ICJ – The Gambia v. Myanmar
On 11 November 2019, The Gambia, on behalf of the 57 members of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, filed a case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) alleging that Myanmar failed to fulfill its obligations to prevent and punish acts of genocide committed against the Rohingya in Rakhine State as required under the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide (“Genocide Convention”).
In response, the ICJ issued an order on 23 January 2020 directing Myanmar to “take all measures within its power” to prevent the commission of acts defined in the Genocide Convention, including ensuring that its military and any irregular armed units refrain from committing these acts. The Court also ordered Myanmar to “take effective measures to prevent the destruction and ensure the preservation of evidence” related to the ICJ proceedings, and to submit regular reports concerning the measures it has taken to comply with the order.
In 2022, the ICJ rejected Myanmar’s preliminary objections to the jurisdiction of the Court, noting the Convention’s central purpose is the ‘common interest’ of all signatories to ensure the prevention and punishment of genocide and that The Gambia has the right to initiate proceedings against a fellow signatory in light of this ‘common interest’. For more information, read the Mechanism’s reaction to the ruling.
Myanmar was directed to file its response to The Gambia’s claims by 24 May 2023, which was subsequently postponed to 24 August 2023, following Myanmar’s request for an extension of the time limit.
On 16 October 2023, the ICJ issued an order for The Gambia to submit its Reply to arguments made by Myanmar by 16 May 2024 and for Myanmar to submit a Rejoinder – its response to The Gambia’s Reply – by 16 December 2024, which was postponed to 23 December 2024, following Myanmar’s request for an extension.
On 15 November 2023, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom filed a joint declaration of intervention, given their “common interest in the accomplishment of the high purposes” of the Genocide Convention. The Maldives also filed a declaration to intervene, citing its deep concern “over the continued… human rights violations and barbarous assaults against the Rohingya Muslims” and recognizing the need for “international cooperation in the quest to prevent and punish genocide.”
On 3 July 2024, the ICJ deemed these interventions admissible, allowing these Member States to present arguments in writing and orally at certain points in the case.
On 29 November 2024, Slovenia filed a declaration of intervention, given “its experience as a former Yugoslav republic in a region scarred by the Srebrenica genocide” and citing that the construction of Articles I through VI of the Genocide Convention is in question in the present case.
The Democratic Republic of Congo, Belgium and Ireland also filed declarations of intervention on 10, 16 and 20 December 2024, respectively.
On 29 July 2025, the ICJ decided that these interventions are admissible.
Myanmar filed its last written submission in December 2024.
The ICJ held public hearings on the merits of the case from 12 to 29 January 2026. The hearings included two rounds of oral arguments, the examination of three witnesses and one expert called by The Gambia, and the examination of one witness called by Myanmar.
On 29 January 2026, the ICJ announced that it has begun its deliberation. Its decision will be delivered at a public sitting, the date of which will be announced in due course.
Resources
What is the ICJ?
The ICJ is a United Nations court that settles legal disputes between States. It cannot prosecute individuals, and only States can initiate legal proceedings.
Why does the ICJ have jurisdiction over this case?
The ICJ has jurisdiction over disputes in relation to treaties that States have signed and ratified. The Gambia brought the case under Article 9 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (“Genocide Convention”), which allows disputes between parties “relating to the responsibility of a State for genocide” to be submitted to the ICJ. Myanmar ratified the Genocide Convention in 1956.
How is the Mechanism involved?
While the case before the ICJ is between States and is not a criminal investigation, the Mechanism can share information for uses other than criminal proceedings when this could contribute to the interests of justice and deter future crimes. In June 2020, the Human Rights Council (resolution 43/26) specifically called for the Mechanism to cooperate with the ICJ.
The Mechanism therefore supports the ICJ’s examination of the case by sharing accurate and reliable information and analysis with the parties to the case, including:
Nine analytical reports on:
- Anti-Rohingya Hate Speech on Facebook
- The Myanmar Government’s Encouragement of Resettlement by Buddhists from Bangladesh to Rakhine State, Myanmar
- Efforts to Investigate and Punish Sexual and Gender-Based Crimes Committed Against Rohingya
- The Destruction and Dispossession of Rohingya Land and Property During the 2017 Clearance Operations
- Detention of Rohingya in Buthidaung Prison and Other Locations
- Evidence of ARSA Weapons Possession and Use
- Western Regional Command
- Chronology of Major Events in Myanmar from 1982-2017 with a Focus on the Rohingya Situation
- A Timeline of State Measures Targeting or Impacting Rohingya
40 detailed witness statements.
Two screening notes (documented records of meetings) with military defectors, accompanied by investigator declarations.
One affidavit (a written statement confirmed by oath) by Nicholas Koumjian, the Head of the Mechanism.
These materials represent a small portion of the Mechanism’s relevant evidence but are in line with its wider collection. Importantly, information is only shared with the parties when those who provided the information consent to it being shared for the purposes of the ICJ case and only after the Mechanism does its own assessment to ensure that doing so will not put anyone at risk.
