V. Legal Framework and Analysis 98 Course of Conduct The requirement that the attack occur within the context of a “course of conduct” underscores that crimes against humanity are not designed to capture “single isolated events” but rather a series of linked events or actions directed at a civilian population.400 The ICC has interpreted a “course of conduct” as “a campaign, an operation or a series of actions.”401 Those actions should share common features “in terms of their characteristics, nature, aims, targets and alleged perpetrators, as well as times and locations.”402 Notably, an attack need not involve armed conflict; crimes against humanity can occur during peacetime.403 The attacks by the transnational criminal syndicate against Rohingya trafficked men, women, and children share common features. The aim was to extort desperate Rohingya through violence and, in the process, traffickers murdered, tortured, raped, enslaved, and imprisoned people. Statements by traffickers to Fortify Rights confirm that the aim of the traffickers’ action was extortion. For example, one human trafficker based in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, told Fortify Rights: “If you pay money, tomorrow you will be released. If you don’t pay, you will stay there until you die.”404 Another trafficker similarly said, “If you can pay 6,000 [Ringgit], they say, ‘You can go to Malaysia’ . . . If they cannot pay, they have to stay in the camps, sometimes for one month, two months, or six months, and then they die.” 405 Indeed, the prohibited acts were a key component of the extortion process. Numerous statements from witnesses told of being tortured until they could raise the required payment amounts— typically about US$2,000 (7,000 Malaysian Ringgit). For example, survivors reported that “[w]henever we were unable to pay money, they beat us;” “[t]he reason they [poured boiling water on my body] was because I didn’t pay the money to the agent;” and “[w]e called our relatives and they would beat us and tell us to ask for money.”406 A 14-year-old boy similarly testified in the Thai trafficking trial that while imprisoned in a jungle camp, traffickers forced him to call his family for payment and that “during the phone conversation a guard was hurting him at the same time . . . [t]he guard who hurt him was Mr. Usen. Usen threatened the witness’s father that unless he sent the money, the witness would die.”407 The locations of the attacks occurred in a consistent though broad geographic area along the Malaysia-Thailand border and at sea en route to Thailand and Malaysia. Numerous witnesses interviewed by the Commission and Fortify Rights and those who testified in Thailand’s humantrafficking trials described nearly identical patterns of killings, torture, rape, and imprisonment aboard human-trafficking ships.408 Similarly, survivors consistently described similar acts of 400 See, Bemba, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08, para. 149. See also, Katanga, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07, para. 1101. 401 Katanga, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07, para. 1101. 402 Prosecutor v. Gbagbo, ICC, ICC-02/11-01/11, Pretrial Chamber 1, June 12, 2014, para. 212. 403 Prosecutor v. Tadic, Case No. IT-94-1-A, Judgment, July 15, 1999, para. 251. 404 Fortify Rights interview with #61, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, September 28, 2014. 405 Fortify Rights interview with #60, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, September 28, 2014. 406 Fortify Rights interview with #23, Johor State, Malaysia, August 15, 2014; Fortify Rights interview with #10, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, August 11, 2014; Fortify Rights interview with #49, Bangkok, Thailand, September 23, 2014. 407 Fortify Rights, internal report on human trafficking case, testimony of 14-year-old boy [name redacted], trial monitoring notes, Rachada Criminal Court, Human Trafficking Division, Bangkok, Thailand, May 12, 2016. 408 See, for example, the Commission interviews with W1, W2, W3, W7, W10, W13, W16, and W18 (“Two Rohingya survivors testified to the Commission that they were beaten by men who operated the ships transporting them, and six survivors testified that they witnessed ship operators severely beat others on their respective vessels.”); Fortify Rights interview with #05, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, August 10, 2014; Fortify Rights interview with #50, Bangkok, Thailand, September 23, 2014. See, for example, Fortify Rights interview with #44, Songkhla Province, Thailand, September 17, 2014; Fortify Rights interview with #81, Penang State, Malaysia, September 15, 2014. See, for example, Fortify Rights interview with #15, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, August 12, 2014. Fortify Rights interview with #23, Johor State, Malaysia, August 15, 2014.