State responsibility genocide, this is supported by a number of decisions by national and international courts.646 (5) Although not specifically listed in the Commission’s commentary to article 53 of the 1969 Vienna Convention, the peremptory character of certain other norms seems also to be generally accepted. This applies to the prohibition against torture as defined in article 1 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The peremptory character of this prohibition has been confirmed by decisions of international and national bodies.647 In the light of the description by ICJ of the basic rules of international humanitarian law applicable in armed conflict as “intransgressible” in character, it would also seem justified to treat these as peremptory.648 Finally, the obligation to respect the right of self-determination deserves to be mentioned. As the Court noted in the East Timor case, “[t]he principle of self-determination ... is one of the essential principles of contemporary international law”, which gives rise to an obligation to the international community as a whole to permit and respect its exercise.649 (6) It should be stressed that the examples given above may not be exhaustive. In addition, article 64 of the 1969 Vienna Convention contemplates that new peremptory norms of general international law may come into existence through the processes of acceptance and recognition by the international community of States as a whole, as referred to in article 53. The examples given here are thus without prejudice to existing or developing rules of international law which fulfil the criteria for peremptory norms under article 53. (7) Apart from its limited scope in terms of the comparatively small number of norms which qualify as peremptory, article 40 applies a further limitation for the purposes of the chapter, viz. that the breach should itself have been “serious”. A “serious” breach is defined in paragraph 2 as one which involves “a gross or systematic failure by the responsible State to fulfil the obligation” in question. The word “serious” signifies that a certain order of magnitude of violation is necessary in order not to trivialize the breach and it is not intended to suggest that any violation of these obligations is not serious or is somehow excusable. But relatively less serious cases of 646 See, for example, ICJ in Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Provisional Measures (footnote 412 above), pp. 439–440; Counter-Claims (footnote 413 above), p. 243; and the District Court of Jerusalem in the Attorney-General of the Government of Israel v. Adolf Eichmann case, ILR, vol. 36, p. 5 (1961). 647 Cf. the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, in Siderman de Blake and Others v. The Republic of Argentina and Others, ILR, vol. 103, p. 455, at p. 471 (1992); the United Kingdom Court of Appeal in Al Adsani v. Government of Kuwait and Others, ILR, vol. 107, p. 536, at pp. 540–541 (1996); and the United Kingdom House of Lords in Pinochet (footnote 415 above), pp. 841 and 881. Cf. the United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, in Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, ILR, vol. 77, p. 169, at pp. 177–179 (1980). 648 Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (see footnote 54 above), p. 257, para. 79. 649 East Timor (ibid.). See Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV), annex, fifth principle. 113 breach of peremptory norms can be envisaged, and it is necessary to limit the scope of this chapter to the more serious or systematic breaches. Some such limitation is supported by State practice. For example, when reacting against breaches of international law, States have often stressed their systematic, gross or egregious nature. Similarly, international complaint procedures, for example in the field of human rights, attach different consequences to systematic breaches, e.g. in terms of the non-applicability of the rule of exhaustion of local remedies.650 (8) To be regarded as systematic, a violation would have to be carried out in an organized and deliberate way. In contrast, the term “gross” refers to the intensity of the violation or its effects; it denotes violations of a flagrant nature, amounting to a direct and outright assault on the values protected by the rule. The terms are not of course mutually exclusive; serious breaches will usually be both systematic and gross. Factors which may establish the seriousness of a violation would include the intent to violate the norm; the scope and number of individual violations; and the gravity of their consequences for the victims. It must also be borne in mind that some of the peremptory norms in question, most notably the prohibitions of aggression and genocide, by their very nature require an intentional violation on a large scale.651 (9) Article 40 does not lay down any procedure for determining whether or not a serious breach has been committed. It is not the function of the articles to establish new institutional procedures for dealing with individual cases, whether they arise under chapter III of Part Two or otherwise. Moreover, the serious breaches dealt with in this chapter are likely to be addressed by the competent international organizations, including the Security Council and the General Assembly. In the case of aggression, the Security Council is given a specific role by the Charter of the United Nations. Article 41. Particular consequences of a serious breach of an obligation under this chapter 1. States shall cooperate to bring to an end through lawful means any serious breach within the meaning of article 40. 650 See the Ireland v. the United Kingdom case (footnote 236 above), para. 159; cf., e.g., the procedure established under Economic and Social Council resolution 1503 (XLVIII), which requires a “consistent pattern of gross and reliably attested violations of human rights”. 651 At its twenty-second session, the Commission proposed the following examples as cases denominated as “international crimes”: “(a) a serious breach of an international obligation of essential importance for the maintenance of international peace and security, such as that prohibiting aggression; “(b) a serious breach of an international obligation of essential importance for safeguarding the right of self-determination of peoples, such as that prohibiting the establishment or maintenance by force of colonial domination; “(c) a serious breach on a widespread scale of an international obligation of essential importance for safeguarding the human being, such as those prohibiting slavery, genocide and apartheid; “(d) a serious breach of an international obligation of essential importance for the safeguarding and preservation of the human environment, such as those prohibiting massive pollution of the atmosphere or of the seas.” Yearbook … 1976, vol. II (Part Two), pp. 95–96.