The International Court of Justice (ICJ) hears a case deposited by Sudan accusing the United Arab Emirates (Water) of being “accomplices of the genocide” during the current civil war.
The two -year conflict, which opposed the Sudan army to the paramilitary quick support forces (RSF), resulted in tens of thousands of deaths and forced more than 12 million of their homes.
Sudan alleges that the water armed the RSF in order to wipe the non -Arab massalite population of Western Darfur. The water said the case is a cynical advertising stroke and is looking for an immediate dismissal.
Since the start of the war, the RSF and the Sudanese army have been accused of having committed atrocities.
Depending on the case of Sudan, the RSF led systematic attacks against non -Arab groups, in particular the Massalit community, with the intention of destroying them as a distinct ethnic group.
Among other things, he also alleys that the RSF used rape as a weapon against civilians.
At the start of this year, the United States also accused the RSF of having committed a genocide and imposed sanctions on its chief Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, also known as Hemedti.
General Hemedti has already denied that his fighters have deliberately targeted civilians.
As the CIJ deals with disputes between states, the military government of Sudan cannot bring the RSF before the court.
Instead, he brought the case against one of his alleged sponsors.
Sudan maintains that these atrocities have been activated by financial, military and water political support, including arms expeditions, drone training and recruitment of mercenaries.
That said it means that the water is accomplices of the genocide.
Sudan is looking for repairs and urgent measures to prevent other genocidal acts.
On Thursday, the court, the Sudan legal team argued that there was a risk of prejudice plausible to the masalies and that there was an urgent need for the ICJ to intervene to ensure that no other genocidal act was committed.
Sudan has asked the judges to rule that the water should be prevented from providing the RSF. And the water should report to the court on the way in which these measures are implemented.
In his response to court, the Ambassador of the United Arab Emirates in the Netherlands Ameirah Alhefeiti began by describing violence in Sudan as “heartbreaking”.
But she added that Sudan had not brought the case to The Hague to relieve suffering but rather to divert its own actions and used the court as a step to attack the water.
A previous statement by the government said that the ICJ was “not a step for political theaters, and that it should not be armed for disinformation”.
The ambassador said that his country had not provided weapons to any of the war parties, and rather than the United Arab Emirates had worked tirelessly to alleviate suffering, for example, by creating hospitals in the field.
Water lawyers have argued that the case should be thrown away.
Most legal experts seem to agree that the case is unlikely to go beyond this point.
Water has a reservation – or undress – to the genocide agreement which noted in the previous cases, the ICJ does not have competence on these types of complaints.
However, by wearing its grievances in front of the UN Court, Sudan drew attention to what it alleges is the role of water in the conflict.
Regarding what is happening next, it should be known in a few weeks if the judges decide that they have the power to act at the request of Sudan so that they emit what is essentially equivalent to an injunction – provisional water measures in order to respect its commitments to prevent genocide acts.
ICJ’s decisions are legally binding, but the court itself has no direct power to enforce its decisions.
