CAT/C/39/2 page 54 230. The above mentioned interpretation given to the systematic practice of torture was made by CAT itself, on the occasion of its first investigation under article 20, relating to Turkey (A/48/44/Add.1, paragraph 39). The definition of systematic practice of torture considered by the Committee seemed to add a special meaning to the expression, without it having been established that such was the intention of the Parties to the Convention. 231. The use of the term “systematic”, such as in systematic violations of human rights, is common in the language of Human Rights International Law, International Humanitarian Law and International Criminal Law. 232. When dealing with “serious violations of obligations stemming from peremptory norms of general international law”, the International Law Commission of the United Nations considered the term systematic during the elaboration of draft articles on the international responsibility of the State. At the second reading of the draft articles on the international responsibility of the State, serious violations were deemed to be those occurring in a context of a pattern of violations carried out in a systematic and often massive manner. 233. Violations were considered to have been committed in a systematic way when there is evidence of a certain pattern in the actions of the State, leading to the harm of certain rights,39 and that it is massive when it is notorious. Thus, the existence of a pattern of violations leads to the question of the intention and the motives of the perpetrator to commit the violations. The objectives of the State when committing certain violations may be essential to determine the existence of a “serious violation of obligations from peremptory norms of general international law”. 234. When commenting on the Draft Articles on the International responsibilities of States, the International Law Commission was particularly precise in clarifying that “to be regarded as systematic a violation would have to be carried out in an organized and deliberate way”.40 235. In International Humanitarian Law, the terms “massive” and “systematic” are used to distinguish “Crimes Against Humanity” from the general list of “War Crimes”. To be considered a “crime against humanity” the action that constitutes a violation must be “massive” and “systematic”. Article 3 of the Statute of the Rwanda Court and article 7 of the Rome Statute provide that the listed crimes must occur as a “massive” and “systematic” attack against the civil population. According to the jurisprudence of those courts, the term “systematic” refers to attack carried out according to a common and methodic planning41. In Prosecutor v. Akaseyu, ICTR 39 JØRGENSEN, Nina H. B. The Responsibility of States for International Crimes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. p. 108 e 109. 40 INTERNATIONAL LAW COMMISSION. Draft articles on Responsibilities of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts with commentaries. United Nations: 2005, p. 285, Commentary (8) on Art. 40. Available at < http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/ commentaries/9_6_2001.pdf>. 41 See Prosecutor v. Tadic, Trial Judgement, 7 May 1977, para. 648.