132 seem that, although the discrepancy between the Report and the Statute is conspicuous, the wording of Article 5 is so clear and unambiguous as to render it unnecessary to resort to secondary sources of interpretation such as the Secretary-General’s Report. Hence, the literal interpretation of Article 5 of the Statute, outlined above, must necessarily prevail. 297. Furthermore, it may be argued that, in his Report, the Secretary-General was merely describing the notion of crimes against humanity in a general way, as opposed to stipulating a technical, legal definition intended to be binding on the Tribunal. In other words, the statement that crimes against humanity are crimes “committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack against any civilian population on national, political, ethnic, racial or religious grounds” amounts to the observation that crimes against humanity as a matter of fact usually are committed on such discriminatory grounds. It is not, however, a legal requirement that such discriminatory grounds be present. That is, at least, another possible interpretation. It is true that in most cases, crimes against humanity are waged against civilian populations which have been specifically targeted for national, political, ethnic, racial or religious reasons. 4. The Statements Made by Some States in the Security Council 298. Let us now turn to the statements made in the Security Council, after the adoption of the Statute, by three States, namely, France, the United States and the Russian Federation. 299. Before considering what the legal meaning of these statements may be, one important point may first be emphasised. Although they were all directed at importing, as it were, into Article 5 the qualification concerning discriminatory intent set out in paragraph 48 of the Secretary-General’s Report, these statements varied as to their purport. The statement by the French representative was intended to be part of “a few brief comments” on the Statute. 357 By contrast, the remarks of the United States representative 356 For instance, the express requirement in Article 5 of a nexus with an armed conflict creates a narrower sphere of operation than that provided for crimes against humanity under customary international law. 357 He stated the following: “[W]ith regard to Article 5, that Article applied to all the acts set out therein when committed in violation of the law during a period of armed conflict on the territory of the former Yugoslavia, within the context of a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population for national, political, ethnic, racial or religious reasons” (U.N. Doc. S/PV. 3217, p.11). Case No.: -94-1-A 15 July 1999