In 2007 the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), noted in its judgement on Jorgic v. Germany case that in 1992 the majority of legal scholars took the narrow view that "intent to destroy" in the CPPCG meant the intended physical-biological destruction of the protected group and that this was still the majority opinion. But the ECHR also noted that a minority took a broader view and did not consider biological-physical destruction was necessary as the intent to destroy a national, racial, religious or ethnic group was enough to qualify as genocide. COUNT 4
QSN1 Which group was accused by the ECHR of having an overly constricted idea of the meaning of destruction in defining genocide? ANS1 majority of legal scholars QSN2 What groups did the ECHR feel should be included as potential victims of genocide? ANS2 national, racial, religious or ethnic QSN3 In 2007 what former case did the European Court of Human Rights draw on to further refine qualifiers of genocide? ANS3 Jorgic v. Germany QSN4 What form of destruction was considered too limited by a smaller group of experts? ANS4 biological-physical