Remix clone Hacker News

> I think the recommendation also included extermination, which is similar to genocide, but also does not require intent, but I think the voted against that.

Persecution is the charge probably most similar to genocide minus a lot of the intent requirements (which was granted). The requirements for extermination (which was rejected) is basically they have to be resposible for > 50 illegal deaths (not sure on the exact number, but somewhere in the double digits). The icc granted the murder charge, which is the lesser version of exterminatin when it is only < 50 ish deaths.

▲

runarberg 4 days ago | parent [-]

I wonder why they didn’t go forward with the extermination charges then. It shouldn’t be to hard to find evidence of hundreds of illegal deaths. I mean the flour massacre alone has 118+ confirmed deaths back in February.

Did the prosecutor simply fail to put forward good enough evidence to convince the judges?

Not that it matters the most, the charges they did bring are serious enough.

	▲	bawolff 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		I guess its impossible to know given the warrant proceedings are secret. However it seems like the prosecutor was solely presenting deaths related to siege tactics, so essentially deaths by starvation or malnutrition that can be attributed to israeli conduct. It could also simply be what evidence the prosecutor had available to them when they started this process which was a while ago. > I mean the flour massacre alone has 118+ confirmed deaths back in February. These probably wouldn't count as it would be hard to argue that these were directly ordered by the defendents (unless there is evidence of that). Additionally, they maybe also wanted to go with a clear cut case. Israel is claiming that there was a riot and their troops fired only to protect themselves. Even if you find that unconvincing, when this goes to trial the prosecution would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that that version of events is false. Maybe the prosecutor doesn't think there is enough evidence to get to "beyond a reasonable doubt". There is a requirement that "the perpetrator knew that the conduct was part of or intended the conduct to be part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population." So you do need to prove that there was intent to do the killings which might require having evidence it was premeditated (i'm not sure tbh). [Ianal, and im just speculating]