Following The Gambia's submitting a case against Myanmar on genocide at the International Court of justice in The Hague, Aung San Suu Kyi start her defense Yesterday Wednesday 11th December, 2019.
Myanmar’s de facto leader has denied allegations of her country being responsible for genocidal intent against the Rohingya Muslims in her country. Aung San Suu Kyi led the defence team on Wednesday before Judges at the International Court of Justice in the Hague, in response to Gambia’s opening submissions from the previous day.
A Nobel Peace laureate’s country is today standing trial at the international court of justice, to answer to genocide allegations levelled against the security personnel of that country, with her leading the defence of the very military she was once a victim of.
Aung San Suu Kyi, surprisingly choosing to lead the defence team, in response to the charges filed by The Gambia, denies allegations of genocidal intent against her country, saying that if the military had committed such acts, they would be prosecuted before MYANMAR’s domestic courts. However, most analysts suggest that Aung San Suu Kyi has no control over the Myanmar military, in a country where the army is seen as still being very much in real control.
Suu Kyi adds that solving the challenges her country is confronted with through the local judicial system should come first. The embattled leader informed the court that investigations of possible crimes are on-going in her country which is yet to be completed.
She also expressed her government’s commitment to exhaust domestic judicial processes, to solve the present challenges they are faced with. With international partners in such efforts, especially the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN), Aung San Suu Kyi claimed her government is committed to what she described as ‘safe’ and ‘dignified’ repatriation of the displaced Rohingya Muslim refugees in Bangladesh.
The Gambia had filed a lawsuit in the UN’s highest court against Myanmar, asking Judges to grant, effectively, a restraining order, as an urgent measure to put Myanmar under an international legal obligation to give protection to the Rohingya Muslims, pending the final verdict of the court. Aung Sa Suu Kyi has a request for the court.
Counsels for Myanmar argued that the Gambia’s application does not indicate concrete evidence of genocidal intent, that the court can rely on, to grant a ‘provisional measures order’ in the case.
Gambia’s counsels’ arguments on Tuesday had referenced several UN reports emerging from independent investigations which the counsels believe are enough evidence to convince the world’s court that genocide had been committed by Myanmar.
The second round of oral observations between the Gambia and Myanmar begins and ends tomorrow, when both countries will be given ninety minutes to submit final arguments as to whether, the court should act with urgency to issue a restraining order to Myanmar, until a verdict is given.
For many international observers, the case is not being seen in simple terms of ‘Gambia vs Myanmar’, but as one that has already done much to taint the image and legacy of Aung San Suu Kyi as a defender of Human Rights and may explain why she has chosen to take centre-stage; in defence of her country, as much as her name.
BY: Momodou L Choi
Myanmar’s de facto leader has denied allegations of her country being responsible for genocidal intent against the Rohingya Muslims in her country. Aung San Suu Kyi led the defence team on Wednesday before Judges at the International Court of Justice in the Hague, in response to Gambia’s opening submissions from the previous day.
A Nobel Peace laureate’s country is today standing trial at the international court of justice, to answer to genocide allegations levelled against the security personnel of that country, with her leading the defence of the very military she was once a victim of.
Aung San Suu Kyi, surprisingly choosing to lead the defence team, in response to the charges filed by The Gambia, denies allegations of genocidal intent against her country, saying that if the military had committed such acts, they would be prosecuted before MYANMAR’s domestic courts. However, most analysts suggest that Aung San Suu Kyi has no control over the Myanmar military, in a country where the army is seen as still being very much in real control.
Suu Kyi adds that solving the challenges her country is confronted with through the local judicial system should come first. The embattled leader informed the court that investigations of possible crimes are on-going in her country which is yet to be completed.
She also expressed her government’s commitment to exhaust domestic judicial processes, to solve the present challenges they are faced with. With international partners in such efforts, especially the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN), Aung San Suu Kyi claimed her government is committed to what she described as ‘safe’ and ‘dignified’ repatriation of the displaced Rohingya Muslim refugees in Bangladesh.
The Gambia had filed a lawsuit in the UN’s highest court against Myanmar, asking Judges to grant, effectively, a restraining order, as an urgent measure to put Myanmar under an international legal obligation to give protection to the Rohingya Muslims, pending the final verdict of the court. Aung Sa Suu Kyi has a request for the court.
Counsels for Myanmar argued that the Gambia’s application does not indicate concrete evidence of genocidal intent, that the court can rely on, to grant a ‘provisional measures order’ in the case.
Gambia’s counsels’ arguments on Tuesday had referenced several UN reports emerging from independent investigations which the counsels believe are enough evidence to convince the world’s court that genocide had been committed by Myanmar.
The second round of oral observations between the Gambia and Myanmar begins and ends tomorrow, when both countries will be given ninety minutes to submit final arguments as to whether, the court should act with urgency to issue a restraining order to Myanmar, until a verdict is given.
For many international observers, the case is not being seen in simple terms of ‘Gambia vs Myanmar’, but as one that has already done much to taint the image and legacy of Aung San Suu Kyi as a defender of Human Rights and may explain why she has chosen to take centre-stage; in defence of her country, as much as her name.
BY: Momodou L Choi