Each one of these failed to established intent.

@amnesty stated the law was too constrained and did not establish intent nor substantiality. They did not assess the only reasonable inference test. Amnesty also took statements out of context, which is a big no-no.

@hrw did not even attempt to establish intent, it’s not in their report at all.

@btselem stated that they used a “broader analytical framework” to find genocide to have occurred. B’tselem also took statements out of context and did not appropriately analyze them.

@MSF has never attempted to establish intent.

IAGS, which I’m a member of, didn’t analyze the legal analysis required in the resolution and used statements out of context, which is expressly impermissible.

The UNCOI used the wrong standard, didn’t assess the only reasonable inference test, and concluded without showing their work that intent was present.

If each must ignore the analysis that exists, and each must change the analysis to fit their predetermined conclusion, then they cannot possibly have made a legally accurate conclusion.

The issue is they have each had a predetermined analysis in search of an analysis that fits their narrative.

Finally, one must ask how it can possibly be genocide when the ICC, at the lowest standard of proof and in light most favorable to the prosecutor, rejected the lower threshold crime against humanity of extermination.

If you cannot get the lower threshold crime at the lowest standard of proof, it is not possible to fully conclusively establish the higher standard crime of genocide.

Hope this helps, @CMArchibald.

View Tweet