161 the prosecution, whereas the killing of the wife, who was a member of the aggressor group, would always be simple murder, that of the wife, who was a member of the attacked civilian population, would always be a crime against humanity. 36. The hypothesis of the murder of the wife , who was a member of the attacked civilian population, is accommodated by the necessity for the prosecution to prove, as an element of a crime against humanity, that the murder was "directed against any civilian population" as is required by the chapeau of Article 5 of the Statute. Such a murder would not have been directed against the civilian population. Where the evidence is of that kind, the prosecution has failed to prove that element of a crime against humanity. 37. The Trial Chamber seems to have regarded the non-existence of personal reasons as being itself an element of the crime to be proved by the prosecution. With respect, that was a mistake. The prosecution does not have to prove negatively that there were no personal reasons; it has to prove affirmatively that the crime was directed against the civilian population. However, the evidence may show that the act was not directed against the civilian population for any of several reasons, and one of these may be that it was done for purely personal reasonscompletely unrelated to the attack on the civilian population, as discussed above. That possibility may be disclosed either by the evidence for the prosecution or by that for the defence. If that is the evidence, failure by the prosecution to overcome it means that the prosecution has failed to prove a required element of a crime against humanity, namely, that the act was directed against the civilian population. 38. That is a far cry from suggesting, as the Trial Chamber seems to have done, that it is an element of the crime, having to be proved by the prosecution, that the act of the accused was not dictated by purely personal motives. But I do not think that the Trial Chamber was wrong in taking the position that, where the act was dictated by purely personal motives which were completely unrelated to the attack on the civilian population, no crime against humanity was committed, even if the accused was aware of that attack.