UN World Court begins landmark hearings on Rohingya genocide case against Myanmar

This article is published in association with United Nations.

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.

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,” Mr. Jallow said. “It is about real people, real stories, and a real group of human beings.”

© ICJ/Frank van Beek

A file photograph of the International Court of Justice.

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.

Pierre Peron/OCHA

A file photograph of an IDP camp in Rakhine state, Myanmar.

Accountability and broader context

Addressing the judges, Mr. 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.