You did not say what they should do.

Doing nothing would have worked out much better for them.

Also the implication that Russia is supposedly not winning when it has been advancing is rather silly.

Thing being, Russia hasn’t been advancing.

Haha. What you are saying is actually “I can’t prove that A killed B, but A definitely murdered B!”. Do you even know what a genocide is?

Maybe re-read my post. That being said, genocide is a deliberate effort to destroy a national, racial, cultural or ethnic group entirely or in part. The crimes against humanity committed by the Chinese government against the Uyghurs constitute such an effort. The UN might disagree, because they are slaves to capital, and capital would like to keep trading with China.

So far, the only source the proponents bring.

It’s not.

Malpractice would be if Amnesty International had kept promoting the testimony after evidence had failed to come to light. You’d have to show that they acted maliciously and/or recklessly, which they didn’t.

Also, your argument for why Amnesty shouldn’t be trusted is because they fell for a fabricated testimony 35 years ago. If that’s all you have, then it’s actually a glowing endorsement of them.