109 Finally, there must also be a demonstration that the perpetrators committed the attacks, i.e., the “course of conduct” described above, “pursuant to or in furtherance of” the identified policy.497 In Bemba, the court found that perpetrators conducted attacks in furtherance of an organizational policy, where militia forces: (1) acted consistently with evidence of motives and a method; (2) were aware of the attack; and (3) were soldiers of the organization and acting on behalf of the organization at the relevant time.498 The syndicate’s motive, as discussed above, is to gain financial profit through violent extortion. Additionally, as discussed above, the various elements of the transnational criminal syndicate were involved in the commission of the crime and acted on behalf of the syndicate. As to the second prong, being “aware of the attack,” in Bemba, the court found that knowledge should be assumed because the attack directed against a civilian population lasted four months, there were a large number of victims, and the attacks occurred over a large geographical area, indicating knowledge should be assumed given the scale.499 Here, the trafficking activities conducted by the syndicate lasted several years, involved thousands of victims, and occurred over the span of three countries.500 Given the scale, as in Bemba, knowledge should be assumed. With all three elements met—an organization, a policy, and conduct pursuant to or in furtherance of that policy—there are reasonable grounds to believe that the attacks were conducted pursuant to or in furtherance of an organizational policy. Thus, all three elements required to show that acts were directed against a civilian population have been met: (1) there was a course of conduct involving the multiple commission of prohibited acts; (2) against the Rohingya refugee population; (3) which were carried out pursuant to or in furtherance of the trafficking organization’s policy. The Attack was “Widespread” or “Systematic” In addition to demonstrating that the enumerated acts were “directed against a civilian population,” it must be shown that the organization’s attack was either “widespread” and/or “systematic.”501 Moreover, only the attack must be widespread or systematic—not the individual acts of the perpetrators. 502 Widespread According to ICC jurisprudence, “widespread” refers to “the large-scale nature of the attack and the number of targeted persons.”503 Widespread attacks are generally “massive, frequent, [and] carried out collectively” against many people.504 For example, in the Bosco Ntaganda case, the ICC found that attacks against the non-Hema civilian population were widespread because they “resulted in a large number of civilian victims” (more than 300 murders) across a “broad geographical area” 497 See, Bemba, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08, para. 161. See also, Katanga, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07, para. 1115. 498 Bemba, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08, para. 161. 499 Id. at para. 691. 500 See, Chapter V. Section, “The Contextual Element of Crimes Against Humanity.” 501 Prosecutor v. Gbagbo, ICC, ICC-02/11-14-Corr, para. 52 (confirming that an attack need only be widespread or systematic under customary international law). See, Prosecutor v. Tadić, ICTY, Case No. IT-94-1-T, Judgment (Trial), May 7, 1997, para. 648; Prosecutor v. Tadić, Case No. IT-94-1-A, Judgement (Appeal), July 15, 1999, para. 248. 502 See, Bemba, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08, para. 162; Katanga, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07, para. 1112; Kunarac, et. al., Case No. IT-96-23 and IT-96-23/1-A, para. 96. 503 Katanga, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07, para. 1113. 504 Bemba, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08, para. 83.