01005769 Case File No. 002/19-09-2007/ECCC/TC E313 a requirement under customary international law for crimes against humanity at the time relevant to the Closing Order.542 It further submits that international jurisprudence to the contrary “dating from the 2000s” is irrelevant in determining the state of the law at the time relevant to the Closing Order.543 181. In the KAING Guek Eav Trial Judgement, this Chamber found that while the existence of a policy or plan may be evidentially relevant in establishing the widespread or systematic nature of the attack, it does not constitute an independent legal element of the crime.544 While this position accorded with post-1975 jurisprudence from other international tribunals,545 it was based upon a review of customary international law sources relevant to the operative time period. These sources set out contrasting views on the issue. While the Defence has identified certain sources which support their legal argument,546 there is also support for the view previously advanced by this Chamber in the KAING Guek Eav Trial Judgement,547 necessitating the conclusion that state practice and opinio juris at that time did not clearly support a State or organisational plan or policy requirement. As no error has been demonstrated, the Chamber dismisses both challenges. 182. Directed against any civilian population - The attack must be “directed against” any civilian population, meaning that such population must be the primary, 542 NUON Chea Closing Submissions in Case 002/01, paras 210-213. NUON Chea Closing Submissions in Case 002/01, para. 213. 544 KAING Guek Eav Trial Judgement, para. 301.; 545 See e.g. Blaškić Appeal Judgement, para. 120; Kunarac Appeal Judgement, para. 98 fn. 114; Gacumbitsi Appeal Judgement, para. 84; Sesay Trial Judgement, para. 79. 546 The following sources raised by the defence teams consider a State plan or policy to be a legal requirement of crimes against humanity: Justice Judgement, pp. 973, 984; Eichmann Judgement, paras 56-88; Report of the International Law Commission covering the work of its sixth session, 3 June – 28 Julu 1954, UN Doc. A/2693, Article 2. While the Menten Judgement does not require State involvement, it does require that crimes against humanity "form part of a system based on terror or constitute a link in a consciously pursued policy" (see pp 362-363). The Chamber is not persuaded that the other sources identified by the NUON Chea Defence support the existence of an independent State plan or policy requirement. The reference in the IMT Judgement to a “policy of terror [and] persecution […] in Germany” (see p. 498) sets out findings on the facts, not a legal requirement. The Einsatzgruppen Judgement suggests only that crimes against humanity arise where a State fails to take action to halt or punish crimes, for any reason (see p. 498). 547 Sources which do not identify a State or organisational plan or policy as a legal requirement of crimes against humanity include: Tokyo Charter, Article 5; Control Council Law No. 10, Article II(c); Flick Judgement, pp. 1191, 1212-1216; Medical Judgement, pp. 172-173; Milch Judgement, Musmanno Concurrence, pp. 790-791; Milch Judgement, Phillips Concurrence, pp. 863-4; RuSHA Judgement, p. 151; High Command Judgement, p. 469; Hostage Judgement, p. 1232; Ministries Judgement, p. 653-654, 797, 877; Farben Judgement, pp. 1129-1130. 543 Case 002/01, Judgement, 7 August 2014 - Public 102