A/HRC/42/CRP.5 declarations or judicial decisions restoring the dignity, the reputation and the rights of the victim and of persons closely connected with the victim; public apology, including acknowledgement of the facts and acceptance of responsibility; judicial and administrative sanctions against persons liable for the violations; and commemorations and tributes to the victims.24 When a State breaches its international obligations under the rules of State responsibility it must also cease the wrongful act, if it is continuing, and the State must offer appropriate assurances and guarantees of non-repetition if circumstances require.25 (a) Prohibition on committing genocide 44. Under the Genocide Convention, States parties have an implicit obligation not to commit genocide26 and express obligations to prevent and punish genocide crimes.27 For a State to be in breach of the genocide prohibition, it must be shown that State organs, or persons or groups whose acts are attributable to the State, 28 committed one or more specific acts “with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such”.29 Those acts, referred to as “underlying acts”, are (a) killing members of the group; (b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and (e) forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.30 The Mission’s 2018 report provides the Mission’s assessment that the Rohingya constituted a protected group under the terms of the Genocide Convention and that the violence directed at them constituted underlying acts (a), (b), (c) and possibly (d).31 45. To establish that a State had the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a protected group, an investigator must be able to establish either that a State had a plan expressing the intent to commit genocide or that a pattern of conduct reveals such intent.32 To make a finding of genocide under the rules of State responsibility it is sufficient to demonstrate that genocide is attributable to a State organ, such as a ministry or security force, without identifying specific individuals who are responsible for the genocide. 33 In the case of Myanmar, the Mission has concluded on reasonable grounds that the Tatmadaw is the most notable, but not the only, State organ that engaged in underlying genocidal acts with the inference of genocidal intent.34 In sum, State involvement through military and civilian acts, organs and persons was extensive. 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Draft articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with commentaries (2001), para. 5 of the commentary to Article 36. Article 30 of the Draft articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with commentaries (2001). ICJ, Case Concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide, Bosnia Herzegovina v. Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, 27 February 2007, para. 166 (“...the obligation to prevent genocide necessarily implies the prohibition of the commission of genocide.”). 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Art. I. ICJ, Case Concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide, Bosnia Herzegovina v. Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, 27 February 2007, para. 181. 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Art. II. 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Art. II. A/HRC/39/CRP.2, paras. 1392-1410. ICJ, Case Concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide, (Croatia v. Serbia), Judgment of 3 February 2015, para. 145; and ICJ, Case Concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide, Bosnia Herzegovina v. Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, 27 February 2007, para. 373. A finding of genocide should not be precluded, for example, where it is clear that a State organ carried out prohibited acts with genocidal intent, but where the author of a genocidal plan or the perpetrators of genocidal acts are not yet identified. Article 4 of the Draft articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts makes it clear that the Tatmdaw is a “state organ” whose actions are attributable to the State: “(1) The conduct of any State organ shall be considered an act of that State under international law, whether the organ exercises legislative, executive, judicial or any other functions, whatever position it holds in the 13