A/HRC/10/25 page 11 ethnical, racial and religious groups) might lead to genocide or is the result of such an intention may be misleading or false. Such an indicator is not commensurate with the gravity of the crime of genocide. Therefore, further elaboration is required on paragraph 2 (d). 36. Furthermore, the links between the warning signs laid down in paragraphs 1 (a) and 2 (d) are not clear. In paragraph 1 (a), the warning sign is described as “pattern of discrimination with the purpose or effect of impairing the enjoyment of certain human rights”, whereas in paragraph 2 (d) there is no qualification with respect to the gravity of the “instances of discrimination”. This consistency must be rectified by making necessary linkages and adjustments between the two warning signs. 37. Expressing views on additional warning signs, the Government of Turkey stated that the term “forced relocation” in paragraph 3 (g) should be further qualified. For instance, in cases of natural disasters, states of emergency or war, relocation may be inevitable for reasons of public security or safety. In such situations, relocations may affect a national, ethnical, racial or religious group living in the area. Therefore, the warning sign in 3 (g) should explicitly exclude legitimate relocation that may be necessary on a temporary basis. 38. The Government of Turkey believes that there are complexities in articulating a warning sign such as “a history of genocide or discrimination”. Genocide is a grave international crime. Like other crimes, determining whether genocide has been committed or not in a given situation rests solely with the competent court. In the absence of such an international court decision, it would be legally incorrect to assume the existence of genocide. Therefore, Turkey is of the view that without a reference to a court decision as such in paragraph 4 (c), the warning sign referred to as “denial of past genocides and atrocities” may be exploited with one-sided allegations. In this vein, reference to a competent court decision must be inserted in paragraph 4 (c). E. Russian Federation 39. The Russian Federation believes that the reports of the Secretary-General on the implementation of the Five-Point Action Plan and on the work of his Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide (E/CN.4/2006/84 and A/HRC/7/37) display a manifest bias towards the idea of “humanitarian intervention” and “duty to protect”, to the detriment of the principles of non-interference and State sovereignty. 40. While it is well known that any use of force for the prevention of genocide must be approved by the Security Council, there is no clear indication of this in the reports; this absence is particularly conspicuous in paragraphs 39 and 40 of the report of the Secretary-General (E/CN.4/2006/84). 41. The Russian Federation also noted that, although the reports refer to the need to develop guidelines or criteria to define genocide, they fail to conclude that, without such guidelines, efforts to prevent genocide cannot be considered to be structured, or based on the definition of genocide (article II of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide).