Evidence given to ICC enough to prove Israel genocide in Gaza - member of legal team

Lawyers and human rights organisations pursuing a case against Israel at the International Criminal Court (ICC) are confident their application will lead to concrete action.

Over 600 lawyers and rights groups from across the world presented their case to ICC Prosecutor, Karim Khan, last week, with the submission focusing on evidence of genocidal acts being committed by Israel in its ongoing war on the Gaza Strip.

The move aims to supplement the genocide case South Africa has filed against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), where judges issued an interim ruling on 26 January with six provisional measures, ordering Israel to prevent genocidal acts in Gaza, including by its forces on the ground and open access for humanitarian aid.

The ICJ, also referred to as the World Court, is the highest court of the UN that settles disputes between countries, while the ICC investigates and prosecutes individuals for four offenses: genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and the crime of aggression.

OPINION: Israel is the world’s Frankenstein state

The submission made to the ICC is a “legally strong and properly prepared case”, according to Abdelmajid Mrari, an international law expert and senior member of the Brussels-based Alliance for Freedom and Dignity International (AFDI), which is part of the group.

All elements of the evidence – text documents, photos and videos – indicated that the crime of genocide is being committed in Gaza, he told Anadolu in an interview.

With this submission, we are now at a level of progress never before seen at the ICC in a case related to Palestine, added Mrari, who heads AFDI’s Middle East and Africa Department.

Covering all aspects

He explained that the evidence has been broken down into 15 separate chapters, each with its own title and particular focus, such as civilian victims, attacks on health facilities, attacks on infrastructure, severance of water and electricity supplies, forced displacement and the weapons being used by Israel.

Another one relates to violations of human dignity, where “we have evidence such as the Palestinian detainees who were stripped and treated in a humiliating way by Israeli forces”, he added.

Attacks on cemeteries are covered in a separate chapter as well, said Mrari, since they are considered a crime against humanity under international law.

Another chapter is devoted to Israeli attacks on bakeries in Gaza because the sole purpose of those is starvation, he said.

For all the evidence, we relied on “our partners, fellow lawyers and organisations still working in Gaza,” Mrari added.

After going through the submission, he said, the ICC Prosecutor’s team will focus on hearing testimonies from witnesses, victims and families of victims and start an extensive investigation.

We have provided them phone numbers of important figures still working on the ground in Gaza, especially hospital directors, because their statements will give more credibility to the case, he added.

OPINION: October 7 should have been stopped before it happened – an Irish perspective

‘Historic’ ICJ ruling a blow to Israel

Mrari hailed last week’s ICJ ruling on South Africa’s genocide case as a “historic” decision, stressing that it dented Israel’s defence in various ways.

“It was historic because the Court issued six orders and the judges were almost unanimous, with even the judge representing Israel voting in favour of two of the six decisions,” he said.

“The orders were strong and gave no leeway at all to Israel, even though they did not mention a cease-fire in their text.”

The reason there is no direct order for a ceasefire is because “not all of the warring parties are members of the Court and not all of them are signatories to the Genocide Convention,” he explained, referring to the Palestinian group, Hamas.

If the Court had called for a ceasefire, it would have faced a barrage of criticism from international institutions such as the European Parliament and the UN, as well as European countries, because it “would have recognised the (Hamas) Resistance Movement and given it sovereignty over the lands and considered it as a State,” he said.

However, Mrari emphasised that the “spirit of the text of the ruling condemns the (Israeli) occupation.”

The condemnation was “veiled” and not done directly, according to the international law expert.

“When you tell Israel to avoid (genocide), that means that the matter actually happened and, therefore, there is condemnation,” he said.

Mrari also pointed out that the Court did not “mention in its decision Israel’s right to legitimate self-defence or the word terrorism.”

“The Court ruled on the issue of self-defence in 2004, during a case about the separation wall. The Court said then that Israel has no right to invoke Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, which gives countries the right to defend themselves when their lands are attacked, because Israel has the status of an Occupier and the Occupier has no right to claim the right to self-defence,” he explained.

OPINION: Britain places the onus on the occupied people for peace, rather than the occupation state

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.