A/HRC/10/25 page 9 or not, lies with the State itself. The international community should, as appropriate, encourage and help States to exercise this responsibility and support the United Nations in establishing an early warning capability. The international community, through the United Nations, also has the residual responsibility to help to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. At the World Summit in 2005, the Assembly also stressed the need for the Assembly to continue consideration of the concept and its implications, bearing in mind the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and international law. Finland looks forward to the report of the Secretary-General in 2009 on the proposed approach to the concept of responsibility to protect. D. Turkey 27. The Government of Turkey is of the view that the definition of genocide must form the general framework of the possible warning signs referred to in the annex to the report of the Secretary-General (E/CN.4/2006/84). The objective (actus reus) and the subjective elements (mens rea) of the crime of genocide are laid down in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crimes of Genocide. It is imperative that the elements of this crime lay the foundation of any possible indicator of genocide. Therefore, the linkages between these elements and warning signs should be clearly articulated. 28. The possible warning signs set forth in the above-mentioned report lack consistent linkages between the elements of genocide as established in the Genocide Convention. For instance, they fail to explain the subjective element (“the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a … group as such”) when referring to discrimination against national, ethnical, racial or religious groups. This genocidal intent is totally omitted in the sub-indicators. Without such a link, the warning signs may be misleading. 29. The Government of Turkey believes that all discriminatory practices against national, ethnical, racial or religious groups may carry the risk of genocide. Therefore, the warning signs and indicators must have a sound threshold. In this regard, reference to discrimination should be qualified as “systematic patterns of massive and serious discrimination”. If such a qualification is not made explicitly, then any individual instance of discrimination, which might not always carry the intent of genocide, may be placed under scrutiny and thus occupy the work of United Nations monitoring mechanisms. Both the Special Adviser to the Secretary-General on the Prevention of Genocide and the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, in its decision of 2005, emphasized that, when identifying situations of risk, systematic, serious and massive discrimination should not be taken as a basis. 30. Turkey is also of the view that the criteria and requirements for consideration, as well as application of possible warning signs should be clarified in the report. Furthermore, the internal relationship between the possible signs should be clearly explained in detail. It is not clear whether the signs should be applied separately, together or in conjunction with each other in a given situation. Therefore, further study needs to be conducted to address this issue carefully and in a comprehensive manner. 31. The possible signs and indicators should be based on general and objective factors that are commensurate with the gravity of the crime and indicative of the serious, systematic and massive nature of the violations. In this regard, specific situations or special conditions that do not reflect