A/HRC/42/CRP.5 4. Establishing genocidal intent 223. For the Mission to demonstrate that the State of Myanmar harboured the genocidal intent to destroy, in whole or in part, the Rohingya as a group, the Mission must be satisfied either as to the existence of a State plan that expresses that intent or as to evidence that demonstrates a pattern of conduct that reveals or infers such intent.503 There is limited guidance from the case law for assessing what factors are relevant for making a finding of genocidal intent under the rules of State responsibility. The case law from international criminal tribunals, the Mission’s review of that case law in its 2018 report 504 and information the Mission collected during its 2019 investigation all compel the Mission to conclude on reasonable grounds that genocidal intent on the part of the State of Myanmar can be inferred. 224. The Mission has identified seven indicators from which it inferred genocidal intent to destroy the Rohingya people as such, all based on the consideration of indicators of genocidal intent in international case law: first, the Tatmadaw’s extreme brutality during its attacks on the Rohinyga;505 second, the organized nature of the Tatmadaw’s destruction;506 third, the enormity and nature of the sexual violence perpetrated against women and girls during the “clearances operations”;507 fourth, the insulting, derogatory, racist and exclusionary utterances of Myanmar officials and others prior, during and after the “clearance operations”;508 fifth, the existence of discriminatory plans and policies, such as the Citizenship Law and the NVC process, as well as the Government’s efforts to clear, raze, confiscate and build on land in a manner that sought to change the demographic and ethnic composition of Rakhine State, the goal being to reduce the proportion of Rohingya;509 sixth, the Government’s tolerance for public rhetoric of hatred and contempt for the Rohingya;510 and seventh, the State’s failure to investigate and prosecute gross violations of international human rights law and serious violations of international humanitarian law, both as they were occurring and after they occurred. 511 These seven indicators also allow the Mission to infer that the State did not object and in fact endorsed the Tatmadaw’s “clearance operations” and the manner in which they were conducted. 225. Every one of these indicators is linked to the acts or omissions of Myanmar State organs, including the military, other security forces, ministries, legislative bodies, the UEHRD and other civilian institutions. Collectively they demonstrate a pattern of conduct that infers genocidal intent on the part of the State to destroy the Rohingya, in whole or in part, as a group. For reasons explained in its 2018 report, there is no reasonable conclusion to draw, other than the inference of genocidal intent, from the State’s pattern of conduct. 512 5. Failure to investigate and punish genocide 226. Having concluded on reasonable grounds that the State of Myanmar is responsible for carrying out acts of genocide with genocidal intent, the Mission also concludes that Myanmar is not meeting its obligations under the Genocide Convention to conduct an effective criminal investigation into allegations of genocide. 513 The Mission draws this conclusion based on the Government’s pattern of ignoring compelling evidence that 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 72 ICJ, Case Concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide, (Croatia v. Serbia), Judgment, 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. See, generally, A/HRC/39/CRP.2, paras. 1419-1433. A/HRC/39/CRP.2, paras. 1432-1433. A/HRC/39/CRP.2, paras. 1428-1431. A/HRC/39/CRP.4, paras. 95-97. A/HRC/39/CRP.2, paras. 1422-1424. A/HRC/39/CRP.2, paras. 1425-1427. A/HRC/39/CRP.2, paras. 1420-1421. A/HRC/39/CRP.2, paras. 1573-1622; A/HRC/42/50, paras. 94-101. A/HRC/39/CRP.2, paras. 1434-1438. See Chapter IV, section G of this report: The situation of the Rohingya; Conclusions and legal finidngs: the impossibility of return.