128 2. Article 5 and Customary International Law 287. The same conclusion is reached if Article 5 is construed in light of the principle whereby, in case of doubt and whenever the contrary is not apparent from the text of a statutory or treaty provision, such a provision must be interpreted in light of, and in conformity with, customary international law. In the case of the Statute, it must be presumed that the Security Council, where it did not explicitly or implicitly depart from general rules of international law, intended to remain within the confines of such rules. 288. A careful perusal of the relevant practice shows that a discriminatory intent is not required by customary international law for all crimes against humanity. 289. First of all, the basic international instrument on the matter, namely, the London Agreement of 8 August 1945, clearly allows for crimes against humanity which may be unaccompanied by such intent. Article 6 (c) of that Agreement envisages two categories of crimes. One of them is that of “murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population”, hence a category for which no discriminatory intent is required, while the other category (“persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds”) is patently based on a discriminatory intent. An identical provision can be found in the Statute of the Tokyo International Tribunal (Article 5 (c)). 348 Similar language can also be found in Control Council Law No. 10 (Article II (1) (c)). 349 290. The letter of these provisions is clear and indisputable. Consequently, had customary international law developed to restrict the scope of those treaty provisions which are at the very origin of the customary process, uncontroverted evidence would be needed. In other words, both judicial practice and possibly evidence of consistent State practice, including national legislation, would be necessary to show that customary law has deviated from treaty law by adopting a narrower notion of crimes against humanity. Such judicial and other practice is lacking. Indeed, the relevant case-law points in the contrary direction. 348 Article 5 (c) of the Statute of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East provides: “Crimes against Humanity: Namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed before or during the war, or persecutions on political or racial grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated.” 349 Article II (1) (c ) of Control Council Law No. 10 provides: “Crimes against Humanity: Atrocities and offences, including but not limited to murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, imprisonment, torture, rape, or other inhumane acts committed against any Case No.: -94-1-A 15 July 1999