By Ro Maung Shwe
The International Court of Justice has concluded its public hearings on the merits in the genocide case brought by The Gambia, with the support of 11 states, against Myanmar over atrocities committed against the Rohingya population. The hearings were held at the Peace Palace in The Hague from January 12 to January 29, 2026, marking a significant step in the most advanced international legal case addressing crimes against the Rohingya.
With the conclusion of this phase, the case has moved beyond preliminary objections and provisional measures into a full examination of evidence and state responsibility under the 1948 Genocide Convention. The Court is now expected to deliberate before issuing its final judgment later this year.
Background of the Case
The case, formally titled The Gambia v. Myanmar, was filed in November 2019. The Gambia, acting with the backing of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, accused Myanmar of committing genocide against the Rohingya ethnic and religious minority in Rakhine State, particularly during military operations carried out in 2016 and 2017.
Unlike international criminal tribunals, the ICJ does not prosecute individuals. Its mandate is limited to determining whether a state has violated international law. In this case, the Court is assessing whether Myanmar breached its obligations under the Genocide Convention.
In January 2020, the ICJ ordered provisional measures requiring Myanmar to prevent genocidal acts against the Rohingya and to preserve evidence. Those measures remain legally binding while the case continues.
What the Merits Hearings Addressed
During the January 2026 hearings, the Court examined detailed legal and factual arguments presented by both sides. Over three weeks, judges heard extended oral submissions from legal teams, reviewed documentary, expert, and forensic evidence, and considered legal analysis on whether the acts committed meet the definition of genocide under international law.
The Court also heard witness testimony in closed sessions, including accounts from Rohingya survivors. These testimonies were not broadcast publicly, but legal observers confirmed that survivors and experts provided direct evidence to the judges.
This merits phase is critical, as it addresses the central legal question of the case, whether Myanmar committed genocide against the Rohingya population.
Arguments Presented by The Gambia
The Gambia argued that Myanmar’s military and security forces carried out a coordinated and systematic campaign targeting the Rohingya as a protected group under the Genocide Convention.
According to the applicant state, the evidence shows mass killings of civilians, widespread sexual and gender based violence, destruction of villages and religious sites, forced displacement of hundreds of thousands of people, and the imposition of living conditions calculated to bring about the physical destruction of the group in whole or in part.
The Gambia maintained that these acts were not isolated incidents, but part of a broader pattern demonstrating genocidal intent, which is a required element for a finding of genocide. Its legal team emphasized that state responsibility may arise not only from direct actions, but also from failure to prevent or punish genocidal conduct by state agents.
Myanmar’s Defense
Myanmar rejected the genocide allegations and asked the Court to dismiss the case. Its legal team argued that military operations in Rakhine State were legitimate security responses to insurgent attacks and that the evidence presented does not meet the high legal threshold required to prove genocide.
Myanmar also challenged the reliability of reports relied upon by The Gambia and claimed there was no proven intent to destroy the Rohingya as a group. While acknowledging that violations may have occurred during internal conflict, Myanmar argued that these do not amount to genocide under international law.
The defense further pointed to domestic investigative mechanisms and stated that it has taken steps it considers consistent with its international obligations.
What Comes Next
With the hearings concluded, the case has entered the deliberation phase. ICJ judges will now review written submissions, assess the evidentiary record, and deliberate privately before issuing a final judgment. There is no fixed deadline, but rulings in complex cases often take several months. Legal experts expect a decision later in 2026.
The Court’s judgment will be final and legally binding on the parties. However, the ICJ has no direct enforcement mechanism. Compliance depends on state cooperation and, where necessary, action through United Nations bodies and international diplomatic pressure.
Possible Outcomes
If the Court finds Myanmar responsible for genocide, it may issue a declaration of breach of the Genocide Convention and order measures such as cessation of wrongful acts, guarantees of non repetition, and reparations. Even if the Court does not find the genocide threshold met, it may still determine that Myanmar failed to prevent or punish genocidal acts.
Significance for the Rohingya
The conclusion of the merits hearings represents a major moment in international efforts to address atrocities committed against the Rohingya. A final judgment could establish an authoritative legal record, clarify state obligations under the Genocide Convention, influence other accountability processes, and shape future discussions on justice, reparations, and safe and dignified return.
For Rohingya communities worldwide, the hearings mark a critical step forward in the long and ongoing pursuit of international legal accountability.
