110 fact, to read the armed conflict requirement as requiring that the perpetrator’s motives not be purely personal “would ?…g transform this merely jurisdictional limitation under Article 5 into a substantive element of the mens rea of crimes against humanity”. 302 241. The Prosecution concedes that this finding did not affect the verdict against the Appellant. However, it submits that the finding involves a significant question of law that is of general importance to the Tribunal’s jurisprudence and should therefore be corrected on appeal. 303 242. The Prosecution argues that the weight of authority supports the proposition that crimes against humanity can be committed for purely personal reasons and that the sole authority relied on by the Trial Chamber in support of its finding in fact suggests that, even where perpetrators may have been personally motivated to commit the acts in question, their conduct can still be characterised as a crime against humanity. 304 Subsequent decisions of the United States military tribunals under Control Council Law No.10 and of national courts are also consistent with the view that a perpetrator of crimes against humanity may act out of purely personal motives. 305 243. Finally, the Prosecution contends that the object and purpose of the Tribunal’s Statute support the interpretation that crimes against humanity may be committed for purely personal reasons, arguing that the objective of the Statute in providing a broad scope for humanitarian law would be defeated by a narrow interpretation of the category of offences falling within the ambit of Article 5. Furthermore, if proof of a non-personal motive was required, many perpetrators of crimes against humanity could evade conviction by the International Tribunal simply by invoking purely personal motives in defence of their conduct. 306 301 Ibid. paras. 658-659. Cross-Appellant’s Brief, para. 4.9. 303 Skeleton Argument of the Prosecution, para. 26. 304 Cross-Appellant’s Brief, para. 4.11; T. 150 (20 April 1999). 305 Cross-Appellant’s Brief, paras. 4.15 – 4.18. 306 Ibid. paras. 4.22; T. 152 (20 April 1999). 302 Case No.: -94-1-A 15 July 1999