A/HRC/10/25 page 10 the gravity of violations would be misleading. Therefore, such references should be avoided when articulating any possible warning signs that might lead to genocide. For instance, in paragraph 3 (d), “perceived or real external support to groups that could become targets due to being seen as collaborators” is set out as an additional warning sign. This depicts a very specific situation that is not indicative or reflective of any serious, systematic and massive violation. This paragraph has no relevance with either the objective elements or the subjective element of the crime of genocide as established in the Genocide Convention. 32. Commenting on possible warning signs, the Government of Turkey stated that paragraph 1 (c) on the existence of a national, ethnic, racial or religious groups(s) at risk reads “specific identification of groups and their association with a specific political identity or opinion (including possible compulsory identification or registering of groups membership in a way that could potentially lead to the group being targeted in the future)”. The groups referred to in the definition of genocide in the Genocide Convention are limited to national, ethnical, racial or religious groups. Political groups are not within the scope of this definition. However, the indicator referred to in paragraph 1 (c) includes “groups with a political identity or opinion”. This element does not fall within the scope of the definition as laid down in the Genocide Convention. Therefore, 1 (c) must be rephrased as “specific identification of national, ethnical, racial or religious groups”, in order to maintain consistency with the Genocide Convention. 33. In the same vein, the Government of Turkey believes that it would be appropriate to exclude “armed conflict between political groups” in the warning sign laid down in paragraph 2 (a) on violations of human rights and humanitarian law, which may become massive or serious. Such an exclusion should be clearly included in paragraph 2 (a), in line with the Genocide Convention. In paragraph 2, it should be clearly stated that the violations of human rights law and humanitarian law referred to therein are targeted at national, ethnical, racial and religious groups, in accordance with the Genocide Convention. In this regard, these groups should be distinctively stated either in the chapeau of paragraph 2 or under each subparagraph, replacing the word “a specific group”. Such an amendment would make the necessary linkage between paragraphs 1 and 2. 34. The title of paragraph 2 and the subparagraphs therein should reflect the “massive and serious” nature of the violations. If this threshold is lowered, then any violation of human rights law and humanitarian law against national, ethnical, racial and religious groups would need to be regarded as a warning sign of genocide. For this reason, the threshold of massive and serious violations should be reflected as clearly and possible, covering all subparagraphs, as is the case with paragraph 2 (c). In paragraph 2 (b), expropriation is given as an example of violations of civil and political rights. In some domestic systems, expropriation may be permissible in a state of emergency, war or under other special circumstances, whereby compensation or other remedies may be available to those affected. Furthermore, such expropriation processes carried out by State authorities may affect a specific group living in a certain area. These lawful acts may not necessarily carry the intent of genocide. Therefore, the content of the sign in 2 (b) should be further clarified. 35. The term “instances of discrimination” referred to in paragraph 2 (d) is premature and too vague to qualify as a possible sign. No country is immune from instances of discrimination, sometimes despite a functioning and effective anti-discriminatory legal framework in place. To assume that each and every instance of discrimination against the specified groups (national,