Genocide in Sudan?

This is worrying:

A United Nations report has called for those accused of carrying out war crimes in Sudan's Darfur region to be put on trial.

The report stopped short of calling the violence genocide, but said the government and its militia allies had killed, tortured and raped civilians.

Further:

More than 70,000 people have been killed in the two-year conflict and some two million have fled their homes.
.....
[And]... "killing of civilians, enforced disappearances, destruction of villages, rape and other forms of sexual violence, pillaging and forced displacement, throughout Darfur".

Article II of the Genocide Convention reads:

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

It is clear that II (a) and (b) do apply to what has been going on in Darfur, but the UN panel, led by Antonio Cassese, found 'that a policy to commit genocide had not been formed' (my italics). Or, put otherwise:

[T]he report by a UN-appointed panel of five lawyers said there was no clear evidence meeting the legal definition of genocide, which means there is intent to destroy a population group. (My italics.)

Now, I'm not an international (or any other kind of) lawyer, I'm not party to the evidence that would have been before Antonio Cassese's panel, and I haven't made a study of Darfur. My knowledge comes only from media reports. I'm not therefore going to bet my judgement against the panel's. But here are the worries.

First, establishing intent at the level of aggregate policy is not as straightforward as it might seem, as anyone familiar with the so-called 'intentionalist-functionalist debate' about the Nazi genocide will know. Still, some of what I've read concerning links between the Janjaweed and the Sudanese government does rather suggest the possibility of some intent on the part of the latter.

Second, when the UN panel says that 'the fact that they were not calling the attacks genocide should not be interpreted as detracting from their gravity', they're obviously right in one sense, since the crimes they're reporting are grave enough whatever you call them. But practically it makes this difference:

Where genocide is found to have taken place, signatories to a UN convention are legally obliged to act to end it.

Article I of the Genocide Convention:

The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.

Note: not just to punish; to prevent. Of course, the conceptual and legal question of whether this is (yet) a genocide would matter less if the international community were to proceed as if it is already more than grave enough in any case and authorize decisive action to stop it.