A/HRC/39/64 been faced with public exposure of undeniable evidence. It consistently fails to attribute responsibility, thereby reinforcing its message to troops that they will face no consequences. This pattern is a result of the political and legal construct of the country, whereby the Tatmadaw is removed from all civilian oversight and is given the constitutional right to adjudicate its own affairs. The Commander-in-Chief makes “final and conclusive” decisions in matters of military justice. The documented history of crimes committed by the Tatmadaw demonstrates an absence of responsible command, and of measures to prevent or repress crimes. VI. Crimes under international law 83. On the basis of the body of information collected, the mission has reasonable grounds to conclude that serious crimes under international law have been committed that warrant criminal investigation and prosecution. A. Genocide 84. Genocide is when a person commits a prohibited act with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group as such. The Rohingya are a protected group under this definition. Their treatment by the Myanmar security forces, acting in concert with certain civilians, includes conduct that amounts to four of the five defined prohibited acts: (a) killing; (b) causing serious bodily or mental harm; (c) inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the physical destruction of the group in whole or in part; and (d) imposing measures intending to prevent births. 85. The critical element of the crime is “genocidal intent”. The mission assessed its body of information in the light of the jurisprudence of international tribunals regarding the reasonable inference of such intent. The crimes in Rakhine State, and the manner in which they were perpetrated, are similar in nature, gravity and scope to those that have allowed genocidal intent to be established in other contexts. Factors pointing to such intent include the broader oppressive context and hate rhetoric; specific utterances of commanders and direct perpetrators; exclusionary policies, including to alter the demographic composition of Rakhine State; the level of organization indicating a plan for destruction; and the extreme scale and brutality of the violence committed. 86. Having given careful consideration to other possible inferences regarding intent, the mission considers that these can be discounted as unreasonable. In this regard, it recalls the statement made by the Tatmadaw Commander-in-Chief that the “clearance operations” were not a response to a concrete threat from ARSA, but to the “unfinished job” of solving the “long-standing” “Bengali problem” (see para. 35 above). 87. In the light of the above considerations on the inference of genocidal intent, the mission concludes that there is sufficient information to warrant the investigation and prosecution of senior officials in the Tatmadaw chain of command, so that a competent court can determine their liability for genocide in relation to the situation in Rakhine State. B. Crimes against humanity 88. On the basis of information gathered, the mission finds that crimes against humanity have been committed in Kachin, Rakhine and Shan States, principally by the Tatmadaw. In the case of Kachin and Shan States, the crimes include murder, imprisonment, enforced disappearance, torture, rape, sexual slavery and other forms of sexual violence, persecution, and enslavement. In Rakhine State, these and other crimes against humanity have been committed. The elements of extermination and deportation are also present, while the systematic oppression and discrimination not only supports a finding of persecution but may also amount to the crime of apartheid. For both northern Myanmar and Rakhine State, the acts were committed as part of a widespread and systematic attack on a civilian population. 16