131 3. The Report of the Secretary-General 293. The interpretation suggested so far is not in keeping with the Report of the Secretary-General and the statements made by three members of the Security Council before the Tribunal’s Statute was adopted by the Council. The Appeals Chamber is nevertheless of the view that these two interpretative sources do not suffice to establish that all crimes against humanity need be committed with a discriminatory intent. 294. We shall consider first the Report of the Secretary-General, which stated that the crimes under discussion are those “committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack against any civilian population on national, political, ethnic, racial or religious grounds”. 355 295. It should be noted that the Secretary-General’s Report has not the same legal standing as the Statute. In particular, it does not have the same binding authority. The Report as a whole was "approved" by the Security Council (see the first operative paragraph of Security Council resolution 827(1993)), while the Statute was "adopt?edg" (see operative paragraph 2). By "approving" the Report, the Security Council clearly intended to endorse its purpose as an explanatory document to the proposed Statute. Of course, if there appears to be a manifest contradiction between the Statute and the Report, it is beyond doubt that the Statute must prevail. In other cases, the Secretary-General’s Report ought to be taken to provide an authoritative interpretation of the Statute. 296. Moreover, the Report of the Secretary-General does not purport to be a statement as to the position under customary international law. As stated above, it is open to the Security Council - subject to respect for peremptory norms of international law (jus cogens) - to adopt definitions of crimes in the Statute which deviate from customary international law. 356 Nevertheless, as a general principle, provisions of the Statute defining the crimes within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal should always be interpreted as reflecting customary international law, unless an intention to depart from customary international law is expressed in the terms of the Statute, or from other authoritative sources. The Report of the Secretary-General does not provide sufficient indication that the Security Council did so intend Article 5 to deviate from customary international law by requiring a discriminatory intent for all crimes against humanity. Indeed, in the case under consideration it would 355 Report of the Secretary-General, para. 48. Case No.: -94-1-A 15 July 1999