A/HRC/8/14* page 13 B. World Summit Outcome 32. In late 2005 in the context of asserting the responsibility to protect, the World Summit added “ethnic cleansing” alongside the more legally defined categories of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. Paragraphs 138 and 139 of the World Summit Outcome Document read as follows: Each individual State has the responsibility to protect its populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. This responsibility entails the prevention of such crimes, including their incitement, through appropriate and necessary means […]. The international community, through the United Nations, also has the responsibility […] to help to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.34 33. Further, Security Council resolution 1674 (2006) of 28 April 2006 on the protection of civilians in armed conflict reaffirmed “the provisions of paragraphs 138 and 139 of the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document regarding the responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity”.35 34. As indicated above,36 the ICJ, in its decision of the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro) indicated the strong relationship and subordination of the term ethnic cleansing to genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. The ICTY has also addressed the notion of “ethnic cleansing��. In The Prosecutor v. Milomir Stakic, the Appeals Chamber referred to Security Council resolution 827 (1993) which established the tribunal and which expressed its grave alarm at the continuance of the practice of “ethnic cleansing” in all its forms. In considering the extent to which the Security Council’s purpose may be taken into account, the Appeals Chamber noted that: The general position is of course that the Tribunal “can only act on the basis of law ... A Court functioning as a court of law can act in no other way”. “Ethnic cleansing” refers to a policy. This is not a crime in its own right under customary international law, but the general purpose which it represents can help to draw inferences as to the existence of elements of crimes referred to in the Statute. It is not correct to proceed on the basis that such limited use amounts to the use of policy as a self-sufficient ground of judicial action.37 34 See General Assembly resolution 60/1, World Summit Outcome, of 15 September 2005, paras. 138-139; see also A/59/565, report of the Secretary-General’s High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change, 2 December 2004, paras. 199-203. 35 Security Council resolution 1674 (2006), para. 4. 36 Ibid., para. 20. 37 Case No. IT-97-27-A, para. 50.