The Bangladesh and Rwandan Genocides

I need a paper that follows this exact outline below.
Look through the world's genocides over the past century, and consider one case where the world relatively quickly (as in, within a year or two after the story broke) intervened to stop the killing, and another case where it didn't. What factors spurred the world to action in one, and what factors encouraged the world to turn a blind eye in the other?
Use your Comparative Politic theories to analyze the data.
In terms of presentation, here's what I suggest you do.
Make this into a report (with denoted sections), NOT a free-form essay.
Because "essays" submitted to government bodies are usually in the form of clearly-structured reports, with the information front-loaded for easier reading, I suggest you use the following structure: (Include section headers with these titles for ease of reading.) For example, let's assume you're choosing #6, Covid policies.
1) SUMMARY
Indicate the two countries you are analyzing and your findings in about 200 words. (Write this section after you finish all the other sections.)
2) THE SITUATION
Give us your data set from reliable sources for each country. Establish what the situation is at the time of writing this essay. (Feel free to add a (current as of [date]) to your figures if the data is old and unupdated.) This section should of course be more than one paragraph, since you are talking about more than one country/case at a time. It will in all likelihood be the meat of your report.
3) (RATIONAL CHOICE, CULTURALIST, OR STRUCTURALIST) ANALYSIS
Use ONE of our CP theories this semester to analyze your data set for one country, and ONE CP theory to analyze the other. To make this simpler, answer FOUR of the questions that Lim provides in Ch. 3.
For example, if you choose Rational Choice (Figure 3.4 on pg. 79), you may choose four of the seven options and answer them under subheadings. Include the questions in boldface/underline. For example:
a) Who are the main actors?
(Answer for Country One.)
(Answer for Country Two.)
b) How are their interests or preferences defined?
(Answer for Country One.)
(Answer for Country Two.)
c) What type of constraints do actors face?
(Answer for Country One.)
(Answer for Country Two.)
d) How do the constraints influence their actions?
(Answer for Country One.)
(Answer for Country Two.)
Or if you choose a Structuralist approach, answer four questions from Figure 3.6 on pg. 85. Or if you choose a Culturalist approach, describe how your information fits four of the Core Features of Culture from Figure 3.7 on pg. 89. Just choose the CP approach that in your opinion seems to squeeze the most insight from your data, and choose the four questions that most effectively answer your Research Question(s).
4) SHORT DISCUSSION
This section is a bit less structured. The point is to show me some interpretation of your analysis. Or maybe tell us about some of the shortcomings of your data set, and what missing information you could have used to give a more insightful analysis. This section may be more than one paragraph.
5) CONCLUSION
Tie everything together by briefly reiterating the situation and policy outcomes, and why you believe these policy outcomes wound up being different from a comparative perspective. Make sure that it's a good summation informed by the experts, and that it clearly answers the Research Question(s). (This will be remarkably similar to your Summary section, so go back up and write that after you finish this bit.)
6) WORKS CITED
Include your sources for EVERY fact or claim made that is not your own. (I am indifferent whether it is APA, MLA etc. Just be consistent and provide a full citation, including all authors with no et al.)
For Topics #1-#5, I'm expecting sources that have statistical grounding and academic rigor. Ex. CIA Factbook etc., academics opining in peer-reviewed journals found in the library databases and/or Google Scholar, etc. Don't just give me journalistic stuff. Use journalists to source recent data, but I want analysis and insight cited from the experts, and your commentary grounded in the experts.