The hague: The International Court of Justice (ICJ) begins Monday critical hearings in the genocide case concerning the Muslim Rohingya minority, filed by The Gambia against Myanmar in 2019. The move marks the first occasion on which an international court will hear testimony directly from Rohingya victims regarding the atrocities and violations they endured.
According to Qatar News Agency, the three-week hearings will be held behind closed doors, inaccessible to the public and media. Meanwhile, Rohingya refugees in displacement camps outside Myanmar are closely following the proceedings, holding onto the hope of achieving justice that ensures accountability for the perpetrators and a safe return to their homes and homeland.
In its application, The Gambia affirmed that Myanmar violated the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948) in its treatment of the Rohingya minority in Rakhine State, through armed attacks in 2016 and 2017. These attacks included mass killings, widespread sexual violence against women and girls, arsons and destruction of villages, as well as the forced displacement of over one million Rohingya, most of whom fled across the border into Bangladesh.
The Gambia emphasized that these acts were not isolated incidents or unintended consequences of security operations, but part of a systematic attempt to exterminate the Rohingya as a group, in whole or in part, constituting genocide under international law. Under the Genocide Convention, genocide is recognized as a crime against all humanity, not merely against the directly affected group. Every state party to the Convention holds the right and obligation to take measures to prevent genocide and ensure accountability, regardless of where it occurs, and this legal principle allows any state party to bring a case before the ICJ.
Myanmar challenged the ICJ's jurisdiction, arguing that The Gambia is not a direct party to the conflict and therefore lacks standing to file a case. Both countries, however, are signatories to the Genocide Convention, adopted in the aftermath of World War II. In 2022, the Court rejected Myanmar's objection, allowing the case to proceed. A United Nations Fact-Finding Mission concluded that Myanmar's 2017 military offensive included "acts of genocide". Myanmar's authorities rejected this finding, asserting that their military campaign was a legitimate counterterrorism operation in response to attacks by Muslim militants.
Eleven states have intervened in the case, though they will not present oral arguments during the substantive hearings. While their written submissions remain confidential, their interventions outline several arguments supporting The Gambia's position, including the intent to commit genocide, the scope of the obligation to prevent and punish genocide, and the role of sexual and gender-based violence in determining whether Myanmar committed genocide.
The Gambia has acted with the backing of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), reflecting a collective moral and legal stance against genocide. Today, approximately 1.17 million Rohingya live in overcrowded and dilapidated camps in Cox's Bazar, Bangladesh. Many view the ICJ hearings as an opportunity for the international community to formally recognize that what happened to the Rohingya was not merely a conflict or migration, but the result of serious international crimes. This acknowledgment carries profound significance for victims whose suffering has long been denied or minimized.
The hearings also offer a glimmer of hope that sustained legal pressure will help create the conditions for their safe, voluntary, and dignified return to their homeland, a return that millions of Rohingya have long yearned for, despite nearly a decade passing since their ordeal. This case is widely regarded as one of the most consequential international legal proceedings addressing mass atrocities in the twenty-first century. Its implications extend beyond Myanmar and the Rohingya people, testing the capacity of international law to effectively protect vulnerable minorities.
Moreover, this case, along with other cases before ICJ, sends a clear warning to law-violating states worldwide that they may one day be held accountable before a legal tribunal. The outcome of this case will determine not only the future of the Rohingya but also the moral credibility of international justice itself. For millions affected by displacement and loss, it represents a fragile yet meaningful ray of hope that the world is finally listening and that justice, even if delayed, remains possible.
Head of the Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar (IIMM), Nicholas Koumjian, stated that the case is likely to set crucial precedents regarding the definition of genocide, the standards of proof, and how violations can be addressed. A final decision may take months or even years. While the ICJ lacks enforcement powers, a ruling in favor of The Gambia would significantly increase political pressure on Myanmar.
Myanmar has faced escalating turmoil since 2021, when the military overthrew the elected civilian government and violently suppressed pro-democracy protests, triggering armed insurgency across the country. The country is currently holding staggered elections, which have been criticized by the United Nations, several Western states, and human rights organizations as neither free nor fair.