111 2. The Defence Case 244. In contrast to the Prosecution’s Cross-Appeal, the Defence argues that the Trial Chamber’s ruling that a crime against humanity cannot be committed for purely personal reasons is correct. Although it concedes that Article 5 of the Statute does not expressly stipulate that crimes against humanity cannot be committed for purely personal reasons, in its submission, the Trial Chamber nevertheless interpreted Article 5 correctly when it found that crimes against humanity cannot be committed for purely personal motives. 307 245. The Defence contests the interpretation given to the applicable case law by the Prosecution, arguing that in all the cases cited, the defendants were linked to the system of extermination which formed the underlying predicate of crimes against humanity, and therefore did not commit their crimes for purely personal motives. 308 In other words, the activities of the defendants were linked to the general activities comprising the pogroms against the Jews and thus the Defence submits that the acts of the defendants were not acts committed for purely personal reasons. 246. The Defence also contests the Prosecution’s submissions regarding the object and purpose of the Statute of the International Tribunal, arguing, to the contrary, that policy suggests that it would be unjust if a perpetrator of a criminal act guided solely by personal motives was instead to be prosecuted for a crime against humanity. 309 B. Discussion 247. Neither Party asserts that the Trial Chamber’s finding that crimes against humanity cannot be committed for purely personal motives had a bearing on the verdict in terms of Article 25(1) of the Tribunal Statute. 310 Nevertheless this is a matter of general significance for the Tribunal’s jurisprudence. It is therefore appropriate for the Appeals Chamber to set forth its views on this matter. 307 Appellant’s Amended Brief on Judgement, para. 4.9; T. 227 (20 April 1999). Appellant’s Amended Brief on Judgement, para. 4.12; T. 229 (20 April 1999). 309 Appellant’s Amended Brief on Judgement, paras. 4.17 – 4.18. 308 Case No.: -94-1-A 15 July 1999