A/HRC/42/CRP.5 “serious risk” requires that the risk be imminent or immediate. Such a narrow interpretation would hollow out the preventive nature of the Convention by effectively requiring States to act only once the genocide were inevitable.52 But once a serious risk of genocide is identified, a State is under a duty to make use of available means to deter “those suspected of preparing genocide, or reasonably suspected of harbouring specific [genocidal] intent”.53 In the case of Myanmar, it may appear incongruous to place expectations on a State to prevent genocide when its own organs and agents are the ones that pose the serious risk of committing genocide. Nonetheless, Myanmar has a legal obligation to apply important and potentially wide ranging deterrent measures, arising from the core of the Convention’s object and purpose, to bring an end to genocide. (e) Responsibilities of third party states 52. The Mission’s findings also attract the obligations of all States through general rules of State responsibility, international humanitarian law, arms transfer law and international human rights law.54 As a general matter, States must not aid or assist another State in the commission of unlawful acts. States must also cooperate to bring to an end the gross or systematic failure of another State to abide by obligations arising under a peremptory norm of general international law, which includes crimes against humanity, torture, genocide, racial discrimination and apartheid, and slavery. They must also not render aid or assistance in maintaining a situation that arose from such failures.55 53. The Genocide Convention specifically requires all States parties to prevent and punish genocide.56 These obligations are not territorially limited57 or merely abstract. The obligation to prevent genocide has a corresponding duty to act that arises when a State “learns of, or should normally have learned of, the existence of a serious risk that genocide will be committed”.58 Once this happens, a State is under a duty to make use of available means to deter “those suspected of preparing genocide, or reasonably suspected of harbouring specific intent”.59 54. States with greater influence over deterring genocide should do more. 60 Factors for determining influence can include political, military and financial links. 61 Levels of 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 16 This view is reflective of the ICJ’s case law, which holds that the obligation to prevent is triggered when someone is “preparing genocide” or is suspected of having genocidal intent. 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. 431. 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. 431. See, also, ICJ, Case Concerning the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro)), Provisional Measures, Order of 8 April 1993, para. 52 (In its provisional measures order, the Court ordered the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) to “take all measures within its power to prevent commission of the crime of genocide.”) For a more detailed discussion see A/HRC/42/CRP.3, paras. 27-36. Articles 16 and 40 of the Draft articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with commentaries (2001). 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Art. I. ICJ, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Yugoslavia), Preliminary Objections, 11 July 1996, para. 31 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. 431. 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. 431. See, also, ICJ, Case Concerning the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro)), Provisional Measures, Order of 8 April 1993, para. 52 (In its provisional measures order, the Court ordered the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) to “take all measures within its power to prevent commission of the crime of genocide.”) Simma, in: Safferling/Conze, The Genocide Convention Sixty Years After its Adoption, 262; see, also, ICJ, Case Concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of