107 For example, Ko Tong was accused of “using private Andaman Sea islands” in his receipt to further the trafficking of men, women, and children, indicating de facto control over some private islands.481 Additionally, traffickers had substantial freedom of movement on the Malaysia-Thailand border to establish numerous human-trafficking camps containing hundreds of individuals. In these camps, traffickers had the monopoly of force over trafficked persons and were able to engage in prohibited acts.482 Moreover, Banjong, as the mayor of a border town where large swaths of jungle housed some of these camps, appears to have been a key leader of the network, helping provide the syndicate with de facto control of some of key territory. 483 While the criminal syndicate was under occasional threat from certain state security forces, Fortify Rights documented that traffickers were often tipped off in advance, enabling them to escape and re-purchase their captives from the Thai authorities.484 Part of a larger group, which fulfils some or all of the abovementioned criteria Despite the leadership roles of the identified Thai individuals, and the description of the roles of the hands-on traffickers, the precise contours of the transnational criminal syndicate involved in trafficking Rohingya remain opaque. For example, the extent of involvement of Malaysian government officials in the syndicate is unknown. Additionally, there are indications of multiple syndicates, suggesting the existence of a broader human-trafficking cartel, though the number of networks and the identities of the individuals that run them are not known.485 Without more data, a determination whether the transnational criminal syndicate identified here is part of a larger group is not currently possible, though such a determination is certainly not required. This prong likely exists to help make a determination that a sub-group of a larger organization that itself meets the criteria of an organization, indicates the sub-group may qualify as an organization. In sum, there are reasonable grounds to believe that a transnational criminal syndicate involved in the trafficking of Rohingya had a hierarchy, was capable of committing widespread and systematic attacks, directed criminal activities against Rohingya refugees as a primary purpose, and enjoyed substantial freedom of movement. Thus, under the standards articulated in the Republic of Kenya, there are reasonable grounds to believe that those responsible for the crimes described in this report constitute an organization or organizations for the purposes of the Rome Statute. Pursuant to a policy Finally, the organization must have conducted the attack “pursuant to or in furtherance of a State or organizational policy to commit such attack.”486 Thus, the Rome Statute requires proving the existence of a policy. According to the ICC’s Elements of the Crimes, this means “that the State or organisation actively promotes or encourages the attack against a civilian population.”487 ICC jurisprudence recognizes that it is rare for an organization to adopt and disseminate a preestablished design or plan.488 Rather, precedent allows that a state or organizational policy may mass grave in 2015] exposed Thailand’s horrifying role in a criminal operation that shifted victims from Myanmar to Malaysia and forced the ruling junta to launch a belated crackdown.”) 481 “Thai General, Cops, Politicians Jailed for Human Trafficking,” Agence France Presse. 482 Fortify Rights interviewed multiple trafficking victims who reported being confined to camps with approximately “900” , “800” , “700” other victims. See, Fortify Rights interviews with eyewitnesses and survivors, 2013-2015. 483 Thai General Gets 27 Years’ Jail for Human Trafficking, Straits Times. Fortify Rights interview with #50, Bangkok, Thailand, September 23, 2014. 484 Fortify Rights interview with #50, Bangkok, Thailand, September 23, 2014. 485 See, for example, Fortify Rights interview with #121, Sittwe Township, Rakhine State, Myanmar, May 2015. 486 Rome Statute, Article 7(2)(a). 487 ICC, Elements of the Crimes, Article 7, Crimes Against Humanity, p. 5. 488 Katanga, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07, para. 1109. See also, Bemba, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08, para. 160.