Gambia alleges Bengali killings in Rakhine; Myanmar contends many still reside there
99
Htet Nadi (NP News) - February 3
Myanmar's lead lawyer, Mr. Christopher Staker, told the ICJ on January 29 that while Gambia has accused Myanmar of killing a group of Bengali Muslims in Rakhine State, there are still many Bengalis living in Rakhine State.
Oral hearings on the Gambia vs. Myanmar case are being held at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague, Netherlands, from January 12 to 29, with Myanmar's second round of submissions being heard on January 29.
Mr. Christopher Staker argued that while it is true that genocide may have occurred during the terrorist crackdown, the Independent Commission of Enquiry (ICOE) has already stated that it did not occur in practice, and that Gambia has only referred to three villages without examining the details of the incident, and that genocide is not about numbers but about intent.
Furthermore, Myanmar's lead lawyer argued at the ICJ that Myanmar was not attacking those who have fled to Bangladesh, but rather protecting those living in IDP (Internally Displaced Persons) camps where people displaced by the fighting were living.
"Myanmar is not attacking those who have fled to Bangladesh, rather it is protecting those living in IDP camps where people have been displaced by the fighting. Gambia accuses a group of killings, but there are many Bengali living in Rakhine State," said Mr. Christopher Staker.
In addition, on January 26, Myanmar’s legal team argued in response to accusations by Gambia’s lawyers that Myanmar’s lawyers were making false and misleading defenses. Myanmar stated that just as their lawyers adhere to professional legal ethics, Myanmar is also a sovereign state and a member of the United Nations and the Genocide Convention, and therefore a responsible country that fully complies with the obligations set out in those treaties. On this basis, Myanmar objected to Gambia’s claims.
Similarly, Myanmar legal team responded that Gambia could not present new evidence and could only continue to rely on the evidence of the Fact-Finding Mission (FFM) and expert witness Newton, arguing that it was not for the FFM to decide whether the evidence was correct, but for the judges to decide.
Furthermore, lawyer Mr. David Hooper from Myanmar side argued that the FFM had also only considered the possibility and that Newton's expert review was based solely on the FFM report.
Then, it was also seen that the Myanmar lawyers were able to point out that the statements of the three witnesses submitted by Gambia were not consistent with the statements made in the previous letter, FFM, and IIMM.
In particular, the Myanmar side pointed out that these witnesses covered up the attacks by ARSA terrorists and the significant roles played by ARSA, and portrayed the legal suppression of terrorism by a sovereign country as genocide.
Myanmar also pointed out that the evidence presented to the court by Gambian expert witness Newton was lacking in operational guidelines, and that he claimed to be an expert on counter-insurgency operations (COIN), but went beyond his scope of expertise and testified as an expert on genocide.
Myanmar continued to argue that Newton's first report did not mention ARSA, and that it was only in the second report that he admitted to having ties to organizations supporting Gambia in this case, and that ARSA was a powerful militant group. –
zawgyi version
Gambia alleges Bengali killings in Rakhine; Myanmar contends many still reside there
Htet Nadi (NP News) - February 3
Myanmar's lead lawyer, Mr. Christopher Staker, told the ICJ on January 29 that while Gambia has accused Myanmar of killing a group of Bengali Muslims in Rakhine State, there are still many Bengalis living in Rakhine State.
Oral hearings on the Gambia vs. Myanmar case are being held at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague, Netherlands, from January 12 to 29, with Myanmar's second round of submissions being heard on January 29.
Mr. Christopher Staker argued that while it is true that genocide may have occurred during the terrorist crackdown, the Independent Commission of Enquiry (ICOE) has already stated that it did not occur in practice, and that Gambia has only referred to three villages without examining the details of the incident, and that genocide is not about numbers but about intent.
Furthermore, Myanmar's lead lawyer argued at the ICJ that Myanmar was not attacking those who have fled to Bangladesh, but rather protecting those living in IDP (Internally Displaced Persons) camps where people displaced by the fighting were living.
"Myanmar is not attacking those who have fled to Bangladesh, rather it is protecting those living in IDP camps where people have been displaced by the fighting. Gambia accuses a group of killings, but there are many Bengali living in Rakhine State," said Mr. Christopher Staker.
In addition, on January 26, Myanmar’s legal team argued in response to accusations by Gambia’s lawyers that Myanmar’s lawyers were making false and misleading defenses. Myanmar stated that just as their lawyers adhere to professional legal ethics, Myanmar is also a sovereign state and a member of the United Nations and the Genocide Convention, and therefore a responsible country that fully complies with the obligations set out in those treaties. On this basis, Myanmar objected to Gambia’s claims.
Similarly, Myanmar legal team responded that Gambia could not present new evidence and could only continue to rely on the evidence of the Fact-Finding Mission (FFM) and expert witness Newton, arguing that it was not for the FFM to decide whether the evidence was correct, but for the judges to decide.
Furthermore, lawyer Mr. David Hooper from Myanmar side argued that the FFM had also only considered the possibility and that Newton's expert review was based solely on the FFM report.
Then, it was also seen that the Myanmar lawyers were able to point out that the statements of the three witnesses submitted by Gambia were not consistent with the statements made in the previous letter, FFM, and IIMM.
In particular, the Myanmar side pointed out that these witnesses covered up the attacks by ARSA terrorists and the significant roles played by ARSA, and portrayed the legal suppression of terrorism by a sovereign country as genocide.
Myanmar also pointed out that the evidence presented to the court by Gambian expert witness Newton was lacking in operational guidelines, and that he claimed to be an expert on counter-insurgency operations (COIN), but went beyond his scope of expertise and testified as an expert on genocide.
Myanmar continued to argue that Newton's first report did not mention ARSA, and that it was only in the second report that he admitted to having ties to organizations supporting Gambia in this case, and that ARSA was a powerful militant group. –
လစဥ္ေၾကး ေပးသြင္းရန္ ႏွင့္ The Statesman ဂ်ာနယ္ဝယ္ယူရန္ စုံစမ္းလိုပါက
(မနက္ ၉ နာရီ မွ ညေန ၆ နာရီ)အတြင္းသာ ဆက္သြယ္ရန္
ဖုန္း - 09-444681478 (Viber)