113 conflict that it is erroneous. Similarly, that phrase is unsound if it is taken to require proof of the accused’s motives, as distinct from the intent to commit the crime and the knowledge of the context into which the crime fits. 251. As to what the Trial Chamber understood by the phrase “purely personal motives”, it is clear that it conflated two interpretations of the phrase: first, that the act is unrelated to the armed conflict, and, secondly, that the act is unrelated to the attack on the civilian population. In this regard, paragraph 659 of the Judgement held: 659. Thus if the perpetrator has knowledge, either actual or constructive, that these acts were occurring on a widespread or systematic basis and does not commit his act for purely personal motives completely unrelated to the attack on the civilian population, that is sufficient to hold him liable for crimes against humanity. Therefore the perpetrator must know that there is an attack on the civilian population, know that his act fits in with the attack and the act must not be taken for purely personal reasons unrelated to the armed conflict. (emphasis added) Thus the “attack on the civilian population” is here equated to “the armed conflict”. The two concepts cannot, however, be identical because then crimes against humanity would, by definition, always take place in armed conflict, whereas under customary international law these crimes may also be committed in times of peace. 313 So the two – the “attack on the civilian population” and “the armed conflict” – must be separate notions, although of course under Article 5 of the Statute the attack on “any civilian population” may be part of an “armed conflict”. A nexus with the accused’s acts is required, however, only for the attack on “any civilian population”. A nexus between the accused’s acts and the armed conflict is not required, as is instead suggested by the Judgement. The armed conflict requirement is satisfied by proof that there was an armed conflict; that is all that the Statute requires, and in so doing, it requires more than does customary international law. 252. The Trial Chamber seems additionally to have conflated the notion of committing an act for purely personal motives and the notion that the act must not be unrelated to the armed conflict. The Trial Chamber appears to have viewed the proposition that “the act must not be unrelated to the armed conflict” 314 as being synonymous with the statement that 312 Cross-Appellant’s Brief, para. 4.9. On the issue of whether the Statute exceeds customary international law in requiring that there be an armed conflict, see the Tadi} Decision on Jurisdiction, para. 141. 314 Judgement, para. 634. 313 Case No.: -94-1-A 15 July 1999