Table of contents:
Element:
The Munyakazi Appeals Chamber stated that:
"The Trial Chamber established Munyakazi's intent to participate in the crimes based on his personal participation and leadership role in attacks, which resulted in the death of thousands of mostly Tutsi civilians. The Appeals Chamber can identify no error in this approach. The Appeals Chamber has held that an accused's intent in a crime may be inferred from circumstantial evidence, including his active participation in an attack. Indeed, contrary to Munyakazi's suggestion, '[t]he inquiry is not whether the specific intent was formed prior to the commission of the acts, but whether at the moment of commission the perpetrators possessed the necessary intent.' The lack of evidence concerning Munyakazi's personal views about Tutsis does not undermine the reasonableness of the Trial Chamber's findings."[1]
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. 485-486:
"485. The mens rea of extermination requires the intention that a large number of individuals be killed."
"486. In line with jurisprudence on the actus reus, the mens rea of extermination similarly does not require the intent to kill a certain threshold number of victims. Additionally, there is no requirement that the act of extermination be carried out with the intent to destroy the group or part of the group to which the victims belong, or pursuant to a pre-existing plan or policy."
