A/HRC/42/CRP.5 State with the genocide risk factors identified by the UN Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect.544 240. The UN Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect has identified eight common risk factors for “atrocity crimes” and two specific risk factors for genocide. All these factors are present in Myanmar at the time of writing. The Mission therefore concludes on reasonable grounds that the risk of genocide continues at the level of “serious” risk. 241. The Mission applied the eight common risk factors to the present situation in Myanmar. It found on reasonable grounds: first, Rakhine is plagued with instability; second, the Tatmadaw has a record of serious violations of international human rights and humanitarian law; third, State structures, in particular civilian oversight of the military and an independent judiciary, are weak; fourth, the Government has motives and incentives to remove the Rohingya and take over their lands; fifth, the Tatmadaw has demonstrated a capacity to commit atrocity crimes; sixth, there is an absence of mitigating factors, including outside pressure from influential third party states; seventh, the Tatmadaw is empowered by strong Constitutional authorities that grant it discretion and freedoms to engage in violations and to make the preparatory actions to do so; eighth, Rakhine State is in a fragile situation where relatively isolated acts, such as intercommunal tensions, protests and criticisms from Rohingya or the use of force by an armed group, could trigger atrocity crimes.545 The two risk factors that the UN Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect identified specifically for genocide are also present: first, intergroup tensions or patterns of discrimination against the Rohingya remain, without abatement; second, signs of an intent to destroy a protected group, in whole or in part, persist.546 242. In view of this assessment, the Mission concludes on reasonable grounds that the Rohingya people remain at serious risk of genocide under the terms of the Genocide Convention. 243. Having formed this conclusion, the Mission points out the obligations of all States parties, under the Genocide Convention, to prevent genocide. 547 It is not directly within the Mission’s mandate to assess whether specific States other than Myanmar have failed or are now failing in their obligations to prevent genocide. However, it is appropriate for the Mission to refer States to the Legal framework section of this report, in which the Mission observes that 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”.548 In these circumstances, all States parties to the Genocide Convention have a duty to make use of the means they has available to deter 544 545 546 547 548 UN Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect, Framework of Analysis for Atrocity Crimes A tool for prevention, 2014. Available at https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocitycrimes/Doc.49_Framework%20of%20Analysis%20for%20Atrocity%20Crimes_EN.pdf (accessed 29 May 2019). UN Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect, Framework of Analysis for Atrocity Crimes A tool for prevention, 2014, available at https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocitycrimes/Doc.49_Framework%20of%20Analysis%20for%20Atrocity%20Crimes_EN.pdf (accessed 29 May 2019). UN Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect, Framework of Analysis for Atrocity Crimes A tool for prevention, 2014, available at https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocitycrimes/Doc.49_Framework%20of%20Analysis%20for%20Atrocity%20Crimes_EN.pdf (accessed 29 May 2019), p. 10-17. 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, art. I. 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. 77