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.

In the Dorđević Appeals Judgement, the Appeals Chamber held that:

"The Appeals Chamber considers destruction of religious or culturally significant property as an underlying act of the crime of persecutions to be the same as "destruction or wilful damage done to institutions dedicated to religion, [or other cultural property]"; a violation of the laws or customs of war enumerated under Article 3(d) of the Statute. Contrary to Dorđević’s assertion, the mens rea element for both acts is the same. The Appeals Chamber recalls that the mens rea element for destruction of institutions dedicated to religion or other cultural property under Article 3(d) "is […] met if the acts of destruction or damage were wilfully, i.e. either deliberately or through recklessness, directed against" the property."[5]

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.