In the same judgement the ECHR reviewed the judgements of several international and municipal courts judgements. It noted that International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the International Court of Justice had agreed with the narrow interpretation, that biological-physical destruction was necessary for an act to qualify as genocide. The ECHR also noted that at the time of its judgement, apart from courts in Germany which had taken a broad view, that there had been few cases of genocide under other Convention States municipal laws and that "There are no reported cases in which the courts of these States have defined the type of group destruction the perpetrator must have intended in order to be found guilty of genocide". COUNT 5
QSN1 Two bodies of the United Nations agreed with what restricted provision in defining genocide? ANS1 that biological-physical destruction was necessary QSN2 A definition of what, by the States, was necessary to preserve and expand genocidal law? ANS2 the type of group destruction QSN3 Which country's courts were noted by the ECHR for taking a wider stance on provisions of genocide laws? ANS3 Germany QSN4 The ECHR found most states to have largely undefined definitions of group destruction, despite what factor? ANS4 Convention States municipal laws QSN5 In its preparations, what was the source of other considerations by the ECHR? ANS5 the judgements of several international and municipal courts