Myanmar Begins First Oral Argument at ICJ

Myanmar presented its first oral arguments in the case brought by The Gambia against Myanmar at the International Court of Justice in The Hague on 16 January. The hearings are being held from 12 to 29 January. Myanmar’s Agent, U Ko Ko Hlaing, Union Minister for the Ministry 2 at the President’s Office, delivered the opening statement.

Myanmar’s lead counsel, Mr Christopher Staker, presented arguments addressing Myanmar’s position on the case, the limited scope of the prosecution and background information regarding the origins and historical use of the terms “Rohingya” and “Kalar”. The Bengali Muslims in northern Rakhine State are the people who migrated from the Bengal region to Myanmar starting in the British colonial period. He further argued that the reports of the United Nations Fact-Finding Mission (FFM), which The Gambia has relied on as its primary sources in this case, and the witness statements collected by that mission, do not meet the standard of evidence that the Court should take into consideration. He also stated that the Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar (IIMM), which was established as a body to collect evidence for international judicial proceedings, was able to provide only 42 witness statements relevant to this case during its period of operation, of which The Gambia cited only 12. Although Myanmar does not recognize or cooperate with either of these two bodies, it has referred to The Gambia’s evidentiary materials solely for the purpose of rebutting them.

(The transcript of Mr Christopher Staker is expressed separately.)

Myanmar’s lawyer Professor Alina Miron addressed the legal requirements of intent under the Genocide Convention, stating that The Gambia relied on previous judgments of the Court, decisions of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), and references to intervening states, in reality it selectively interpreted those precedents in a manner that does not align with the Court’s actual reasoning and decisions.

(The pleading of Myanmar’s lawyer Professor Alina Miron is presented separately.)

Lawyers Mr Stefan Talmon and Ms Chiara Cordone also argued that Myanmar’s actions were counter-terrorism measures, not acts of genocide, as alleged by The Gambia, and The Gambia neglected the decision-making role of the Court and urged the Court to recognize that genocide occurred based solely on a single conclusion of the FFM.

(The transcripts of Mr Stefan Talmon and Ms Chiara Cordone are expressed separately.)

Afterwards, lawyer Ms Leigh Lawrie KC spoke about the ARSA terrorist group, stating that ARSA carried out organized terrorist attacks in 2016 and 2017, and that Myanmar’s security responses were a result of those attacks, The Gambia had inaccurately minimized and obscured the existence and role of ARSA, and she also highlighted ARSA’s intimidation and control within refugee camps in Bangladesh, evidence relating to the mass killing of hundreds of Hindus from Khamaungseik Village allegedly committed by ARSA. She also urged the court to fully consider these facts.

MNA/KTZH

#TheGlobalNewLightOfMyanmar