A/HRC/8/14* page 7 population, including indiscriminate or disproportionate attacks or threats thereof. The actual inflicting of terror on the civilian population is not a required element of this crime. Further, confirming the decision of the Trial Chamber, the Appeals Chamber noted that the mental element of the crime “is composed of the specific intent to spread terror among the civilian population”.8 The Appeals Chamber found that: “a plain reading of article 51 (2) suggests that the purpose of the unlawful acts or threats to commit such unlawful acts need not be the only purpose of the acts or threats of violence. The fact that other purposes may have coexisted simultaneously with the purpose of spreading terror among the civilian population would not disprove this charge, provided that the intent to spread terror among the civilian population was principal among the aims”.9 Such intent can be inferred from the circumstances of the acts or threats, that is, from their nature, manner, timing and duration.10 (b) Genocide 10. The Appeals Chamber in The Prosecutor v. Milomir Stakic11 (hereafter Stakic) dealt, inter alia, with elements of the crime of genocide. The Appeals Chamber reaffirmed the Trial Chamber’s conclusion that, based on the etymology of the term “genocide”, the drafting history of the Genocide Convention, subsequent discussion by experts and article 4 of the Statute of the ICTY, the target group must be positively defined. Thus, the elements of genocide must be separately considered in relation to Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats. (c) Crimes against humanity 11. In Stakic, the Appeals Chamber outlined the actus reus and the mens rea requirements for deportation as a crime against humanity, consistent with the jurisprudence of the ICTY to date.12 The Appeals Chamber surveyed relevant international law and authority and concluded that the actus reus of deportation as a crime against humanity consists of the forced displacement of persons by expulsion or other forms of coercion from the area in which they are lawfully present, and requires that individuals be transferred across a de jure State border.13 In certain circumstances, the crime of deportation can consist of transfers across de facto borders, provided there is support for such under customary international law. The Appeals Chamber held that constantly changing frontlines do not amount to de facto borders under customary 8 Ibid., para. 104. 9 Ibid. 10 Ibid. 11 Case No. IT-97-24-A. 12 Ibid., paras. 265 et seq. 13 Ibid., paras. 278, 289.