Further to our previous article, we study the notion of acquittal through Orestes and the myth to comprehend the act of Soghomon Tehlirian. Which is the problem? We are not in Dostoyevsky’s Raskolnikov context. Our issue is not a simple crime; not even a crime of passion. For, the context is the genocide’s one and genocide is not simply a crime, it is a crime against humanity. So, there is no field of comparison. And this can be seen in the court’s verdict, while Operation Nemesis was already known. Orestes represents the innocent at a first phase according to the definition clarified in our previous article. In this capacity he wants to save his sister, Electra. However, the resistance of the latter will create a dipole of Socrates-Plato type or even of Christ-Paul one. In these two cases the non-existence of the former would have changed the meaning of the latter, while the non-existence of the latter would have turned the former to an unknown. Of course, the change of phase is created when Electra becomes a victim and Orestes has the competence of becoming a Just by his action, which remains a crime when the analysis takes place at a tactical and not at a strategic level. The difference which would make the difference would be Pedagogue, who plays a catalytic role in the whole case, because it is with his work that he activates the whole field of action. Without pedagogue’s thought Electra could not have persuaded Orestes in any way but through rhetoric. Whereas it is through Pedagogue that maieutics method is applied, which would change all the given. To struggle against authority, Orestes was indispensably in need of substance, already possessed by the pedagogue, the mentor. His conversation with Orestes and Electra would be decisive since it would transform the unthinkable first to a utopia for the two young and then to a vision, when their dialectics would evolve. In the genocidology domain a correspondent mentor would have been Raphael Lemkin; only that he appeared at a very later stage in relation to the Operation. So, following the decision to execute there is action, too. So, to become final all the conditions already mentioned have to exist, otherwise the Atreides’ curse would not have ended. In this case the tragedy functions algorithmically like through revenge. However, revenge brings about revenge. While here revenge brings about the trial, which takes place at Supreme Court’s level so as to be final. It is only in this way that an end to the algorithm is set. In other words, there is also the high level strategy which is translated in the Rights of Humanity by meta-cognition and not by cognition only. Otherwise the punishment of a crime against Humanity would not have been Just, which would be unacceptable.