125 279. The inclusion of discriminatory intent in the ICTR Statute does not indicate that discriminatory intent need not be shown in order for Article 5 of the Statute of this Tribunal to apply. Rather, the Defence submits that it shows the intention of the Security Council to embrace discriminatory intent as a requirement for crimes against humanity. 342 280. The Defence submits that the silence in Article 5 as to whether discriminatory intent is required for crimes against humanity creates an uncertainty. To resolve this uncertainty, the Appeals Chamber should look to sources such as the preparatory work of the Statute as it interprets Article 5 of the Statute. Thus, the Defence submits that the Trial Chamber was correct in looking to the Report of the Secretary-General and to statements of members of the Security Council in determining that discriminatory intent must be shown in respect of all crimes under Article 5 of the Statute. 343 B. Discussion 281. The Prosecution submits that the Trial Chamber erred in finding that all crimes against humanity enumerated under Article 5 require a discriminatory intent. It alleges, further, that because of this finding, the Trial Chamber “restricted the scope of persecutions under subparagraph (h) only to those acts not charged elsewhere in the Indictment rather than imposing additional liability for all acts committed on discriminatory grounds. In doing so, it would appear that the sentence against the accused was significantly reduced.” 344 However, the Prosecution does not appeal the sentence imposed by the Trial Chamber in respect of the crimes against humanity counts, or seek to overturn the Trial Chamber’s verdict or findings of fact in this regard. Thus, this ground of appeal does not, prima facie, appear to fall within the scope of Article 25(1). 345 Nevertheless, and as with the previous ground of appeal, the Appeals Chamber finds that this issue is a matter of general significance for the Tribunal’s jurisprudence. It is therefore appropriate for the Apppeals Chamber to set forth its views on this matter. 342 T. 231-232 (21 April 1999). T. 236 – 239 (21 April 1999). 344 Skeleton Argument of the Prosecution, para. 32. 345 See Cross-Appellant’s Brief, para. 7.1(4), where the Prosecution requests the Appeals Chamber to “reverse the decision of the Trial Chamber, at page 250 paragraph 652, that discriminatory intent is an ingredient of all crimes against humanity under Article 5 of the Statute.” 343 Case No.: -94-1-A 15 July 1999