This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/23/international-court-to-rule-on-rohingya-genocide-safeguards

The article has changed 7 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 3 Version 4
UN's top court orders Myanmar to protect Rohingya from genocide UN's top court orders Myanmar to protect Rohingya from genocide
(about 3 hours later)
Momentous pronouncement at Hague rejects Aung San Suu Kyi’s defence of her country’s militaryMomentous pronouncement at Hague rejects Aung San Suu Kyi’s defence of her country’s military
Myanmar has been ordered by the United Nations’ highest court to prevent genocidal violence against its Rohingya Muslim minority and preserve evidence of past attacks. Myanmar has been ordered by the United Nations’ highest court to prevent genocidal violence against its Rohingya Muslim minority and preserve any evidence of past crimes.
In a momentous and unanimous decision, the international court of justice (ICJ) in The Hague ordered Myanmar to carry out emergency, “provisional” measures, intervening in the country’s domestic affairs by instructing the government of Aung San Suu Kyi to respect the requirements of the 1948 genocide convention. In a momentous and unanimous decision, the international court of justice (ICJ) in The Hague imposed emergency “provisional measures” on the country – intervening in its domestic affairs by instructing the government of Aung San Suu Kyi to respect the requirements of the 1948 genocide convention.Declaring that there was prima facie evidence of breaches of the convention, the court warned that the estimated 600,000 Rohingya remaining in Myanmar were “extremely vulnerable” to attacks by the military.
Declaring there was prima facie evidence of breaches of the convention, the court found the estimated 600,000 Rohingya remaining in Myanmar were “extremely vulnerable” to violence at the hands of the military. The ruling amounts to outright rejection of the Nobel peace prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi’s defence of her country against accusations of systematic human rights abuses and war crimes during a three-day hearing at the ICJ last month.
The ruling amounts to a rejection of Aung San Suu Kyi’s defence of her country against accusations of systematic human rights abuses and war crimes during a three-day hearing at the ICJ last month. The ICJ’s orders are binding on Myanmar and create legal obligations that must be enforced. The provisional measures imposed by the court require the government to prevent genocidal acts, ensure military and police forces do not commit genocide, preserve evidence of genocidal acts and report back on its compliance within four months.
The case was brought by the Gambia, a predominantly Muslim west African state that alleges Myanmar has breached the genocide convention, which was enacted after the Holocaust. The orders are automatically sent to the UN security council, where Myanmar’s response will be assessed. The country receives diplomatic support from China, which is one of the five permanent members of the council.
Thursday’s ruling dealt only with Gambia’s request for so-called preliminary measures, the equivalent of a restraining order for states. It gave no indication of the court’s final decision, which could take years to reach. The case was brought to the ICJ by the Gambia, a predominantly Muslim west African state that alleges Myanmar has breached the genocide convention, which was enacted after the Holocaust.
In a unanimous ruling by a panel of 17 judges, the court said Myanmar must take all steps within its power to prevent serious harm to Rohingya, and report back within four months. Prof Philippe Sands QC, who acted as counsel for the Gambia, said: “On the cusp of the 75th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, the court’s clear and forceful order, which is binding, is a significant day for international law, the rights of individuals and groups, and the meaningful obligation of every state and person to desist from any act that could plausibly be characterised as genocide.”
Gambia’s attorney general and justice minister, Abubacarr Marie Tambadou, told the court in December: “Another genocide is unfolding right before our eyes yet we do nothing to stop it. This is a stain on our collective conscience. It’s not only the state of Myanmar that is on trial here, it’s our collective humanity that is being put on trial.” The decision was read out by the court president, Abdulqawi Yusuf. Alongside him sat 16 of the 17 judges who heard the case, all wearing black robes and white lace cravats.
The complaint is one of the first attempts to use the international justice system to help the estimated 730,000 Rohingya refugees who fled Myanmar after army clearance operations in Rakhine state during 2017. For just over an hour, Yusuf read out the ICJ’s findings in a clear and deliberate speech that culminated in the court’s four remarkable conclusions.
Lawyers for the Gambia had called on the ICJ to impose protective provisional measures to prevent further killings and destruction in Myanmar. The case was heard by a panel of 17 international judges, including one each nominated by Myanmar and the Gambia. Across the crowded camps in Cox’s Bazar, where more than 700,000 Rohingya fled to neighbouring Bangladesh in 2017, the result was welcomed by those who were able to follow the news. Internet restrictions across the camps are understood to have prevented many from doing so.
Six of Myanmar’s most senior army officers have been accused of genocide by a UN fact-finding mission and recommended for criminal prosecution. Khin Maung, 24, founder of the Rohingya Youth Association, said: “People are discussing and talking to each other. People did not sleep the whole night. This is one of the exciting things for us. If the court did not decide [to call for] provisional measures, our life [would have been] lost.
“In every way we are limited. Our children, the upcoming generation, I am very sorry there is no school for them. I am crying for that issue. There are religious leaders and community leaders talking to each other. Good news will spread quickly around the camps.”
Mohammed Arfaat, a Rohingya peace builder, actor and singer, described Thursday as a historic day.
“Before I thought we will not get back our rights and Justice from Myanmar government,” he said. “After a long time, I’m really happy for the Gambia and others people who are doing hard work for us.”
Thursday’s ruling dealt only with the Gambia’s request for “provisional measures”, the equivalent of a restraining order for states. The complaint is one of the first attempts to use the international justice system to help the Rohingya people. The ICJ imposed provisional measures on Serbia in relation to preventing genocide in the 1990s but this is the first time they have been unanimous and so wide-ranging. Even the ad hoc judge chosen by Myanmar expressed judgement against the country.
Aung San Suu Kyi’s decision to attend the court in person astounded human rights groups. Once an international icon representing peaceful defiance of military dictatorship, the 74-year-old has seen her reputation plummet as she repeatedly defended her country’s army in the aftermath of the Rohingya exodus.Aung San Suu Kyi’s decision to attend the court in person astounded human rights groups. Once an international icon representing peaceful defiance of military dictatorship, the 74-year-old has seen her reputation plummet as she repeatedly defended her country’s army in the aftermath of the Rohingya exodus.
She urged ICJ judges to dismiss allegations that Myanmar committed genocide and instead allow the country’s court martial system to deal with any human rights abuses.She urged ICJ judges to dismiss allegations that Myanmar committed genocide and instead allow the country’s court martial system to deal with any human rights abuses.
A Myanmar government-appointed panel, the Independent Commission of Enquiry, said on Monday it had found no evidence of genocide. Rohingya leaders have branded the report a “whitewash”. A Myanmar government-appointed panel, the Independent Commission of Enquiry, said on Monday it had found no evidence of genocide. Rohingya leaders have branded the probe a “whitewash”.
The ICJ only hears cases brought by one state against another. It has jurisdiction to hear complaints of breaches of the genocide convention even if the aggrieved state is not directly affected by violence or refugees.The ICJ only hears cases brought by one state against another. It has jurisdiction to hear complaints of breaches of the genocide convention even if the aggrieved state is not directly affected by violence or refugees.
The court can use its legal powers to impose provisional measures on member states in relation to their obligations under the convention. Dr Simon Adams, executive director of the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect, said: “This is the first step on a path to justice for the Rohingya. I hope that all members of the UN security council will uphold their moral and political obligation to ensure that the provisional measures ordered by the court are fully implemented. Those responsible for genocide are still in power in Myanmar. Justice has been delayed but can no longer be denied.”