In the case of '' Prosecutor v. Krstić '' ( 2 August 2001 ) , the ICTY ruled " customary international law limits the definition of genocide to those acts seeking the physical or biological destruction of all or part of the group . Hence , an enterprise attacking only the cultural or sociological characteristics of a human group in order to annihilate these elements which give to that group its own identity distinct from the rest of the community would not fall under the definition of genocide " . On 19 April 2004 , this determination was upheld on appeal : " The Genocide Convention , and customary international law in general , prohibit only the physical or biological destruction of a human group . ... The Trial Chamber expressly acknowledged this limitation , and eschewed any broader definition . ... " although like the lower court , the appeal court also ruled that ethnic cleansing might with other evidence lead to an inference of genocidal intent . On 14 January 2000 , the ICTY ruled in the '' Prosecutor v. Kupreškić and Others '' case that the Lašva Valley ethnic cleansing campaign in order to expel the Bosnian Muslim population from the region was persecution , not genocide '' per se '' . The ECHR noted the opinion of the International Court of Justice ruling in the Bosnian Genocide Case that ethnic cleansing is not in and of itself genocide
Lašva Valley ethnic cleansing
Lašva Valley ethnic cleansing
Bosnian genocide