01005773 Case File No. 002/19-09-2007/ECCC/TC E313 by their very nature or consequences be objectively part of the attack. 569 A crime that is committed before, after or away from the main attack on the civilian population could still, if sufficiently connected, be part of that attack. The crime must not, however, be an isolated act, i.e. so far removed from the attack that, having considered the context and circumstances in which it was committed, the acts cannot be said to have been part of the attack.570 191. Knowledge. An accused or a perpetrator must have known that there is an attack on the civilian population and that his or her acts formed part of the attack. 571 He or she need not know the details of the attack or share the purpose or goals of the broader attack.572 Evidence of knowledge depends on the facts of a particular case; as a result, the manner in which this legal element may be proved may vary according to the circumstances.573 192. The NUON Chea Defence submits that there is a requirement additional to those set out above, namely that an accused must have knowledge of the discriminatory nature of any widespread and systematic attack forming the basis of charges against him or her.574 They do not advance any authority in support of this assertion. As the ICTR Statute is the only instrument other than the ECCC Law to include the jurisdictional requirement that the attack must have been carried out on a discriminatory basis, ICTR jurisprudence provides useful guidance on this issue. The Chamber’s review of ICTR case law reveals that, almost uniformly, 575 the ICTR has not required an accused to have knowledge of the discriminatory nature of the widespread and systematic attack.576 Similarly, in the KAING Guek Eav Trial Judgement, the Chamber did not require knowledge of the discriminatory nature of 569 KAING Guek Eav Trial Judgement, para. 318; Kunarac et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 85; Šainović et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 264. 570 KAING Guek Eav Trial Judgement, para. 318; Kunarac et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 100. 571 Kunarac et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 85; Munyakazi Appeal Judgement, para. 141. 572 KAING Guek Eav Trial Judgement, para. 319; Kunarac et al. Appeal Judgement, paras 102-103. 573 KAING Guek Eav Trial Judgement, para. 319; Blaškić Appeal Judgement, para. 126. 574 NUON Chea Closing Submissions in Case 002/01, para. 208. 575 The ICTR Trial Chamber in Ntakirutimana did require knowledge of the discriminatory nature of the widespread and systematic attack, para. 693. 576 See e.g., Bagosora and Nsengiyumva Appeal Judgement, para. 389; Gacumbitsi Appeal Judgement, para. 86; Kayishema and Ruzindana Trial Judgement, paras 133-134; Seromba Trial Judgement, para. 360; Kamuhanda Trial Judgement, paras 657-6; Semanza Trial Judgement, paras 327332. Case 002/01, Judgement, 7 August 2014 - Public 106