3. Those responsible refused to acknowledge the detention, or concealed the concerned person’s fate or whereabouts, placing the person outside the protection of the law.75 If corroborated information pertaining to any of these three elements fails to reach the reasonable grounds standard, the investigative body will not find the State, nor any individual, responsible for the violation of enforced disappearance. Example 2: International criminal law An investigative body using the same standard has collected evidence that a party to a non-international armed conflict launched an attack directed against civilians.76 It has also uncovered the name of the commander who led the unit that undertook the attack. In determining whether to identify the commander as responsible for a violation, there would need to be reasonable grounds to believe that: 1. The commander directed the attack;77 2. The object of the attack was a civilian population as such or individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities; 3. The commander intended the civilian population as such or individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities to be the object of the attack; 4. The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an armed conflict not of an international character; and 5. The commander was aware of factual circumstances that established the existence of an armed conflict. International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, art. 2. In this example the CoI is not alleging a crime against humanity, so the chapeaux and other elements of that crime are excluded. 76 Recall that for this body of law to apply, the chapeaux elements relating to “armed conflict” must also be met. See supra section 3 A. 77 This example employs the substantive law from art. 8 (2) (e) (i) of the Rome Statute. The mode of liability is “direct commission”. The mens rea comprises intent and knowledge (awareness). 75 COLLECTING AND ANALYSING THE INFORMATION 39