A/HRC/10/30 page 6 6. Question four asks whether there are armed actors who draw their fighters from a particularly vulnerable population group. Such armed actors may claim to be fighting to defend the population group, turn against other population groups or armed forces, or seek food, shelter and money from within the local community, sometimes by force. In numerous past instances, the existence of such armed actors has served as a motivation and excuse for human rights violations, including killings, arbitrary arrest and discrimination, committed against the civilian population that the armed actor claims to represent. An initial pattern of violations of this type has been a precursor of genocide and reversing it is important for the purpose of prevention. 7. Question five asks whether there is any discernible political or economic motivation for political leaders in the State or the region to encourage divisions among national, ethnic, racial or religious groups. In past situations with confirmed or suspected genocide, there have been political or economic motivations to target a population group, serving as a driving force for those who conceptualize and organize genocide. For example, this has been the case where a political party’s access to political power and its retention of that power are facilitated and even dependent upon the party maintaining a voter constituency through the use of racist policies that divide groups of the population from each other. Identifying instances where such motivation may exist is essential to prevention. 8. Question six asks whether human rights violations that might be possible elements of the crime of genocide already occur, and serves as an indicator of whether genocide may in fact be imminent. Identifying these violations - for example killings, disappearances, torture, rape and sexual violence, abduction, ethnic cleansing, forced population transfer or displacement, segregation, isolation or concentration of a group, expropriation, destruction of property, destruction of subsistence food supply, denial of water or medical attention and hate speech - can also point to specific actions that need to be immediately taken if genocide is to be averted. 9. Question seven asks whether there are moments of vulnerability in the near to medium-term future - such as elections and associated activities like voter registration or political campaigning, the signing of peace accords - that might spark a deterioration in the situation. As opposed to the other structural issues mentioned above, this question relates to triggers or precipitating factors. Predicting any major change can allow preventive steps to be taken, such as seeking public and irrevocable commitments from political leaders to prevent genocide, or establishing a peacekeeping mission ahead of the moment of vulnerability. 10. Question eight, finally, asks whether there is a reason to believe that there is intent “to destroy in whole or in part” - the actual definition of genocide. It is likely to be very difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether there is intent to commit genocide before the actual implementation of that intent. Nevertheless, it is important that the question be considered and that analysts look for indicators of intent as well as other relevant contextual information. For example, intent may be explicit in the statements of paramilitary actors who are affiliated with the State; useful contextual information could include a sudden purchase of massive numbers of machetes in a place where these tools have been used in the past to kill people. 11. The framework’s emphasis on political circumstances in a given situation (questions six, seven and eight, for example) has been introduced in recognition not only of the political background to genocide but also of the fact that ending genocide often requires political action, both domestically and by States Members of the United Nations. The framework is a tool for