3. The perpetrator directed an attack.

3. The perpetrator directed an attack.

In the Ntaganda Decision on the Charges, the Pre-Trial Chamber held that:

"In light of the above legal framework, the Chamber is of the view that the definition of "attack" does not exhaustively list which underlying acts of violence can be considered for the purpose of the war crime of attacking civilians under article 8(2)(e)(i) of the Statute. In characterizing a certain conduct as an "attack", what matters is the consequences of the act, and particularly whether injury, death, damage or destruction are intended or foreseeable consequences thereof. Accordingly, the Chamber considers that, in principle, any conduct, including shelling, sniping, murder, rape, pillage, attacks on protected objects and destruction of property, may constitute an act of violence for the purpose of the war crime of attacking civilians, provided that the perpetrator resorts to this conduct as a method of warfare and, thus, that there exists a sufficiently close link to the conduct of hostilities." [18]

The Blaskić Trial Chamber inferred:

"[...] from the arms used that the perpetrators of the attack had wanted to affect Muslim civilians. The 'baby-bombs' are indeed 'home-made mortars' which are difficult to guide accurately. Since their trajectory is 'irregular' and non-linear they are likely to hit non-military targets."[1]

The Trial Chamber in Galić noted that:

"[...] certain apparently disproportionate attacks may give rise to the inference that civilians were actually the object of attack. This is to be determined on a case-by-case basis in light of the available evidence [...]."[2]