In the process of genocide barbarism doesn’t have as objective merely the execution of the living, but has a much more serious objective, it is the non existence of the subsequent. This concept is much more grave. Because to kill someone, you comprehend it, you say he killed him. But to understand that he was killed so that there exist no subsequent e.g his children, his grandchildren, his great grandchildren, you don’t comprehend it at once. However we know it. Because as you know in genocides we have seen many times women in pregnancy where the child is also being killed. When of course here objectively you are certain that this child hasn’t done anything. The woman may have done something. We don’t know. She may have been in a form of resistance. But the child no. This means that they don’t want continuity. Therefore the difference with a classical crime is that in the classical crime it is considered for something unacceptable to have occurred, he doesn’t find another solution and commits the crime. And this is why justice sometimes manages to justify some crimes, which says that under such conditions of destitution, etc we arrive to “ultimately he is not innocent of course, but he will not be condemned”. One of the most distinctive crimes is Soghomon Tehlirian. Therefore we know that he has committed a crime, we know exactly when it happened, we know where he was. They arrest him, he doesn’t even say it is not me. He goes through trial because he has executed Talaat Pasha, one of the greatest genociders. And the German court acquits him. Can you think how near was his act made relative to the genocide? Generally this is called Nemesis.