More

    UN World Court Begins Landmark Hearings on Rohingya Genocide Case Against Myanmar

    GovernanceGlobal GovernanceUN World Court Begins Landmark Hearings on Rohingya Genocide...
    - Advertisment -

    UN World Court Begins Landmark Hearings on Rohingya Genocide Case Against Myanmar

    Speaking on behalf of Gambia, Attorney General and Minister of Justice Dawda Jallow told the court that his country brought the case “after reviewing credible reports of the most brutal and vicious violations imaginable” committed against the Rohingya.

    By Vibhu Mishra

    Public hearings opened on Monday at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in a landmark case brought by the Gambia against Myanmar, alleging violations of the Genocide Convention over the military’s treatment of the Rohingya minority.

    The proceedings, held at the Peace Palace in The Hague, mark the start of the merits phase in the case, after years of preliminary legal arguments.

    Over the next three weeks, ICJ judges will hear oral arguments from both sides, examine witnesses and experts, and consider whether Myanmar breached its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, to which the country is a party.

    Opening the hearings, Judge Iwasawa Yuji, President of the Court, outlined a detailed schedule that includes two rounds of pleadings by Gambia and Myanmar, as well as closed sessions to hear testimony from witnesses called by the applicant State.

    - Advertisement -

    Speaking on behalf of Gambia, Attorney General and Minister of Justice Dawda Jallow told the court that his country brought the case “after reviewing credible reports of the most brutal and vicious violations imaginable” committed against the Rohingya, a Muslim minority in Myanmar’s Rakhine province.

    “By all measures, this case is not about esoteric issues of international law,” Jallow said. “It is about real people, real stories, and a real group of human beings.”

    A Case Years in the Making

    Gambia filed its application in November 2019, accusing Myanmar of breaching the Genocide Convention through acts allegedly committed during so-called “clearance operations” carried out by the Myanmar military, or Tatmadaw.

    Those operations escalated sharply in 2017, prompting more than 700,000 Rohingya to flee to neighbouring Bangladesh amid widespread killings, sexual violence, village burnings and other abuses. Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein, the then UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, described the situation as a “textbook example of ethnic cleansing.”

    A UN Human Rights Council-mandated fact-finding mission said in 2018 that it had reasonable grounds to conclude that serious crimes under international law, including genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, had been committed.

    Nearly one million Rohingya remain living as refugees in camps in Bangladesh, while countless others are displaced or trapped inside Myanmar in dire conditions.

    Provisional Measures

    In January 2020, the Court unanimously ordered provisional measures, directing Myanmar to take all steps within its power to prevent genocidal acts against the Rohingya, preserve evidence, and report regularly to the Court on its compliance.

    Myanmar challenged the Court’s jurisdiction, but in July 2022 the judges ruled that they were competent to hear the case.

    Eleven States also made written submissions in support of Gambia’s interpretation of the Genocide Convention.

    Accountability and Broader Context

    Addressing the judges, Jallow said Myanmar remained trapped in “a cycle of atrocities and impunity,” noting that no one had been held accountable for crimes against the Rohingya.

    He also pointed to the February 2021 military coup, which overthrew the civilian government and plunged Myanmar into renewed nationwide conflict.

    “Accountability is imperative,” he said, warning that impunity risks the repetition of atrocity crimes.

    Myanmar’s Arguments

    Myanmar is expected to begin presenting its arguments later this week. The Court’s final judgment, which could take months or longer after the hearings conclude, will be legally binding.

    The International Court of Justice is the United Nations’ principal judicial organ. It settles legal disputes between States and gives advisory opinions on questions of international law.

    Unlike criminal courts, it does not try individuals but determines State responsibility.

    Image: UN News

    Source: UN News

    - Advertisement -

    LEAVE A REPLY

    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here

    Latest news

    Sri Lanka Invites NGOs and Public to Pay Fines and Free 1,454 Eligible Prisoners

    The decision to open the door to external payment of fines is a pragmatic acknowledgement that not every person currently incarcerated needs to remain there.

    Afghanistan’s Hunger Crisis Deepens as Millions Cannot Afford Available Food Ahead of Winter

    Cherevko’s message was clear: the window for preventing a deeper emergency is closing. “We must act before winter, not after families have exhausted their options.”

    UN Agencies Sound Alarm as Record-Breaking El Niño Threatens Global Humanitarian Crisis

    The UN appeal comes at a moment when humanitarian funding is already stretched by multiple crises. While CERF has provided rapid support, broader donor commitments remain insufficient relative to the scale of projected need.

    Sri Lanka Lays Foundation for Critical Groundwater Hub in Jaffna to Combat Salinity Crisis

    A Rs 189 million facility aims to monitor and protect the fragile aquifers that sustain nearly 600,000 people on...
    - Advertisement -

    Silent Epidemic: Lead Exposure Steals Futures Across South Asia

    South Asia’s lead crisis is not inevitable. Experience elsewhere demonstrates that decisive regulation, industrial formalisation and community-level interventions can sharply reduce exposure.

    UN Report Warns World on Track for 2.8°C Warming This Century as 1.5°C Limit Slips Beyond Reach

    Experts at UNEP say that the Emissions Gap Report 2026 does not abandon the 1.5°C goal. Instead it reframes the challenge: minimise the height and length of the overshoot and chart a credible return path.

    Must read

    Sri Lanka Invites NGOs and Public to Pay Fines and Free 1,454 Eligible Prisoners

    The decision to open the door to external payment of fines is a pragmatic acknowledgement that not every person currently incarcerated needs to remain there.

    Afghanistan’s Hunger Crisis Deepens as Millions Cannot Afford Available Food Ahead of Winter

    Cherevko’s message was clear: the window for preventing a deeper emergency is closing. “We must act before winter, not after families have exhausted their options.”
    - Advertisement -

    More from the sectionRELATED
    Recommended to you