paras. . 906, 917, 923 – 925, 930, 936, 940, 946, 950, 955, 959:

"906. In the absence of direct evidence, in inferring whether the "conditions of life" imposed on Bosnian Muslim and Bosnian Croat detainees amounted to conditions calculated to bring about their physical destruction in part,²²⁵⁶ the Trial Chamber has focused on the objective probability of these conditions leading to the physical destruction of the group in part.²²⁵⁷ In evaluating this objective probability, the Trial Chamber has focused on the actual nature of the "conditions of life" and on the length of time that members of the group were subjected to them. It has also been guided, when available, by factors such as the characteristics of the members of the group upon which they were inflicted."

"2256. The Indictment alleges that Bosnian Muslim and Bosnian Croat non-combatants were detained under conditions calculated to bring about the physical destruction of a part of those groups: Indictment , para. 37(3).

2257. See N. Robinson, The Genocide Convention: a Commentary (Institute of Jewish Affairs, New York , 1960), p. 64: "[i]t is impossible to enumerate in advance the 'conditions of life' that would come within the prohibition of Article II; the intent and probability of the final aim alone can determine in each separate case whether an act of Genocide has been committed (or attempted) or not"."

"917. Detainees were kept at the Mlavke Football Stadium for about 45 days.²³⁰⁰ […]"

"923. At the fire station, around 19 detainees were kept in the cellar the whole time, where they slept on wooden palettes without covers.²³¹⁵ The length of detention stretched in some cases to one month.²³¹⁶ […]

924. The length of detention at the Kotor Varos prison varied from around seven days to 12 months,²³²¹ following which some were transferred to Manjaca.²³²²

925. […]This situation went on for about a month until Dubocanin, which was identified as a member of the Banja Luka Special Unit, put an end to this state of affairs […]"

"2315. BT-83, T. 14073.

2316. BT-83, T. 14075-14076.

[…]

2321. BT-69, T. 17710 (closed session ); BT-97, T. 17933; BT-76, ex. P2044, 92bis statement, 1028821 (under seal ).

2322. BT-76, ex. P2044, 92bis statement, 1028823 (under seal)."

"930. The length of detainees’ stay in Omarska averaged approximately two months.²³³⁹ […]"

"936. […] Some detainees remained there for approximately 16 days.²³⁶⁰"

"940. Trnopolje camp was officially closed on 30 September 1992,²³⁶⁶ although some detainees stayed behind longer.²³⁶⁷ The 1,600 male detainees were held for approximately two to three months.²³⁶⁸"

"2366. Idriz Merdzanic, ex. P1148, T. 7799-7800; ex. P1617/ S 217 A, "Mayhew Report on Manjaca and Trnopolje", dated 4 September 1992.

2367. Jusuf Arifagic, ex. P554, T . 7106.

2368. Barney Mayhew, ex. P1617, T . 6090."

"946. Detainees were held at the Sloga shoe factory ranging from 36 days to about three months.²³⁸³ With the exception of some eight to 10 men that were taken to a prison in Banja Luka, the others remained in Sloga.²³⁸⁴ The Sloga shoe factory was closed on 14 September 1992, when around 70 to 100 of them were left – the rest had been released gradually, prior to this.²³⁸⁵"

"2383. Rusmir Mujanic, T. 16034; BT -91, T. 15888.

2384. BT-91, T. 15888.

2385. BT-91, T. 15894."

"950. The detainees’ length of stay at the Betonirka factory garages varied between three days to over a month.²³⁹⁴ […]"

"955. Some detainees remained in Pribinic camp for 105 days.²⁴¹⁰ […]"

"959. Some detainees remained at the TO building between 30 and 40 days.²⁴²⁰ […]"

Prosecutor v. Clément Kayishema and Obed Ruzindana, Case No. ICTR-95-1-T, Judgement (TC), 21 May 1999, para. 116:

5.1.2. Evidence of conditions of life in detention centres.

A. Legal source/authority and evidence:

Prosecutor v. Ignace Bagilishema, Case No. ICTR-95-1A-T, Judgment (TC), 7 June 2001, para. 90:

Prosecutor v. Clément Kayishema and Obed Ruzindana, Case No. ICTR-95-1-T, Judgement (TC), 21 May 1999, para. 146:

Attorney-General of Israel v. Adolf Eichmann, Judgement (District Court of Jerusalem) (1968) 36 ILR 5, para. 129:

"Living Conditions in the Camps

129. We heard evidence about the reign of terror in Auschwitz in the shadow of the smoke going up from the crematoria, and in the many camps connected with Auschwitz. There was evidence, similar in content, about conditions in the Majdanek camp in the East and in the many labour and concentration camps scattered throughout eastern Europe. The system was uniform, with local variations, according to the sadistic inventiveness of the commanders and of the guards, who had the lives of the Jews at their mercy. We shall quote witnesses on this subject, too, who suffered this regime with their own bodies. Here, too, the items we picked at random from the enormous amount of evidence brought before us will suffice to illustrate that the aim of this entire regime was to exterminate the Jew by making him work under inhuman conditions until the last drop of strength had been squeezed out of him. This applied also to the few who were kept alive in the extermination camps, to be employed for a time in the camp, until they, too, went the way of their exterminated brethren.

Let these examples suffice. Of course, more could be added from the stories of woe and suffering to which we listened, in order to prove that the reign of terror in the camps was bound to break a man's spirit, as well as his mental and physical powers of resistance."

P.2. Evidence of deprivation of food and water.

A. Legal source/authority and evidence:

Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brđanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Judgement (TC), 1 September 2004, para. 691:

"691. "Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part" under sub-paragraph (c) does not require proof of the physical destruction in whole or in part of the targeted group.¹⁷⁰⁵ The acts envisaged by this sub-paragraph include, but are not limited to, methods of destruction apart from direct killings such as subjecting the group to a subsistence diet, systematic expulsion from homes and denial of the right to medical services.¹⁷⁰⁶ Also included is the creation of circumstances that would lead to a slow death, such as lack of proper housing, clothing and hygiene or excessive work or physical exertion.¹⁷⁰⁷"

"1705. Stakić Trial Judgement, para. 517.

1706. Stakić Trial Judgement, para. 517; Akayesu Trial Judgement, paras 505-506; Rutaganda Trial Judgement, para. 50.

1707. Kayishema Trial Judgement, paras 115-116; Stakić Trial Judgement, para. 517; See also Article 1 of the Draft Convention Prepared by the Secretariat in N. Robinson, The Genocide Convention: a Commentary (Institute of Jewish Affairs), New York, 1960, p. 123 .

Prosecutor v. Milomir Stakić, Case No. IT-97-24-T, Judgment (TC), 31 July 2003, para. 517:

1092. Akayesu Trial Judgement, paras 505-6.

1093. Kayishema and Ruzindana Trial Judgement, paras 115-116.

Prosecutor v. Georges Rutaganda, Case No. ICTR-97-20-T, Judgement (TC), 6 December 1999, para. 52:

Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu, Case No. ICTR-96-4-T, Judgement (TC), 2 September 1998, para. 506:

"506. For purposes of interpreting Article 2(2)(c) of the Statute, the Chamber is of the opinion that the means of deliberate inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction, in whole or part, include, inter alia, subjecting a group of people to a subsistence diet, systematic expulsion from homes and the reduction of essential medical services below minimum requirement."

P.2.1. Evidence of provision of inadequate quantities of food.

A. Legal source/authority and evidence:

Elements of Crimes, Genocide by deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction, footnote 4 to element 5:

"The term ‘conditions of life’ may include, but is not necessarily restricted to, deliberate deprivation of resources indispensable for survival, such as food or medical services, or systematic expulsion from homes."

Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brđanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Judgement (TC), 1 September 2004, paras. 912, 918, 928, 932, 938, 942, 948, 952, 965, 961:

"912. The food in the camp was extremely insufficient,²²⁸⁵ consisting of a thin broth and a slice of bread twice a day.²²⁸⁶ As a result, many detainees lost weight and became very thin.²²⁸⁷ Some detainees were so hungry they resorted to eating grass.²²⁸⁸"

"2285. Paddy Ashdown, T. 12375; Atif Dzafic, ex. P1123, 92bis statement, 2004687; Muhamed Filipovic, T. 9617-9618 ; Samir Dedic, T. 10428; Asim Egrlic, T. 10607; Ahmed Zulic, T. 6928; Faik Biscevic , T. 7085; Adil Draganovic, T. 5098.

2286. Atif Dzafic, ex. P1123, 92bis statement, 2004685; Ahmed Zulic, T. 6928; Faik Biscevic, T. 7085.

2287. BT-26, T. 9166 (closed session ); Samir Dedic, T. 10428; Asim Egrlic, T. 10607; Adil Draganovic, T. 5098; Ahmed Zulic, T. 6930-6931; Sakib Muhic, T. 8141-8144.

2288. Ahmed Zulic, T. 6931; Muhamed Filipovic, T. 9620; Adil Draganovic, T. 5101, 6974."

"918. The quantity of food was very insufficient, limited to thin soup and some bread,²³⁰³ and detainees lost considerable weight.²³⁰⁴ Women from outside the camp were occasionally allowed to take food to the detainees.²³⁰⁵ […]"

"2304. BT-82, T. 14000; BT-87, ex. P1643, 92bis statement, 942603 (under seal).

2305. BT-81, T. 13799."

"928. Food was severely insufficient – they received a meal consisting of the soldiers’ leftovers once every two or three days.²³³¹ […]"

"932. As a rule, food at Omarska amounted to starvation rations. Detainees were fed once a day: a small piece of bread, stew and some cabbage.²³⁴⁴ […] Detainees were forced to eat their food very quickly, in the space of minutes, or else they would be beaten.²³⁴⁷ As a result of these conditions, detainees lost considerable weight.²³⁴⁸"

"2344. Muharem Murselovic, ex. P1542 , T. 2721; BT-1, ex. P1619, T. 4937 (under seal).

[…]

2347. Muharem Murselovic, ex. P1542 , T. 2721; BT-1, ex. P1619, T. 4827 (under seal).

2348. BT-2, ex. P561, T. 2755 (under seal)."

"938. Food was extremely insufficient and was limited to a meal a day, which detainees only had a few minutes to eat.²³⁶⁴"

"942. Food was not organised at the camp and there was not enough of it.²³⁷² Initially it would be brought by relatives into the camp or bought from the local population,²³⁷³ although subsequently the Bosnian Serb Red Cross procured milk and bread which it bought locally.²³⁷⁴ When the ICRC arrived in the camp around mid-August 1992, it arranged for the delivery of food.²³⁷⁵ This was providential since by that time most of the local population had been "cleansed" and could not assist with the provision of food.²³⁷⁶"

"2372. Idriz Merdzanic, ex. P1148, T. 7758; BT-38, ex. P556, T. 1654-1655 (under seal).

2373. Emsud Garibovic, T. 12462; BT-38, ex. P556, T. 1654-1655 (under seal).

2374. Idriz Merdzanic, ex. P1148, T. 7758.

2375. Idriz Merdzanic, ex. P1148, T. 7799.

2376. BT-29, ex. P560, T. 6312 (under seal)."

"948. […] They were not provided with food during their stay at Sloga, but their families were allowed to bring them food almost every day. Those without relatives in the area lost weight despite the generosity of other detainees. […]"

"952. At Betonirka, the amount of food given to detainees was insufficient […] Detainees were given a very short time to eat it. […]²⁴⁰⁴"

"956. Detainees received a meal a day.²⁴¹⁵ […]"

"961. Detainees were fed a sandwich once a day.²⁴²⁶ […]"

Attorney-General of Israel v. Adolf Eichmann, Judgement (District Court of Jerusalem) (1968) 36 ILR 5, para. 129:

"Living Conditions in the Camps

[…]

And this is what Yitzhak Zuckerman said about forced labour of Jews from Warsaw in the Kampinos camp (Session 25, Vol. I, p. 409):

Witnesses described cruel corporal punishments - the "Stehbunker" (standing cell), a narrow cell, where a man could not turn around nor move his hands. People were kept standing there for ten to twelve hours and more, and when they emerged, tortured and dazed, they had to go back to work immediately. They related how a man was hanged in the presence of his comrades during roll-call, because of some potatoes he had taken to still his hunger. […]"

P.2.2. Evidence that food provided was not suitable for consumption.

A. Legal source/authority and evidence:

Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brđanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Judgement (TC), 1 September 2004, paras. 923, 928, 932, 952:

"923. […] Food consisted of leftovers from the military police; sometimes the food had already gone bad, which caused the detainees stomach aches.²³¹⁸ […]"

"928. Food was severely insufficient […] Sometimes it was bad and caused the detainees dysentery and stomach problems.²³³²"

"2332. BT-97, T. 17933; BT-76, ex. P2044, 92bis statement, 1028822 (under seal)."

"932. […] The food was usually spoiled.²³⁴⁵ […]"

952. At Betonirka, the amount of food given to detainees was insufficient and its quality deficient: it sometimes consisted of leftovers from the MUP kitchen, which caused the detainees stomach problems.²⁴⁰³"

P.2.3. Evidence that water provided was insufficient in quantity.

A. Legal source/authority and evidence:

Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brđanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Judgement (TC), 1 September 2004, paras. 913, 918, 923, 931, 961:

"913. Water was severely insufficient, in terms of quantity²²⁸⁹ […]"

"918. […] Access to water for drinking was limited to twice a day.²³⁰⁶"

"923. […] The detainees did not get sufficient water.²³¹⁷ […]"

"931. […] It was very hot, and they had to beg for water and sing Serbian songs to obtain it. Even then it was not enough and they had to fight between themselves for a drink.²³⁴² […]"

"961. […] They had a 10 litre canister of water to share between everybody at the warehouse.²⁴²⁷"

P.2.4. Evidence that water provided was not suitable for drinking.

A. Legal source/authority and evidence:

Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brđanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Judgement (TC), 1 September 2004, paras. 913, 933, 943, 952:

913. Water was severely insufficient, in terms of quantity²²⁸⁹ as well as quality, since it originated from a lake.²²⁹⁰ The poor water lead to prevalent intestinal and stomach problems amongst the detainees.²²⁹¹ […]

"2289. Atif Dzafic, ex. P1123, 92bis statement, 2004687; BT-26, T. 9166 (closed session); Asim Egrlic, T. 10609 ; Ahmed Zulic, T. 6928; Faik Biscevic, T. 7086-7087.

2290. Barney Mayhew, ex. P1617, T . 6085; BT-27, T. 12083; Asim Egrlic, T. 10607; Jakov Maric, T. 10835; Enis Sabanovic , T. 6530; Ahmed Zulic, T. 6929.

2291. Ex. P1617/ S 217 A, "Mayhew Report on Manjaca and Trnopolje" dated 4 September 1992."

"933. The water given to the detainees was not fit for human consumption: it was in fact destined for industrial use.²³⁴⁹ This caused the detainees intestinal problems.²³⁵⁰"

"2349. Nusret Sivac, ex. P1547, T. 6642, 6748; Muharem Murselovic, ex. P1542, T. 2721-2722; BT-1, ex. P1619, T. 4856 (under seal).

2350. Nusret Sivac, ex. P1547, T. 6642."

"943. The quality of the water supplied was inadequate, as shown by the numerous cases of diarrhoea.²³⁷⁷ At least one man who had also been beaten died of dysentery.²³⁷⁸"

"2377. BT-38, ex. P556, T. 1654-1655 (under seal); Barney Mayhew, ex. P1617, T. 6083; ex. P1617/S217A, "Mayhew Report on Manjaca and Trnopolje" dated 4 September 1992.

2378. Idriz Merdzanic, T. 11782."

"952. […] Water came in dirty glass bottles.²⁴⁰⁵"

P.3. Evidence of insufficient medical treatment.

A. Legal source/authority and evidence:

Elements of Crimes, Genocide by deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction, footnote 4 to element 5:

Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brđanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Judgement (TC), 1 September 2004, paras. 691, 913, 920, 928, 934, 939, 945, 948, 954, 958, 962:

"1705. Stakić Trial Judgement , para. 517.

1706. Stakić Trial Judgement , para. 517; Akayesu Trial Judgement, paras 505-506; Rutaganda Trial Judgement, para. 50.

1707. Kayishema Trial Judgement , paras 115-116; Stakić Trial Judgement, para. 517; See also Article 1 of the Draft Convention Prepared by the Secretariat in N. Robinson, The Genocide Convention: a Commentary (Institute of Jewish Affairs), New York, 1960, p. 123 .

"913. […] The poor water lead to prevalent intestinal and stomach problems amongst the detainees.²²⁹¹ There were also quite a number of people with diabetes, high blood pressure and injuries. However, the 'medical clinic' in the camp, staffed by detainees, suffered a severe shortage of medicines and supplies.²²⁹²"

"2291. Ex. P1617/ S 217 A, "Mayhew Report on Manjaca and Trnopolje" dated 4 September 1992.

2292. Amir Dzonlic, T. 2364-2366; ex. P841.6, "McLeod Report on Manjaca camp", dated 3 September 1992."

"920. Some people were ill and received no medical treatment.²³¹¹ One man died of asthma.²³¹²"

2311. Midho Alic, T. 13907; BT-82 , T. 14017.

2312. BT-82, T. 14000.

"928. […] Detainees were not given medical treatment for the injuries caused by the beatings.²³³³"

"934. […] No medicine was provided.²³⁵³"

"939. A doctor visited once; nurses visited a few times for the purposes of administering lice powder.²³⁶⁵"

"945. Some medical treatment was provided, but the camp was not sufficiently equipped beyond basic health care.²³⁸¹ There were no medical supplies available until the arrival of the ICRC.²³⁸²"

"2381. BT-38, ex. P556, T. 1657-1660 (under seal); Mevludin Sejmenovic, T. 12203-12205.

2382. Idriz Merdzanic, ex. P1148, T. 7765."

"948. […] Some medical assistance appears to have been available.²³⁹¹"

"954. There were no medical facilities available for the treatment of injuries at Betonirka.²⁴⁰⁹"

"958. One detainee developed pneumonia and was taken to hospital together with another man who had been shot in the leg, but some other less fortunate ones were provided no medical treatment and died from their injuries.²⁴¹⁹"

"962. A detainee was taken to Teslic medical centre for medical attention, whilst other detainees were so severely beaten they had to be taken to Banja Luka hospital ; detainees suffered from diabetes and dysentery but did not receive medical attention.²⁴²⁸"

Prosecutor v. Milomir Stakić, Case No. IT-97-24-T, Judgment (TC), 31 July 2003, para. 517:

1092. Akayesu Trial Judgement, paras 505-6.

1093. Kayishema and Ruzindana Trial Judgement, paras 115-116.

Prosecutor v. Ignace Bagilishema, Case No. ICTR-95-1A-T, Judgment (TC), 7 June 2001, para. 90:

Prosecutor v. Georges Rutaganda, Case No. ICTR-97-20-T, Judgement (TC), 6 December 1999, para. 52:

Prosecutor v. Clément Kayishema and Obed Ruzindana, Case No. ICTR-95-1-T, Judgement (TC), 21 May 1999, paras. 115, 146:

"146. The act(s) or omission(s) may be done with intention, recklessness, or gross negligence. The ‘creation of conditions of life that lead to mass killing’ is the institution of circumstances that ultimately causes the mass death of others. For example: Imprisoning a large number of people and withholding the necessities of life which results in mass death; introducing a deadly virus into a population and preventing medical care which results in mass death. […]" [N.B. This paragraph relates to extermination, not genocide, hence the reference to the result of a mass death which is not a requirement for the crime of genocide by inflicting conditions of life]

Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu, Case No. ICTR-96-4-T, Judgement (TC), 2 September 1998, para. 506:

P.4. Evidence of inadequate provision of proper housing.

A. Legal source/authority and evidence:

Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brđanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Judgement (TC), 1 September 2004, para. 691:

"1705. Stakić Trial Judgement , para. 517.

1706. Stakić Trial Judgement , para. 517; Akayesu Trial Judgement, paras 505-506; Rutaganda Trial Judgement, para. 50.

1707. Kayishema Trial Judgement , paras 115-116; Stakić Trial Judgement, para. 517; See also Article 1 of the Draft Convention Prepared by the Secretariat in N. Robinson, The Genocide Convention: a Commentary (Institute of Jewish Affairs), New York, 1960, p. 123 .

Prosecutor v. Milomir Stakić, Case No. IT-97-24-T, Judgment (TC), 31 July 2003, para. 517:

1092. Akayesu Trial Judgement, paras 505-6.

1093. Kayishema and Ruzindana Trial Judgement, paras 115-116.

Prosecutor v. Clément Kayishema and Obed Ruzindana, Case No. ICTR-95-1-T, Judgement (TC), 21 May 1999, paras. 115 – 116:

"57. Nehemiah Robinson, the Genocide Convention: A Commentary (1960), p. 123.

58. Robinson, supra, pp. 63-64."

P.4.1. Evidence that detainees were housed in buildings not intended for human habitation.

A. Legal source/authority and evidence:

Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brđanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Judgement (TC), 1 September 2004, paras. 910 – 911, 917, 923, 930, 941, 959:

"910. The camp was situated within a military training ground in what used to be its farm.²²⁷⁸ The detainees were kept in large, crowded stables for livestock,²²⁷⁹ where they sat or lay down for most of the day. There were some straw and blankets, but at times some detainees were lying directly on the concrete floor.²²⁸⁰

911. It was hard to breathe inside the stables because of the stench.²²⁸¹ […]"

"2278. Adil Medic, T. 2217.

2279. Adil Medic, T. 2226; Amir Dzonlic , T. 2367, 2371-2372, 2385; Paddy Ashdown, T. 12364; Samir Dedic, T. 10426; Charles McLeod, T. 7314-7315.

2280. Amir Dzonlic, T. 2370; Adil Medic, T. 2225; Atif Dzafic, ex. P1123, 92bis statement, 2004687; Asim Egrli c, T. 10607; Adil Draganovic, T. 5106.

2281. Amir Dzonlic, T. 2371-2372."

"917. Detainees were kept at the Mlavke Football Stadium for about 45 days.²³⁰⁰ Because they were confined to one part of the stadium, there was a shortage of space for approximately 700 men.²³⁰¹ They slept on the floor with no blankets.²³⁰²"

2300. BT-82, T. 14000; BT-87, ex. P1643, 92bis statement, 942602 (under seal); Midho Alic, T. 13907.

2301. Midho Alic, T. 13905; BT-83 , T. 14063; BT-87, ex. P1643, 92bis statement, 942602 (under seal).

2302. BT-82, T. 13999; Midho Alic , T. 13905.

"923. At the fire station, around 19 detainees were kept in the cellar the whole time, […]"

"930. […] They were kept in large numbers in garages […]"

"941. The conditions inside the camp were "unacceptable".²³⁶⁹ […]"

"2369. Paddy Ashdown, T. 12426-12430 ."

"959. […] Detainees were kept in a warehouse and stayed inside at all times.²⁴²¹ […]"

Attorney-General of Israel v. Adolf Eichmann, Judgement (District Court of Jerusalem) (1968) 36 ILR 5, para. 129:

"Living Conditions in the Camps

129. […]

We heard the following about the Majdanek camp from Yisrael Gutman (Session 63, Vol. III, p. 1154):

[…]"

P.4.2. Evidence of overcrowded housing.

A. Legal source/authority and evidence:

Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brđanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Judgement (TC), 1 September 2004, paras. 910, 917, 925, 930 – 931, 936, 947, 950, 955:

"2278. Adil Medic, T. 2217.

2279. Adil Medic, T. 2226; Amir Dzonlic , T. 2367, 2371-2372, 2385; Paddy Ashdown, T. 12364; Samir Dedic, T. 10426; Charles McLeod, T. 7314-7315.

2280. Amir Dzonlic, T. 2370; Adil Medic, T. 2225; Atif Dzafic, ex. P1123, 92bis statement, 2004687; Asim Egrli c, T. 10607; Adil Draganovic, T. 5106."

2300. BT-82, T. 14000; BT-87, ex. P1643, 92bis statement, 942602 (under seal); Midho Alic, T. 13907.

2301. Midho Alic, T. 13905; BT-83 , T. 14063; BT-87, ex. P1643, 92bis statement, 942602 (under seal).

"925. The 20 to 36 detainees of Room Three were kept in a cell of about 12 square meters […]"

"930. […] They were kept in large numbers in garages and suffered from lack of space and air.²³⁴⁰

931. As stated earlier, around 29 May 1992, detainees from the Benkovac military barracks were transferred to the camp.²³⁴¹ Upon arrival, around 120 individuals were crammed into a garage for several days. […]"

"2340. Muharem Murselovic, T. 12600 ."

2341. 2341. Samir Poljak, ex. P1521, T. 6353."

"936. Rooms Three and Four in Keraterm camp held each a few hundred detainees, making it unbearably crowded and hot inside.²³⁵⁹"

"947. At the Sloga, detainees were initially put in one room for two or three days where they would take turns to lie down and sleep because there was not enough room.²³⁸⁶ One detainee estimated that he was initially placed in a room with around 130 others.²³⁸⁷ With the arrival of more detainees they were allowed into a second room.²³⁸⁸"

"2386. BT-91, T. 15878-15879; Rusmir Mujanic, T. 16038-16039.

2387. Rusmir Mujanic, T. 16033.

2388. BT-91, T. 15880."

"950. […] On average there were around 30 individuals per garage, and there were three garages ²³⁹⁵ which were small.²³⁹⁶ At some point, the garage was so crowded that the detainees had to sleep sitting up.^{Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brđanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Judgement (TC), 1 September 2004, paras. 910, 917, 923, 925, 930, 941, 947 – 948, 950 955, 959:}

"2278. Adil Medic, T. 2217.

2279. Adil Medic, T. 2226; Amir Dzonlic , T. 2367, 2371-2372, 2385; Paddy Ashdown, T. 12364; Samir Dedic, T. 10426; Charles McLeod, T. 7314-7315.

2280. Amir Dzonlic, T. 2370; Adil Medic, T. 2225; Atif Dzafic, ex. P1123, 92bis statement, 2004687; Asim Egrli c, T. 10607; Adil Draganovic, T. 5106."

"2300. BT-82, T. 14000; BT-87, ex. P1643, 92bis statement, 942602 (under seal); Midho Alic, T. 13907.

2301. Midho Alic, T. 13905; BT-83 , T. 14063; BT-87, ex. P1643, 92bis statement, 942602 (under seal).

2302. BT-82, T. 13999; Midho Alic , T. 13905."

"923. At the fire station, around 19 detainees were kept in the cellar the whole time, where they slept on wooden palettes without covers.²³¹⁵ […]"

"925. […] They slept on the floor with no cover.²³²⁴ […]"

"930. […] At Omarska, detainees slept on the floor. […]"

"941. […] There were no beds or blankets at Trnopolje camp and detainees had to sleep on the floor.²³⁷⁰ Some of them had to sleep outside.²³⁷¹"

"2370. Idriz Merdzanic, T. 11812-11813 .

2371. BT-38, ex. P556, T. 1654-1655 (under seal)."

"947. At the Sloga, detainees were initially put in one room for two or three days where they would take turns to lie down and sleep because there was not enough room.²³⁸⁶ […]

"948. Detainees could sleep on cardboard over the concrete floor.²³⁸⁹ […]"

"2386. BT-91, T. 15878-15879; Rusmir Mujanic, T. 16038-16039.

[…]

2389. Rusmir Mujanic, T. 16034, 16039 ."

"950. […] At some point, the garage was so crowded that the detainees had to sleep sitting up.^{Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brđanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Judgement (TC), 1 September 2004, paras. 910 – 911, 930 – 931, 951, 959:}

"910. The camp was situated within a military training ground in what used to be its farm.²²⁷⁸ The detainees were kept in large, crowded stables for livestock,²²⁷⁹ […]

911. It was hard to breathe inside the stables because of the stench.²²⁸¹ […]"

"2278. Adil Medic, T. 2217.

2279. Adil Medic, T. 2226; Amir Dzonlic , T. 2367, 2371-2372, 2385; Paddy Ashdown, T. 12364; Samir Dedic, T. 10426; Charles McLeod, T. 7314-7315.

[…]

2281. Amir Dzonlic, T. 2371-2372."

"930. […] They were kept in large numbers in garages and suffered from lack of space and air.²³⁴⁰"

931. […] The Trial Chamber has already found that two young men suffocated to death as a result of the conditions inside the garage.²³⁴³"

"2340. Muharem Murselovic, T. 12600 .

[…]

2343. Samir Poljak, ex. P1521, T. 6357; Samir Poljak, T. 11891. See A.2. supra, "The killing of a number of people in Omarska camp between 28 May and 6 August 1992 –Prijedor municipality "."

"951. There was no ventilation in the garages, since the windows were covered.²⁴⁰⁰ When the door was closed, breathing was difficult.²⁴⁰¹ […]"

"2400. Ahmed Zulic, T. 6884; Bekir Delic, T. 7956; BT-23, T. 6418-6419.

2401. BT-23, T. 6418-6419."

"959. […] Detainees were kept in a warehouse and stayed inside at all times.²⁴²¹ It was hot and stuffy.²⁴²² […]"

"2421. BT-61, ex. P1976, 92bis statement, 2978916 (under seal); Ferid Mahalbasic, ex. P1962, 92bis statement , 1034061; Mehmed Tenic, T. 16883.

2422. Mehmed Kopic, ex. P1964, 92bis statement, 1034038."

P.4.5. Evidence of lack of natural light.

A. Legal source/authority and evidence:

Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brđanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Judgement (TC), 1 September 2004, paras. 925, 951, 955:

"925. The 20 to 36 detainees of Room Three were kept in a cell of about 12 square meters with covered windows and a closed door.²³²³ […] For about a month, the windows in Room Three were boarded up.²³²⁵ […]"

"2323. BT-69, T. 17711, T. 17777 ( closed session).

[…]

2325. BT-69, T. 17711 (closed session )."

"951. There was no ventilation in the garages, since the windows were covered.²⁴⁰⁰"

"955. […] In some of the rooms the windows were covered and there was no light.²⁴¹² […]"

P.4.6. Evidence of insufficiently heated housing.

A. Legal source/authority and evidence:

Attorney-General of Israel v. Adolf Eichmann, Judgement (District Court of Jerusalem) (1968) 36 ILR 5, para. 129:

"Living Conditions in the Camps

"129. […]

We heard the following about the Majdanek camp from Yisrael Gutman (Session 63, Vol. III, p. 1154):

Dr. Aharon Beilin describes the living conditions in the Auschwitz camp:

And this is what Yitzhak Zuckerman said about forced labour of Jews from Warsaw in the Kampinos camp (Session 25, Vol. I, p. 409):

[…]"

P.5. Evidence of imposition of sleep deprivation.

A. Legal source/authority and evidence:

Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brđanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Judgement (TC), 1 September 2004, para. 950:

"950. […] One night when Martic was shift commander they were forced to stand all 12 hours and were not allowed to sleep.²³⁹⁹"

P.6. Evidence of restrictions on the movement of detainees.

A. Legal source/authority and evidence:

Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brđanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Judgement (TC), 1 September 2004, paras. 925, 937, 951, 955, 959:

"925. The 20 to 36 detainees of Room Three were kept in a cell of about 12 square meters with covered windows and a closed door.²³²³ […] They could not go out to the hallway.²³²⁷ […]"

"937. Detainees in Room Three were for three days not allowed to go outside the room […]"

"951. […] Only very occasionally were they allowed outside for 30 minutes a day.²⁴⁰²"

"955. […] They stayed inside except when they went to the toilet.²⁴¹⁴"

"959. […] Detainees were kept in a warehouse and stayed inside at all times.²⁴²¹ […]"

P.7. Evidence of lack of permission to receive visitors.

A. Legal source/authority and evidence:

Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brđanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Judgement (TC), 1 September 2004, para. 926:

"926. After about three months some of the detainees were allowed to receive visitors, although not those in Room Three.²³²⁹"

P.8. Evidence of inadequate provision of clothing.

A. Legal source/authority and evidence:

Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brđanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Judgement (TC), 1 September 2004, para. 691:

"1705. Stakić Trial Judgement , para. 517.

1706. Stakić Trial Judgement, para. 517; Akayesu Trial Judgement, paras 505-506; Rutaganda Trial Judgement, para. 50.

Prosecutor v. Milomir Stakić, Case No. IT-97-24-T, Judgment (TC), 31 July 2003, para. 517:

1092. Akayesu Trial Judgement, paras 505-6.

1093. Kayishema and Ruzindana Trial Judgement, paras 115-116.

Prosecutor v. Clément Kayishema and Obed Ruzindana, Case No. ICTR-95-1-T, Judgement (TC), 21 May 1999, paras. 115:

Attorney-General of Israel v. Adolf Eichmann, Judgement (District Court of Jerusalem) (1968) 36 ILR 5, para. 129:

"Living Conditions in the Camps

129. […]

We heard the following about the Majdanek camp from Yisrael Gutman (Session 63, Vol. III, p. 1154):

Nor did the persecutors spare the women. Judge Beisky gives evidence about the Plaszow camp in the suburbs of Cracow (Session 21, Vol. I, p. 353-354):

And this is what Yitzhak Zuckerman said about forced labour of Jews from Warsaw in the Kampinos camp (Session 25, Vol. I, p. 409):

[…]"

P.9. Evidence of provision of inadequate hygiene facilities.

A. Legal source/authority and evidence:

Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brđanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Judgement (TC), 1 September 2004, para. 691:

"1705. Stakić Trial Judgement , para. 517.

1706. Stakić Trial Judgement , para. 517; Akayesu Trial Judgement, paras 505-506; Rutaganda Trial Judgement, para. 50.

1707. Kayishema Trial Judgement , paras 115-116; Stakić Trial Judgement, para. 517; See also Article 1 of the Draft Convention Prepared by the Secretariat in N. Robinson, The Genocide Convention: a Commentary (Institute of Jewish Affairs), New York, 1960, p. 123."

Prosecutor v. Milomir Stakić, Case No. IT-97-24-T, Judgment (TC), 31 July 2003, para. 517:

1092. Akayesu Trial Judgement, paras 505-6.

1093. Kayishema and Ruzindana Trial Judgement, paras 115-116.

Prosecutor v. Clément Kayishema and Obed Ruzindana, Case No. ICTR-95-1-T, Judgement (TC), 21 May 1999, paras. 115:

P.9.1. Evidence of unclean housing.

A. Legal source/authority and evidence:

Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brđanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Judgement (TC), 1 September 2004, 911:

"911. It was hard to breathe inside the stables because of the stench.²²⁸¹ […]"

P.9.2. Evidence of inadequate toilet facilities.

A. Legal source/authority and evidence:

Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brđanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Judgement (TC), 1 September 2004, paras. 911, 919, 923, 925, 934, 937, 944, 953, 957, 960:

"911. […] The detainees had to use buckets as toilets, although later there were field toilets of wooden boards.²²⁸⁴ […]"

"919. […] Toilet facilities were also inadequate.²³¹⁰"

"923. […] The room where the detainees were held had no toilet, and not even a bucket: for these purposes detainees were at the mercy of the Bosnian Serb military policeman guarding them, who would escort them to the toilet facilities at the fire department house, failing which detainees had to relieve themselves in a corner.²³¹⁹ […]"

"925. […] Detainees of Room Three had to relieve themselves inside the cell in army flasks.²³²⁶"

"934. Hygienic conditions were very deficient. Toilets were blocked and filthy.²³⁵¹ […]"

"937. Detainees in Room Three were for three days not allowed to go outside the room and were forced to relieve themselves in a plastic beaker.²³⁶¹ In Room Four there was one toilet in the room, but it was blocked and filthy.²³⁶² […]"

"2361. BT-37, ex. P555, T. 2507 (under seal).

2362. BT-34, ex. P558, T. 1072-1073 (under seal)."

"944. Basic hygiene was lacking: toilets quickly became unusuable and septic pits were dug instead, but were not maintained.²³⁷⁹ […]"

"953. At Betonirka, sanitary conditions were totally inadequate: they could only use the field toilet when the garage was open, which depended on the whims of the guard.²⁴⁰⁶ If not, they had to relieve themselves in a bucket inside the garage, or in nylon bags.²⁴⁰⁷ […]"

"2406. Bekir Delic, T. 7957-7958.

2407. BT-23, T. 6419; Bekir Delic , T. 7957-7958."

"957. Hygiene was meagre: there was an outside toilet.²⁴¹⁷ […]"

"960. Detainees had to urinate in a canister, or else they would risk being beaten on the way to the toilet.²⁴²⁴"

P.9.3. Evidence of lack of shower or bathing facilities.

A. Legal source/authority and evidence:

Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brđanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Judgement (TC), 1 September 2004, paras. 911, 919, 923, 927, 934, 953:

"911. […] The camp had no shower or bath facilities, and there was no running water.²²⁸²"

"919. Although they could wash, the water that was brought for that purpose was ice cold.²³⁰⁷ […]"

"923. […] Detainees had no opportunity of washing except sometimes when they were taken to the Una River.²³²⁰"

"927. They only received sufficient water to drink and could not wash themselves.²³³⁰"

"934. Hygienic conditions were very deficient. [..] Instead of being allowed to bathe, detainees were on one occasion hosed down.²³⁵²[…]"

"953. […] There was no water for bathing or for washing clothes.²⁴⁰⁸"

P.9.4. Evidence of lack of running water.

A. Legal source/authority and evidence:

Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brđanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Judgement (TC), 1 September 2004, paras. 911:

"911. […] The camp had no shower or bath facilities, and there was no running water.²²⁸²"

P.9.5. Evidence that it was not possible to change or wash clothes.

A. Legal source/authority and evidence:

Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brđanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Judgement (TC), 1 September 2004, paras. 919, 937, 948, 953, 957, 960:

"919. […] In addition, they had no facilities to wash clothes.²³⁰⁸ Relatives’ visits were allowed on occasion and detainees could then receive clothes from their relatives.^{Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brđanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Judgement (TC), 1 September 2004, paras. 911, 944:}

"911. […] The camp was infested with lice.²²⁸³ […]"

"944. […] Lice and scabies were rife.²³⁸⁰"

P.10. Evidence of imposition of excessive work or physical exertion.

A. Legal source/authority and evidence:

Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brđanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Judgement (TC), 1 September 2004, paras. 691, 914, 921, 949:

"1705. Stakić Trial Judgement , para. 517.

1706. Stakić Trial Judgement , para. 517; Akayesu Trial Judgement, paras 505-506; Rutaganda Trial Judgement, para. 50.

1707. Kayishema Trial Judgement , paras 115-116; Stakić Trial Judgement, para. 517; See also Article 1 of the Draft Convention Prepared by the Secretariat in N. Robinson, The Genocide Convention: a Commentary (Institute of Jewish Affairs), New York, 1960, p. 123."

"914. Detainees at Manjaca were made by the guards to perform heavy physical work.²²⁹³ On one occasion, when an insufficient number of people volunteered, the detainee in charge of the stable received a blow with a wooden plank which broke his collarbone.²²⁹⁴"

"2293. Ex. P841.5, "CSCE Rapporteur Mission to Banja Luka", Meeting with Commandant of PW Camp Manjaca, dated 3 September 1992; ex. P417, "Order" dated 22 August 1992, with a signature block of Momir Talic , on reconstruction works on the church in the village of Sljivno: "The collection centre at Manjaca shall provide the workforce to carry out all the work on the site , and the head of the Centre shall personally answer to me for this"; Atif Dzafic , ex. P1123, 92bis statement, 2004688; BT-26, T. 9167, 9228 (closed session ); Ahmed Zulic, T. 6934; Bekir Delic, T. 7980; Enis Sabanovic, T. 6532, T. 6612- 6613; BT-36, T. 11101 (closed session); Adil Draganovic, T. 5099.

2294. Asim Egrlic, T. 10609."

"921. Detainees had to perform labour to smoothen the path along the stadium.²³¹³"

"949. Whilst in Sloga detainees worked, inter alia, on Milankovic’s estate.²³⁹² On these occasions they were guarded by the police.²³⁹³"

"2392. BT-91, T. 15895; Rusmir Mujanic , T. 16043, 16048, 16061.

2393. Rusmir Mujanic, T. 16044."

Prosecutor v. Milomir Stakić, Case No. IT-97-24-T, Judgment (TC), 31 July 2003, para. 517:

"1092. Akayesu Trial Judgement, paras 505-6.

1093. Kayishema and Ruzindana Trial Judgement, paras 115-116."

Prosecutor v. Clément Kayishema and Obed Ruzindana, Case No. ICTR-95-1-T, Judgement (TC), 21 May 1999, paras. 115:

Attorney-General of Israel v. Adolf Eichmann, Judgement (District Court of Jerusalem) (1968) 36 ILR 5, para. 129:

"Living Conditions in the Camps

129. […]

We heard the following about the Majdanek camp from Yisrael Gutman (Session 63, Vol. III, p. 1154):

Nor did the persecutors spare the women. Judge Beisky gives evidence about the Plaszow camp in the suburbs of Cracow (Session 21, Vol. I, p. 353-354):

And this is what Yitzhak Zuckerman said about forced labour of Jews from Warsaw in the Kampinos camp (Session 25, Vol. I, p. 409):

[…]"

P.11. Evidence of corporal punishment or other cruel treatment.

A. Legal source/authority and evidence:

Attorney-General of Israel v. Adolf Eichmann, Judgement (District Court of Jerusalem) (1968) 36 ILR 5, para. 129:

"Living Conditions in the Camps

129. […]

[…]"

5.1.3. Evidence of conditions of life in ghettos.

A. Legal source/authority and evidence:

Attorney-General of Israel v. Adolf Eichmann, Judgement (District Court of Jerusalem) (1968) 36 ILR 5, para. 130:

Living Conditions in the Ghettos in the East

130. We have listened to much evidence on living conditions in the ghettos in the East. From Lodz to Vilna, Kovno, Bialystok, Riga in the north, and Cracow, Przemysl, Kolomea and Lvov in the south, to the largest of them all, the Warsaw Ghetto, into which some half a million Jews were crammed.

P.12. Evidence of restrictions on economic activities.

A. Legal source/authority and evidence:

Attorney-General of Israel v. Adolf Eichmann, Judgement (District Court of Jerusalem) (1968) 36 ILR 5, para. 130:

"130. […]

P.13. Evidence of prohibitions on cultural and religious activities.

A. Legal source/authority and evidence:

Attorney-General of Israel v. Adolf Eichmann, Judgement (District Court of Jerusalem) (1968) 36 ILR 5, para. 130:

"130. […]

The witness Zivia Lubetkin gave a description of the life of the Jews in this ghetto, which can apply to the other ghettos as well. She spoke of the economic decrees introduced by the Germans already during the first period, when they entered the city, and of later decrees affecting cultural and social life, including the prohibition of the opening of schools and libraries. She told of how synagogue services were forbidden and public bodies disbanded; and continues (Session 25, Vol. I, pp. 398-399):

[…]"

P.14. Evidence of use of violence to create a climate of terror.

A. Legal source/authority and evidence:

Attorney-General of Israel v. Adolf Eichmann, Judgement (District Court of Jerusalem) (1968) 36 ILR 5, para. 130:

"130. […]

[…] She told of how synagogue services were forbidden and public bodies disbanded; and continues (Session 25, Vol. I, pp. 398-399):

[…]

We heard evidence about children in the ghetto, about the dashing of a child's head against the pavement before his mother's eyes (evidence of Noah Zabludowicz, Session 21, Vol. I, pp. 335); about children torn from their mothers' arms and taken off for extermination; about the children in Lodz who were thrown from hospital balconies into trucks which came to round up the sick and the children, in order to deport them for extermination (evidence of Henryk Ross, Session 23, Vol. I, p. 380); about mass kidnapping of children in the "Children's Action" (evidence of Peretz, Session 28, Vol. I, p. 479); and about whole orphanages evacuated from Warsaw, and the children and their teachers taken to Treblinka (the evidence of Dr. Adolf Berman, Session 26, Vol. I, p. 426-427)."

P.15. Evidence of kidnapping for the purpose of forced labour.

A. Legal source/authority and evidence:

Attorney-General of Israel v. Adolf Eichmann, Judgement (District Court of Jerusalem) (1968) 36 ILR 5, para. 130:

"130. […]

[…]"

P.16. Evidence of improper sanitary conditions and diseases resulting therefrom.

A. Legal source/authority and evidence:

Attorney-General of Israel v. Adolf Eichmann, Judgement (District Court of Jerusalem) (1968) 36 ILR 5, para. 130:

"130. […]

[…]

The witness also gave evidence about the terrible sanitary conditions resulting from tremendous congestion, the typhus epidemic which broke out, and the hunger which struck down hundreds of victims daily.

[…]

Dr. Dworzecki also gave evidence about the diseases and epidemics raging in the ghettos, owing to poor hygienic conditions and malnutrition, scurvy, lice, typhus, tuberculosis and the swelling of the body in the last stages of starvation, as well as diarrhoea, which took toll of tens of thousands of victims in the ghettos and the concentration camps.

[…]"

P.17. Evidence of deprivation of food.

A. Legal source/authority and evidence:

Attorney-General of Israel v. Adolf Eichmann, Judgement (District Court of Jerusalem) (1968) 36 ILR 5, para. 130:

"130. […]

The witness also gave evidence about […] hunger which struck down hundreds of victims daily.

[…]

Dr. Meir Mark Dworzecki and Dr. Aharon Peretz, in their evidence, spoke about medical aspects of Jewish life in the ghetto. The rations given to the Jews had a value of 170-200 calories per day, whereas a person who is not working needs 2,300 calories and a working man needs 3,000-5,000 calories. Dr. Dworzecki carried out research on this subject and found that, with these rations, all inhabitants of the Vilna Ghetto would starve to death within a month or two. This did not happen, because the ghetto residents succeeded in smuggling food into the ghetto, sufficient to provide 800-1,000 calories per soul per day. He further calculated that, even with the aid of smuggled food, the inmates of the Warsaw Ghetto would have died of starvation to the very last man within eight years. A passage from the diary of Hans Frank is worth mentioning here (T/253, p. 44). It relates to a meeting of the heads of the Generalgouvernement in Cracow on 24 August 1942, when the subject on the agenda was "The absorption and feeding plan for the Generalgouvernement." The directive of the Main Department for Nutrition and Agriculture stated there that,

[…]"

5.1.4. Evidence of deportation and systematic expulsion.

P.18. Evidence of deportation.

A. Legal source/authority and evidence:

Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its forty-eighth sexxion 6 May – 26 July 1996, (A/51/10) para. 50: Commentary to Article 17, sub-para. 15 (pages 91 – 92):

"Regarding subparagraph (c) [of article 17, on the crime of genocide], the phrase ‘deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part’ was drawn from article II, subparagraph (c) of the Convention.¹²³ It was suggested that deportation should be included in subparagraph (c). The Commission, however, considered that this subparagraph covered deportation when carried out with the intent to destroy the group in whole or in part."

B. Evidentiary comment:

Note that according to the ICTY Trial Chamber in Stakić, para. 519 (below), it does not suffice to deport a group or a part of a group. A clear distinction must be drawn between physical destruction and mere dissolution of a group. The expulsion of a group or part of a group does not in itself suffice for genocide.

P.18.1. Evidence of mistreatment of displaced persons.

Prosecutor v. Zdravko Tolimir, Case No. IT-05-88/2-A, Judgement (AC), 8 April 2015, paras. 227-236:

''227. Bearing the above principles in mind, the Appeals Chamber turns to the Trial Chamber’s interpretation and application of Article 4(2)(c) of the Statute in this case. The Appeals Chamber recalls that the Trial Chamber considered the “combined effect” of: (i) the “forcible transfer operations” in relation to Srebrenica’s Muslim women, children, and elderly from Potoari and Žepa’s Muslim population; and (ii) the killing of at least 5,749 Bosnian Muslim men from Srebrenica to conclude that “these operations were aimed at destroying this Bosnian Muslim community and preventing reconstitution of the group in this area” (i.e. Eastern BiH).⁶⁵⁵ In the view of the Appeals Chamber, the Trial Chamber’s consideration of the killing operation under Article 4(2)(c) of the Statute was an error, as it contravened the very case law cited by the Trial Chamber. The Appeals Chamber recalls that Article 4(2)(c) of the Statute covers “methods of destruction that do not immediately kill the members of the group, but ultimately seek their physical destruction”.⁶⁵⁶ It is clear from the Tribunal’s case law, explicitly relied upon by the ICJ, that killings may not be considered, under Article 4(2)(c) of the Statute, as acts resulting in the deliberate infliction of conditions of life calculated to bring about the protected group’s physical destruction. ''

⁶⁵⁵ Trial Judgement, para. 766.

⁶⁵⁶ Trial Judgement, para. 740 (emphasis added).

''228. The Appeals Chamber recalls that the different categories of genocidal acts proscribed in Article 4(2) of the Statute correspond to and aim to capture different methods of physical destruction of a protected group: subparagraphs (a) and (b) of Article 4(2) of the Statute proscribe acts causing a specific result, which must be established by the evidence, i.e., killings and serious bodily or mental harm respectively;⁶⁵⁷ on the other hand, subparagraph (c) of the same Article purports to capture those methods of destruction that do not immediately kill the members of the group, but which, ultimately, seek their physical destruction.⁶⁵⁸ The chambers of the Tribunal and the ICJ have listed several acts as examples of such methods of destruction that could potentially meet the threshold of Article 4(2)(c) of the Statute and Article II(c) of the Genocide Convention, including deprivation of food, medical care, shelter or clothing, lack of hygiene, systematic expulsion from homes, or subjecting members of the group to excessive work or physical exertion.⁶⁵⁹ Notably, killings, which are explicitly mentioned as a separate genocidal act under Article 4(2)(a) of the Statute, may not be considered as a method of inflicting upon the protected group conditions of life calculated to bring about its destruction under Article 4(2)(c) of the Statute.''

⁶⁵⁷ Trial Judgement, para. 737, and authorities cited therein.

⁶⁵⁸ Trial Judgement, para. 741, citing Br|anin Trial Judgement, paras 691, 905, Stakić Trial Judgement, para. 517.

⁶⁵⁹ See Trial Judgement, para. 740 (referring to “subjecting the group to a subsistence diet; failing to provide adequate

''229. The Appeals Chamber, therefore, finds merit in Tolimir’s contention that the Trial Chamber was legally barred from considering the combined effect of the killing and the forcible transfer operations under Article 4(2)(c) of the Statute. The Appeals Chamber recognises that in the Indictment, this actus reus of genocide was alleged to have been perpetrated through “the forcible transfer of the women and children from Srebrenica and Žepa, the separation of the men in Potočari and the execution of the men from Srebrenica”, all of which operations were to be considered together.⁶⁶⁰ Such combined consideration, however, was contrary to the legal principles governing the application of Article 4(2)(c) of the Statute, which limit the scope of the provision to “methods of physical destruction, other than killing”.⁶⁶¹''

⁶⁶⁰ Indictment, para. 24.

⁶⁶¹ ICJ Croatia v. Serbia Judgment, para. 161.

''230. Another error committed by the Trial Chamber in its application of Article 4(2)(c) of the Statute was its consideration of the destruction of mosques in Srebrenica and Žepa as an additional act through which the Bosnian Serb Forces inflicted on the protected group conditions of life calculated to bring about its destruction^.662 As the Trial Chamber itself acknowledged, acts amounting to “cultural genocide” are excluded from the scope of the Genocide Convention.⁶⁶³ Notably, the ICJ also held that “the destruction of historical, cultural and religious heritage cannot be considered to constitute the deliberate infliction of conditions of life calculated to bring about the physical destruction of the group”.⁶⁶⁴ The Trial Chamber, therefore, committed a legal error in considering the destruction of mosques in Srebrenica and Žepa under Article 4(2)(c) of the Statute.''

⁶⁶² Trial Judgement, para. 766. The Appeals Chamber notes that Tolimir does not challenge this finding. However, considering that the issue is of general significance to the jurisprudence of the Tribunal, in the exercise of its discretion, the Appeals Chamber has decided to consider the issue proprio motu.

⁶⁶³ Trial Judgement, para. 741, and authorities cited therein.

⁶⁶⁴ Bosnia Genocide Judgment, para. 344. See also ICJ Croatia v. Serbia Judgment, paras 386-390 (affirming that the destruction of cultural property cannot qualify as an act of genocide under any of the categories of Article II of the Genocide Convention, even if such acts may be taken into account to establish genocidal intent).

''231. In light of the legal errors identified above, the Appeals Chamber will proceed with examining the factual findings of the Trial Chamber and the evidence on the record in order to determine whether the forcible transfer operations of the Muslim populations of Srebrenica and Žepa, excluding the killings of Srebrenica’s males and the destruction of mosques in the enclaves, were conducted under such circumstances so as to impose on the protected group conditions of life meeting the threshold of Article 4(2)(c) of the Statute.665 In this regard, the Appeals Chamber recalls its holding in the Krstić case that a forcible transfer operation does not amount to physical destruction as such and the displacement of a protected group, either in whole or in part, does not constitute a genocidal act per se. ⁶⁶⁶ The Appeals Chamber also finds helpful the ICJ’s holding that: deportation or displacement of the members of a group, even if effected by force, is not necessarily equivalent to destruction of that group, nor is such destruction an automatic consequence of the displacement. […] [T]his is not to say that acts described as ‘ethnic cleansing’ may never constitute genocide, […] provided such action[s] [are] carried out […] with a view to the destruction of the group, as distinct from its removal from the region. […] in other words, whether a particular operation described as ‘ethnic cleansing’ amounts to genocide depends on the presence or absence of acts listed in Article II of the Genocide Convention, and of the intent to destroy the group as such.⁶⁶⁷''

⁶⁶⁶ See Krstić Appeal Judgement, para. 33.

⁶⁶⁷ ICJ Croatia v. Serbia Judgment, para. 162, quoting Bosnia Genocide Judgment, para. 190 (internal quotation marks omitted).

''232. The issue before the Appeals Chamber is whether the forcible transfer operations of the Muslim populations of Srebrenica and Žepa took place under such circumstances calculated to cause the physical extinction of the Muslims of Eastern BiH as a whole, and the “circumstances in which the forced displacements were carried out are critical in this regard”.⁶⁶⁸''

⁶⁶⁸ ICJ Croatia v. Serbia Judgment, para. 163.

''233. After carefully examining the relevant evidence, the Appeals Chamber is not convinced that the forcible transfer operations in Srebrenica and Žepa, viewed separately from the killings of Srebrenica’s male population, were conducted under circumstances calculated to result in the total or partial physical destruction of the protected group, i.e. the Muslims of Eastern BiH. There is no doubt that the Bosnian Muslims who were forced to abandon their houses and belongings in Srebrenica and Žepa and then endured a painful process of separation from their ancestral land and transferred to other parts of BiH were traumatised as a result of the transfer and have since faced harsh realities in their new lives, both financially and psychologically.⁶⁶⁹ The record, however, is devoid of any evidence that the forcible transfers, if they are analysed – as they must – separately from the killing operation and the destruction of mosques in Srebrenica and Žepa, were “carried out […] with a view to the destruction of the group, as distinct from its removal from the region” at issue (i.e., the enclaves of Srebrenica and Žepa).⁶⁷⁰ Although the Appeals Chamber is satisfied that there was a deliberate plan to expel the Bosnian Muslim women, children, and elderly from Srebrenica and the entire Muslim population from Žepa, it has not been established beyond reasonable doubt that such a policy of removal, implemented through the JCE to Forcibly Remove, was aimed at causing the physical destruction, i.e., the slow death, of these populations.⁶⁷¹ It bears noting, in this regard, that the Trial Chamber found that despite the distress caused by the transfer process, these populations were ultimately transferred to ABiH-held territory where they were safe and no longer ran any risk of physical extinction.⁶⁷² The actus reus of Article 4(2)(c) of the Statute “covers methods of physical destruction, other than killing, whereby the perpetrator ultimately seeks the death of the members of the group”.⁶⁷³ There is no evidence on the record that the forcible transfer operations were carried out in such a way so as to lead to the ultimate death of the displaced Bosnian Muslims.''

⁶⁶⁹Trial Judgement, paras 757, 766, and authorities cited therein.

⁶⁷⁰ ICJ Croatia v. Serbia Judgment, para. 162, quoting Bosnia Genocide Judgment, para. 190 (internal quotation marks omitted). See also supra, para. 231. In that sense, the Trial Chamber’s statement, in paragraph 766 of the Trial Judgement, that the forcible transfer and killing operations met the threshold of Article 4(2)(c) of the Statute because they resulted in conditions of life aimed at “destroying this Bosnian Muslim community and preventing the reconstitution of the group in this area” (emphasis added) reflects an erroneous understanding of the term “physical destruction” as used in this provision. See also Appeal Brief, para. 164. As the Bosnia Genocide Judgement makes clear (see Bosnia Genocide Judgment, para. 190), the destruction of a protected group’s ability to reconstitute itself in a particular area is not synonymous with the physical or biological destruction of the group as such, which, in essence, means “the death of the members of the group”. See ICJ Croatia v. Serbia Judgment, para. 161.

⁶⁷¹ See also ICJ Croatia v. Serbia Judgment, paras 376 (rejecting the claim that the “expulsions and forced displacements of Croats in the SAO Krajina” qualified as genocidal acts), 480 (holding that “even if it were proved that it was the intention of the Croatian authorities to bring about the forced displacement of the Serb population of the Krajina” and even if “there was a deliberate policy to expel the Serbs from the Krajina, it has in any event not been shown that such a policy was aimed at causing the physical destruction of the population in question”).

⁶⁷² See Trial Judgement, paras 263-284, 645.

⁶⁷³ ICJ Croatia v. Serbia Judgment, para. 161, citing Br|anin Trial Judgement, para. 691, Stakić Trial Judgement, paras 517–518 (emphasis added).

''234. The Appeals Chamber recalls again that the forced displacement of a population “does not constitute in and of itself a genocidal act”⁶⁷⁴ and that acts meeting the threshold of Article 4(2)(c) of the Statute typically relate to the deliberate withholding or taking away of the basic necessities of life over an extended period of time.⁶⁷⁵ No such acts were alleged or found to have been committed against the Muslim populations forcibly transferred out of the enclaves of Srebrenica and Žepa. The Appeals Chamber also notes that in the Popović et al. case – the only other case before the Tribunal involving the Bosnian Serb operations in both Srebrenica and Žepa – the Trial Chamber held that the forcible transfer of the women, children, and elderly from Srebrenica and Žepa, viewed in isolation from the killings in Srebrenica, did not fall within the ambit of Article 4(2)(c) of the Statute.⁶⁷⁶ The Popović et al. Trial Chamber specifically rejected the notion that “the destruction of the social structure of the community and the inability of those who were forcibly transferred to reconstruct their lives […] are the kinds of conditions intended to be prohibited by Article 4(2)(c) of the Statute”.⁶⁷⁷ Even though it is not binding, that holding, in the view of the Appeals Chamber, is persuasive in the present case. The Appeals Chamber thus concludes that the forcible transfer operations did not deliberately subject the protected group to conditions of life calculated to destroy it physically.⁶⁷⁸''

⁶⁷⁴ See Krstić Appeal Judgement, para. 33.

⁶⁷⁵ See Trial Judgement, para. 740, and authorities cited therein. See also Karad`ić Rule 98bis Appeal Judgement, paras 34, 37, 47; ICJ Croatia v. Serbia Judgment, para. 161.

⁶⁷⁶ Popović et al. Trial Judgement, paras 849, 854. The Appeals Chamber notes that these holdings in the Popović et al. Trial Judgement were not challenged on appeal.

⁶⁷⁷ Popović et al. Trial Judgement, para. 854. See also Krstić Appeal Judgement, paras 31, 33 (relying on the forcible transfer operation in Srebrenica as additional evidence of genocidal intent, but not as a separate genocidal act); Stakić Trial Judgement, para. 519 and nn. 1097-1098.

⁶⁷⁸ The Appeals Chamber notes that nothing precludes consideration of the same operations as evidence of genocidal intent. See Krstić Appeal Judgement, para. 33. See also ICJ Croatia v. Serbia Judgment, paras 162-163, 478; Bosnia Genocide Judgment, para. 190.

''235. The Appeals Chamber’s conclusion that the forcible transfer operations involving Muslim civilians from Srebrenica and Žepa did not amount to genocidal acts under Article 4(2)(c) of the Statute, along with its previous conclusion that the displaced Muslim population of Žepa did not suffer serious mental harm within the meaning of Article 4(2)(b) of the Statute,⁶⁷⁹ mean that the Bosnian Serb operations in Žepa did not constitute the actus reus of genocide under any of the provisions of Article 4 of the Statute. In other words, the Appeals Chamber holds that the forcible transfer operation involving the Muslim population of Žepa did not amount to genocide and, thus, the only genocidal acts committed through the JCE to Forcibly Remove was the serious mental harm resulting from the forcible transfer operation of Srebrenica’s women, children, and elderly from Potoari.⁶⁸⁰ The Appeals Chamber, thus, overturns Tolimir’s conviction for genocide to the extent it was based on the forcible transfer operation in Žepa.''

⁶⁷⁹ See supra, paras 219, 221.

⁶⁸⁰ See supra, paras 208-212

''236. In this and the previous subsections, the Appeals Chamber only finds that the displaced Bosnian Muslims of Žepa were not the direct victims of the specific genocidal act defined in Article 4(2)(b) and Article 4(2)(c) of the Statute – acts causing serious mental harm and acts deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the protected group’s physical destruction in whole or in part. The Appeals Chamber’s conclusions do not diminish the status of Žepa’s Muslim populations as victims of the genocide committed against the entire protected group by means of (i) the killings of Srebrenica’s male population (which qualifies as a genocidal act under both Article (2)(a) and 4(2)(b) of the Statute) and (ii) the forcible transfer operation of Srebrenica’s women, children, and elderly (which qualifies as a genocidal act under Article 4(2)(b) of the Statute).⁶⁸³''

⁶⁸³ See supra, paras 208-212.

A. Legal source/authority and evidence:

Guatemala: Memory of Silence, Report of the Commission for Historical Clarification February 1999 (online: Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brđanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Judgement (TC), 1 September 2004, para. 691:

"1705. Stakić Trial Judgement, para. 517.

1706. Stakić Trial Judgement, para. 517; Akayesu Trial Judgement, paras 505-506; Rutaganda Trial Judgement, para. 50.

Prosecutor v. Milomir Stakić, Case No. IT-97-24-T, Judgment (TC), 31 July 2003, para 517:

1092. Akayesu Trial Judgement, paras 505-6.

1093. Kayishema and Ruzindana Trial Judgement, paras 115-116.

Prosecutor v. Georges Rutaganda, Case No. ICTR-97-20-T, Judgement (TC), 6 December 1999, para. 52:

Prosecutor v. Clément Kayishema and Obed Ruzindana, Case No. ICTR-95-1-T, Judgement (TC), 21 May 1999, paras. 115 – 116:

"57. Nehemiah Robinson, the Genocide Convention: A Commentary (1960), p. 123.

58. Robinson, supra, pp. 63-64."

Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu, Case No. ICTR-96-4-T, Judgement (TC), 2 September 1998, para. 506:

P.19.1. Evidence of the destruction of crops.

A. Legal source/authority and evidence:

"1705. Stakić Trial Judgement , para. 517.

1706. Stakić Trial Judgement , para. 517; Akayesu Trial Judgement, paras 505-506; Rutaganda Trial Judgement, para. 50.

1707. Kayishema Trial Judgement , paras 115-116; Stakić Trial Judgement, para. 517; See also Article 1 of the Draft Convention Prepared by the Secretariat in N. Robinson, The Genocide Convention: a Commentary (Institute of Jewish Affairs), New York, 1960, p. 123 .

Prosecutor v. Milomir Stakić, Case No. IT-97-24-T, Judgment (TC), 31 July 2003, para. 517:

1092. Akayesu Trial Judgement, paras 505-6.

1093. Kayishema and Ruzindana Trial Judgement, paras 115-116.

Prosecutor v. Ignace Bagilishema, Case No. ICTR-95-1A-T, Judgment (TC), 7 June 2001, para. 90:

Prosecutor v. Georges Rutaganda, Case No. ICTR-97-20-T, Judgement (TC), 6 December 1999, para. 52:

Prosecutor v. Clément Kayishema and Obed Ruzindana, Case No. ICTR-95-1-T, Judgement (TC), 21 May 1999, paras. 115 – 116, 146:

"57. Nehemiah Robinson, the Genocide Convention: A Commentary (1960), p. 123.

58. Robinson, supra, pp. 63-64."

Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu, Case No. ICTR-96-4-T, Judgement (TC), 2 September 1998,para. 506:

P.21. Evidence of imposition of excessive work or physical exertion.

A. Legal source/authority and evidence:

Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brđanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Judgement (TC), 1 September 2004, para. 691:

"1705. Stakić Trial Judgement , para. 517.

1706. Stakić Trial Judgement , para. 517; Akayesu Trial Judgement, paras 505-506; Rutaganda Trial Judgement, para. 50.

1707. Kayishema Trial Judgement , paras 115-116; Stakić Trial Judgement, para. 517; See also Article 1 of the Draft Convention Prepared by the Secretariat in N. Robinson, The Genocide Convention: a Commentary (Institute of Jewish Affairs), New York, 1960, p. 123."

Prosecutor v. Milomir Stakić, Case No. IT-97-24-T, Judgment (TC), 31 July 2003, para. 517:

"1092. Akayesu Trial Judgement, paras 505-6.

1093. Kayishema and Ruzindana Trial Judgement, paras 115-116."

Prosecutor v. Clément Kayishema and Obed Ruzindana, Case No. ICTR-95-1-T, Judgement (TC), 21 May 1999, paras. 115:

P.22. Evidence of expulsion of persons from their homes.

A. Legal source/authority and evidence:

Elements of Crimes, Genocide by deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction, footnote 4 to element 5:

Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brđanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Judgement (TC), 1 September 2004, para. 691:

"1705. Stakić Trial Judgement , para. 517.

1706. Stakić Trial Judgement, para. 517; Akayesu Trial Judgement, paras 505-506; Rutaganda Trial Judgement, para. 50.

1707. Kayishema Trial Judgement , paras 115-116; Stakić Trial Judgement, para. 517; See also Article 1 of the Draft Convention Prepared by the Secretariat in N. Robinson, The Genocide Convention: a Commentary (Institute of Jewish Affairs), New York, 1960, p. 123."

Prosecutor v. Milomir Stakić, Case No. IT-97-24-T, Judgment (TC), 31 July 2003, para. 517:

"1092. Akayesu Trial Judgement, paras 505-6.

1093. Kayishema and Ruzindana Trial Judgement, paras 115-116."

Prosecutor v. Georges Rutaganda, Case No. ICTR-97-20-T, Judgement (TC), 6 December 1999, para. 52:

Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu, Case No. ICTR-96-4-T, Judgement (TC), 2 September 1998,para. 506:

P.23. Evidence of destruction of villages.

A. Legal source/authority and evidence:

Guatemala: Memory of Silence, Report of the Commission for Historical Clarification February 1999 (online: Prosecutor v. Clément Kayishema and Obed Ruzindana, Case No. ICTR-95-1-T, Judgement (TC), 21 May 1999, para. 116:

"58. Robinson, supra, pp. 63-64."