Southeast Asia Information Port (www.dnyxxg.com) – On January 16, the first oral arguments in the lawsuit filed by Myanmar against Gambia were held at the International Court of Justice in The Hague. The hearing, which runs from January 12 to 29, began with an opening address by U Kho Khoi, Myanmar's representative and Minister of the Second Department of the Presidential Office.
Myanmar's lead lawyer, Christopher Steker, first outlined Myanmar's core position in the case, clarifying the limitations of the prosecution's scope and tracing the origins and historical usage of the terms "Rohingya" and "Kalar." He pointed out that the Bengali Muslim community in northern Rakhine State is an ethnic group that migrated from Bengal to Myanmar during the British colonial period. Regarding the admissibility of evidence, Steker emphasized that the UN Fact-Finding Mission (FFM) report and witness testimonies relied upon by Gambia did not meet the court's standards for admissible evidence; and that the Myanmar Independent Investigation Mechanism (IIMM), established specifically for international judicial proceedings, provided only 42 witness testimonies relevant to the case during its operation, of which Gambia cited only 12. He specifically stated that although Myanmar neither recognizes nor cooperates with the aforementioned two institutions, the evidence submitted by Gambia was cited solely to refute their claims.
Professor Alina Milon, a Myanmar lawyer, focused on the legal requirement of "subjective intent" in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. She pointed out that while Gambia cited previous rulings of the International Court of Justice, decisions of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), and relevant cases of state intervention, its interpretation of these precedents was inconsistent with the court's actual reasoning and conclusions, indicating a misinterpretation.
Lawyers Stefan Talmon and Chiara Cordone jointly argued that Myanmar's actions constituted counter-terrorism measures, not the genocide alleged by Gambia. They also pointed out that Gambia ignored the independent decision-making function of the International Court of Justice, attempting to force the court to conclude genocide based solely on the investigation team's single conclusion, a move deemed unreasonable.
Following this, Royal Counsel Leigh Lawrie KC presented her case regarding the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA) terrorist organization. She stated that ARSA carried out numerous organized terrorist attacks between 2016 and 2017, and that Myanmar's security response was a necessary measure in response to these attacks. She further argued that Gambia deliberately downplayed and concealed ARSA's existence and the harm it posed. In addition, Lawrie highlighted ARSA's acts of intimidation and control within Bangladeshi refugee camps, submitting evidence alleging the group's involvement in the massacre of hundreds of Hindus in Khamaungseik Village, atrocities allegedly perpetrated by ARSA. She implored the court to fully consider these facts and render a fair judgment.
