134 scope of Article 5 with respect to discriminatory intent. In particular, it must be stressed that the United States representative, in enumerating the discriminatory grounds required, in her view, for crimes against humanity, included one ground (“gender”) that was not mentioned in the Secretary-General’s Report and which was, more importantly, referred to neither by the French nor the Russian representatives in their declarations on Article 5. This, it may be contended, is further evidence that no agreement emerged within the Security Council as to the qualification concerning discriminatory intent. 301. Arguably, in fact, the main purpose of those statements was to stress that it is the existence of a widespread or systematic practice which constitutes an indispensable ingredient of crimes against humanity. This ingredient, absent in Article 5, had already been mentioned in paragraph 48 of the Secretary-General’s Report. 362 In spelling out that this ingredient was indispensable, the States in question took up the relevant passage of the Secretary-General’s Report and in the same breath also mentioned the discriminatory intent which may, in practice, frequently accompany such crimes. 302. The contention may also be warranted that the intent of the three States which made these declarations was to stress that in the former Yugoslavia most atrocities had been motivated by ethnic, racial, political or religious hatred. Those States therefore intended to draw the attention of the future Tribunal to the need to take this significant factor into account. One should not, however, confuse what happens most of the time (quod plerumque accidit) with the strict requirements of law. 303. Be that as it may, since at least with regard to the issue of discriminatory intent those statements may not be taken to be part of the “context” of the Statute, it may be argued that they comprise a part of the travaux préparatoires. Even if this were so, these statements would not be indispensable aids to interpretation, at least insofar as they relate to the particular issue of discriminatory intent under Article 5. Under customary international law, as codified in Article 32 of the Vienna Convention referred to above, the travaux constitute b) any instrument which was made by one or more parties in connection with the conclusion of the treaty and accepted by the other parties as an instrument related to the treaty. 362 The Trial Chamber in its Judgement of 7 May 1997 has also correctly emphasised that the phrases “widespread” and “systematic” are disjunctive as opposed to cumulative requirements (see Judgement, paras. 645-648). See also the Nikolic Rule 61 Decision, (“Review of the Indictment Pursuant to Rule 61 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, The Prosecutor v. Dragan Nikoli}, Case No.: IT-94-2-R61, Trial Chamber I, 20 October 1995) (Nikoli} (1995) II ICTY JR 739). Case No.: -94-1-A 15 July 1999