Read Palestine

Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel), Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures, Order of 26 January 2024

Properties2
tags
aliasesSouth Africa v. Israel Order of 26 January 2024, ICJ Provisional Measures Order, 26 January 2024

25 min read

Summary

The Order of the International Court of Justice on South Africa’s request for Provisional measures in South Africa v. Israel (Genocide Convention): the Court finds prima facie jurisdiction under Article IX of the Genocide Convention, prima facie standing for South Africa on the basis of obligations erga omnes partes, and that at least some of the rights South Africa claims — the right of Palestinians in Gaza to be protected from acts of genocide and related Article III acts, and South Africa’s right to seek Israel’s compliance — are plausible, linked to at least some measures requested, and at real and imminent risk of irreparable prejudice; it therefore indicates six binding measures requiring Israel to prevent Article II acts in relation to Palestinians in Gaza, ensure its military does not commit them, prevent and punish direct and public incitement to genocide, enable urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance, preserve evidence, and report to the Court within one month, while not indicating the requested suspension of military operations (Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel), Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures, Order of 26 January 2024, PDF p.16-17, p.24, p.28-33).

What the file is

The Order as published in I.C.J. Reports 2024, p. 3, General List No. 192, done in English and French with the English text authoritative at the Peace Palace, The Hague, on 26 January 2024 (PDF p.2, p.33). 33 PDF pages, about 12,431 words; printed pagination runs p.3-32, with the bilingual covers and imprint unpaginated at PDF p.1-3. The text copy is clean and paginated with PDF page markers. The bench as listed is President Donoghue, Vice-President Gevorgian, Judges Tomka, Abraham, Bennouna, Yusuf, Xue, Sebutinde, Bhandari, Robinson, Salam, Iwasawa, Nolte, Charlesworth and Brant, Judges ad hoc Barak and Moseneke, and Registrar Gautier (PDF p.5). The file ends by noting appended declarations by Judges Xue, Bhandari and Nolte, a dissenting opinion by Judge Sebutinde and a separate opinion by Judge ad hoc Barak; those appended texts are not in this file (PDF p.33).

Section by section

  • Chronology of the Procedure, paras. 1-12 (PDF p.5-11). Para. 1: on 29 December 2023 South Africa filed its Application concerning alleged violations in the Gaza Strip of obligations under the Genocide Convention. Para. 2 quotes in full the relief sought in the Application: a declaration that both States must act in accordance with their obligations in relation to members of the Palestinian group and take all reasonable measures within their power to prevent genocide; and, against Israel, declarations of breach of Article I read with Article II and of Articles III (a)-(e), IV, V and VI, cessation of acts capable of killing Palestinians, causing them serious bodily or mental harm or deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction in whole or in part, punishment of persons committing the Article III acts by a competent national or international tribunal, collection and conservation of evidence, reparation including safe and dignified return of forcibly displaced and/or abducted Palestinians and reconstruction of what was destroyed in Gaza, and assurances and guarantees of non-repetition (PDF p.5-7). Para. 3: jurisdiction is founded on Statute Article 36 (1) and Convention Article IX. Para. 4: the Application contained the provisional-measures Request under Statute Article 41 and Rules Articles 73, 74 and 75. Paras. 5 and 11 quote in full the nine measures requested in the written Request and again at the close of oral argument — suspension of military operations in and against Gaza; no furtherance by units and persons under Israel’s direction, support, influence or control; both States to take all reasonable measures to prevent genocide; desistance from all Article II acts; desistance from expulsion and forced displacement, deprivation of food and water, humanitarian assistance, fuel, shelter, clothes, hygiene, sanitation and medical supplies and assistance, and destruction of Palestinian life in Gaza; non-commission of, and steps towards punishment for, incitement, conspiracy, attempt and complicity; preservation of evidence and access for fact-finding missions, international mandates and other bodies; a report within one week and thereafter as ordered (the oral version adding “and that such reports shall be published by the Court”); and non-aggravation of the dispute (PDF p.7-8, p.9-11). Para. 6: the Deputy-Registrar communicated the Application to Israel and notified the UN Secretary-General. Para. 7: all States entitled to appear were informed by letter dated 3 January 2024. Para. 8: with no judge of either Party’s nationality on the Bench, South Africa chose Dikgang Ernest Moseneke and Israel chose Aharon Barak as judges ad hoc under Statute Article 31. Para. 9: hearings were fixed for 11 and 12 January 2024. Para. 10 lists those who presented oral observations: for South Africa, Vusimuzi Madonsela, Ronald Lamola, Adila Hassim, Tembeka Ngcukaitobi, John Dugard, Max du Plessis, Blinne Ní Ghrálaigh and Vaughan Lowe; for Israel, Tal Becker, Malcolm Shaw, Galit Raguan, Omri Sender, Christopher Staker and Gilad Noam. Para. 12: Israel asked the Court to reject the Request and remove the case from the General List (PDF p.9, p.11).
  • I. Introduction, paras. 13-14 (PDF p.11-12). Para. 13 recalls the immediate context: on 7 October 2023 Hamas and other armed groups present in the Gaza Strip attacked Israel, killing more than 1,200 persons, injuring thousands and abducting some 240 people, many still held hostage; Israel then launched a large-scale operation in Gaza by land, air and sea causing massive civilian casualties, extensive destruction of civilian infrastructure and displacement of the overwhelming majority of Gaza’s population. Para. 14 notes General Assembly resolutions A/RES/ES-10/21 (27 October 2023) and A/RES/ES-10/22 (12 December 2023) and Security Council resolutions S/RES/2712 (2023) (15 November 2023) and S/RES/2720 (2023) (22 December 2023), and that the scope of the case before the Court is limited to the Genocide Convention.
  • II. Prima Facie Jurisdiction, paras. 15-32 (PDF p.12-17). Preliminary observations, paras. 15-18: provisional measures require only that the provisions relied on appear, prima facie, to afford a basis for jurisdiction, without a definitive merits-jurisdiction finding (Ukraine v. Russian Federation, Order of 16 March 2022, para. 24); Article IX is quoted in full; both States are parties, Israel ratifying on 9 March 1950 and South Africa acceding on 10 December 1998, and neither has a reservation to Article IX or any other provision. Existence of a dispute, paras. 19-30: a dispute is a disagreement on a point of law or fact in which one party’s claim is positively opposed by the other and the sides hold clearly opposite views on performance or non-performance of obligations, and the Court must also ask whether the acts and omissions complained of are capable of falling within the Convention ratione materiae. South Africa’s account (paras. 21-22) is its pre-filing public statements and multilateral interventions, the 9 November 2023 meeting between its Director-General and the Israeli Ambassador, its 12 December 2023 General Assembly statement that Israel was acting contrary to its Genocide Convention obligations, Israel’s Foreign Ministry denial of 6 December 2023 (updated 8 December 2023), and the exchange of Notes Verbales of 21 and 27 December 2023; its allegations are genocidal acts under Article II, intent to destroy Palestinians in Gaza as part of a protected group, and failure to prevent or punish genocide, conspiracy, direct and public incitement, attempt and complicity contrary to Articles III and IV. Israel’s account (paras. 23-24) is that there was no reasonable opportunity to respond and no bilateral interaction sufficient for a dispute, and that specific intent is not proved even prima facie, its acts being self-defence, termination of threats and hostage rescue, with civilian-harm mitigation and humanitarian facilitation showing an absence of genocidal intent in the decisions of the Ministerial Committee on National Security Affairs, the War Cabinet and the IDF Operations Directorate. The Court (paras. 25-28) weighs statements and documents exchanged and made in multilateral settings by author, addressee and content, treats the existence of a dispute as an objective matter of substance, and finds the Parties hold clearly opposite views, sufficient prima facie. Paras. 29-30: at this stage the Court need not ascertain whether violations occurred, only whether the acts and omissions appear capable of falling within the Convention, and “at least some” do. Conclusion, paras. 31-32: prima facie jurisdiction under Article IX, and Israel’s request to remove the case from the General List is not acceded to.
  • III. Standing of South Africa, paras. 33-34 (PDF p.17-18). Israel did not challenge standing. Recalling The Gambia v. Myanmar (Preliminary Objections, 2022, paras. 107-108, 112), the Court states that all States parties have a common interest in the prevention, suppression and punishment of genocide, that the obligations are erga omnes partes, and that any State party may invoke another’s responsibility, including by instituting proceedings. South Africa has standing, prima facie.
  • IV. The Rights whose Protection Is Sought and the Link between such Rights and the Measures Requested, paras. 35-59 (PDF p.18-25). Paras. 35-36 state the test: Article 41 measures preserve the parties’ respective rights pending the merits; the rights asserted must be at least plausible, without a definitive determination, and a link must exist to the measures requested. South Africa (paras. 37-38) claims the rights of Palestinians in Gaza to be protected from genocide, attempted genocide, direct and public incitement, complicity and conspiracy, and its own right to safeguard compliance; it submits the evidence shows a pattern of conduct and related intention justifying a plausible claim of genocidal acts — killing, serious bodily and mental harm, conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction in whole or in part, and measures intended to prevent births — with intent evident from the conduct of the attack, the pattern of conduct and officials’ statements, and that Israel’s failure to condemn, prevent and punish incitement is itself a grave violation; a stated intention to destroy Hamas does not preclude genocidal intent towards the whole or part of the Palestinian people in Gaza. Israel (paras. 39-40) argues plausibility cannot be simply declared and the facts must be considered, that international humanitarian law and not the Convention is the appropriate framework, that civilian casualties in urban warfare may be an unintended consequence of lawful force, that its mitigation and humanitarian activities dispel or militate against genocidal intent, that the officials’ statements relied on are misleading and not government policy, and that its Attorney General had announced that a statement calling for intentional harm to civilians may amount to a criminal offence including incitement, with several cases being examined; it also argues both parties’ rights, including its responsibility to protect its citizens and hostages and its right to self-defence, must be balanced. Paras. 41-43 quote Articles I, II and III: parties undertook to prevent and punish genocide; Article II lists the five acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such; Article III adds conspiracy, direct and public incitement, attempt and complicity; and there is a correlation between protected group members’ rights, States parties’ obligations and any State party’s right to seek compliance (The Gambia v. Myanmar, Provisional Measures, 2020, para. 52). Para. 44, quoting Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro (2007, para. 198), states that the intent must be to destroy at least a substantial part of the group, significant enough to have an impact on the group as a whole. Para. 45: the Palestinians appear to constitute a distinct national, ethnical, racial or religious group and hence a protected group; according to UN sources Gaza’s Palestinian population comprises over 2 million people, a substantial part of the protected group. Para. 46: the operation has caused a large number of deaths and injuries, massive destruction of homes, forcible displacement of the vast majority of the population and extensive damage to civilian infrastructure; while figures cannot be independently verified, recent information (OCHA, reported impact, Day 109, 24 January 2024) indicates 25,700 Palestinians killed, over 63,000 injuries reported, over 360,000 housing units destroyed or partially damaged and approximately 1.7 million persons internally displaced. Paras. 47-53 set out the material the Court takes note of: Martin Griffiths’s statement of 5 January 2024; WHO’s report, as of 21 December 2023, that 93 per cent of Gaza’s population faces crisis levels of hunger and at least 1 in 4 households catastrophic conditions; UNRWA Commissioner-General Philippe Lazzarini’s statement of 13 January 2024, including that the displacement was the largest of the Palestinian people since 1948, that UNRWA shelters had become home to more than 1.4 million people, and that the crisis is compounded by dehumanizing language; statements by Defence Minister Yoav Gallant on 9 and 10 October 2023 (a “complete siege” with no electricity, food or fuel, and “human animals”), President Isaac Herzog on 12 October 2023 (an entire nation responsible), and Minister of Energy and Infrastructure Israel Katz on 13 October 2023 (no drop of water or single battery until the civilian population leaves); the 16 November 2023 press release of 37 UN Special Rapporteurs, Independent Experts and Working Group members alarmed at discernibly genocidal and dehumanising rhetoric from senior Israeli government officials; and the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination’s 27 October 2023 concern at the sharp increase in racist hate speech and dehumanization directed at Palestinians since 7 October. Para. 54 concludes that at least some of the rights claimed are plausible: the right of Palestinians in Gaza to be protected from acts of genocide and related Article III acts, and South Africa’s right to seek Israel’s compliance. Paras. 55-59: South Africa argues the first six measures ensure compliance and the last three protect the integrity of the proceedings; Israel argues the measures exceed interim protection and that the first two would reverse the Court’s case law; the Court finds at least some of the measures sought are by their nature aimed at preserving the plausible rights, so a link exists.
  • V. Risk of Irreparable Prejudice and Urgency, paras. 60-74 (PDF p.25-29). Paras. 60-62 state the test: measures only where there is urgency, a real and imminent risk that irreparable prejudice will be caused to the rights claimed before the final decision, when the acts can occur at any moment; the Court does not at this stage establish breaches or make definitive findings of fact. South Africa (para. 63) contends daily averages of 247 Palestinians killed, 629 wounded and 3,900 homes damaged or destroyed, an immediate risk of death by starvation, dehydration and disease, that scaled-up humanitarian access would be no answer, and that unchecked violations would undermine or lose the opportunity to collect and preserve evidence. Israel (para. 64) denies a real and imminent risk and lists measures it says it has taken: a dozen bakeries reopened with World Food Programme assistance with capacity for more than 2 million breads a day, water supplied by two pipelines and bottled water facilitated, water infrastructure repaired and expanded, six field hospitals and two floating hospitals facilitated with two more hospitals being built, medical teams and evacuation through Rafah, tents and winter equipment distributed, fuel and cooking gas facilitated, and a Defence Minister statement of 7 January 2024 that the scope and intensity of hostilities was decreasing. Paras. 65-66: quoting General Assembly resolution 96 (I) of 11 December 1946 and the Reservations Advisory Opinion (1951), the Court holds the Convention was adopted for a purely humanitarian and civilizing purpose to safeguard the very existence of certain human groups, and that the plausible rights are of such a nature that prejudice to them is capable of causing irreparable harm. Paras. 67-69 take note of the UN Secretary-General’s letters of 6 December 2023 (S/2023/962 — collapsing health-care system, nowhere safe in Gaza, a severe risk of collapse of the humanitarian system and a catastrophe with potentially irreversible implications for Palestinians as a whole) and 5 January 2024 (S/2024/26), and Lazzarini’s 17 January 2024 statement after his fourth visit. Paras. 70-74 find the civilian population remains extremely vulnerable, the operation ongoing with Israel’s Prime Minister announcing on 18 January 2024 that the war would take many more long months, many Palestinians without basic foodstuffs, potable water, electricity, essential medicines or heating, WHO’s estimate that 15 per cent of women giving birth in Gaza are likely to experience complications with maternal and newborn death rates expected to increase, and a catastrophic humanitarian situation at serious risk of deteriorating further before final judgment; Israel’s steps and its Attorney General’s statement are to be encouraged but are insufficient to remove the risk; urgency is established.
  • VI. Conclusion and Measures to Be Adopted, paras. 75-85 (PDF p.29-31). Para. 75: the Statute conditions are met and measures are necessary pending final decision. Paras. 76-77: under Rules Article 75 (2) the Court may indicate measures other than those requested, in whole or in part, and those indicated need not be identical to those requested. Paras. 78-82 reason to the six measures: prevention of all Article II acts in relation to Palestinians in Gaza and immediate assurance that Israel’s military forces do not commit them, the acts falling within Article II when committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part a group as such; prevention and punishment of direct and public incitement to commit genocide in relation to members of the Palestinian group in Gaza; immediate and effective measures to enable urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance; effective measures to prevent destruction and ensure preservation of evidence relating to Articles II and III allegations; and, under Rules Article 78, a report from Israel within one month (not the one week requested), to be communicated to South Africa for its comments. Para. 83: provisional-measures orders under Article 41 have binding effect and create international legal obligations for the party addressed. Para. 84: the decision in no way prejudges jurisdiction on the merits, admissibility or the merits, and leaves both Governments’ rights to argue those questions unaffected. Para. 85: all parties to the conflict in Gaza are bound by international humanitarian law; the Court is gravely concerned about the hostages abducted on 7 October 2023 and held by Hamas and other armed groups, and calls for their immediate and unconditional release.
  • Operative Clause, para. 86 (PDF p.31-33). The Court indicates: (1) by fifteen votes to two, Israel shall, in accordance with its Genocide Convention obligations, in relation to Palestinians in Gaza, take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of all acts within Article II, in particular killing, causing serious bodily or mental harm, deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction in whole or in part, and imposing measures intended to prevent births; (2) by fifteen votes to two, Israel shall ensure with immediate effect that its military does not commit any acts described in point 1; (3) by sixteen votes to one, Israel shall take all measures within its power to prevent and punish direct and public incitement to commit genocide in relation to members of the Palestinian group in the Gaza Strip; (4) by sixteen votes to one, Israel shall take immediate and effective measures to enable the provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance to address the adverse conditions of life faced by Palestinians in the Gaza Strip; (5) by fifteen votes to two, Israel shall take effective measures to prevent the destruction and ensure the preservation of evidence related to allegations of acts within Articles II and III against members of the Palestinian group in the Gaza Strip; (6) by fifteen votes to two, Israel shall submit a report to the Court on all measures taken to give effect to the Order within one month from its date. On measures (1), (2), (5) and (6) the dissenters were Judge Sebutinde and Judge ad hoc Barak; on measures (3) and (4) Judge ad hoc Barak joined the majority and Judge Sebutinde alone dissented.

Key passages

  • “The Court is acutely aware of the extent of the human tragedy that is unfolding in the region and is deeply concerned about the continuing loss of life and human suffering.” (para. 13, PDF p.11)
  • “In the Court’s view, at least some of the acts and omissions alleged by South Africa to have been committed by Israel in Gaza appear to be capable of falling within the provisions of the Convention.” (para. 30, PDF p.17)
  • “hence a protected group within the meaning of Article II of the Genocide Convention” (para. 45, PDF p.21, on the Palestinians as a distinct national, ethnical, racial or religious group)
  • “Gaza has become a place of death and despair.” (Martin Griffiths, statement of 5 January 2024, quoted para. 47, PDF p.21)
  • “Gaza has simply become uninhabitable.” (Martin Griffiths, statement of 5 January 2024, quoted para. 47, PDF p.22)
  • “This has been the largest displacement of the Palestinian people since 1948.” (Philippe Lazzarini, statement of 13 January 2024, quoted para. 49, PDF p.22)
  • “We are fighting human animals.” (Yoav Gallant, 10 October 2023, quoted para. 52, PDF p.23)
  • “It is an entire nation out there that is responsible.” (Isaac Herzog, 12 October 2023, quoted para. 52, PDF p.23)
  • “In the Court’s view, the facts and circumstances mentioned above are sufficient to conclude that at least some of the rights claimed by South Africa and for which it is seeking protection are plausible.” (para. 54, PDF p.24)
  • “the catastrophic humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip is at serious risk of deteriorating further before the Court renders its final judgment” (para. 72, PDF p.28)

Evidence the work relies on

  • The Parties’ pleadings and oral argument as reproduced and summarised in the Order: South Africa’s Application and Request (paras. 2, 5), its closing oral measures (para. 11) and both Parties’ submissions on jurisdiction, standing, plausibility, link, prejudice and urgency (paras. 21-24, 37-40, 56-57, 63-64).
  • The Court’s own jurisprudence as cited: Ukraine v. Russian Federation, Provisional Measures, Order of 16 March 2022 (jurisdiction, dispute, plausibility, link, urgency, binding effect); The Gambia v. Myanmar, Provisional Measures, Order of 23 January 2020, and Preliminary Objections, Judgment, 2022 (erga omnes partes, standing, correlation of rights and obligations, irreparable harm); Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro, Judgment, 2007, para. 198 (substantial part); Reservations to the Genocide Convention, Advisory Opinion, 1951 (humanitarian and civilizing purpose); and the dispute definitions in Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions (1924), South West Africa (1962), Interpretation of Peace Treaties (1950) and Nicaragua v. Colombia (2016).
  • United Nations materials quoted or taken note of: OCHA, Hostilities in the Gaza Strip and Israel — reported impact, Day 109 (24 January 2024) for the 25,700 killed, over 63,000 injured, over 360,000 housing units and approximately 1.7 million displaced figures at para. 46; Martin Griffiths’s statement of 5 January 2024 (OCHA); WHO, “Lethal combination of hunger and disease to lead to more deaths in Gaza” (21 December 2023), and WFP, “Gaza on the brink as one in four people face extreme hunger” (20 December 2023); UNRWA Commissioner-General Philippe Lazzarini’s statements of 13 and 17 January 2024; the UN Secretary-General’s letters of 6 December 2023 (S/2023/962) and 5 January 2024 (S/2024/26); the 16 November 2023 press release of 37 Special Procedures mandate holders; and the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination’s observation of 27 October 2023.
  • Statements of Israeli officials as quoted at para. 52: Yoav Gallant (9 and 10 October 2023), Isaac Herzog (12 October 2023) and Israel Katz (13 October 2023), and, as reported by Israel, its Attorney General’s announcement on statements calling for intentional harm to civilians (paras. 40, 73).
  • Treaty and institutional texts: Statute Articles 31, 36 (1), 40 and 41 and Rules Articles 73, 74, 75 and 78; Genocide Convention Articles I, II, III and IX; General Assembly resolutions 96 (I) (1946), A/RES/ES-10/21 and A/RES/ES-10/22; Security Council resolutions S/RES/2712 (2023) and S/RES/2720 (2023).

Analysis

The Order is a provisional-measures decision, and its reasoning is structured entirely by the successive tests the Court applies at that stage: prima facie jurisdiction (including a prima facie dispute and acts capable of falling within the Convention ratione materiae), prima facie standing, plausible rights, a link to at least some measures requested, and a real and imminent risk of irreparable prejudice. At each step the Order expressly withholds the merits determination — whether violations occurred, and whether the acts were committed with genocidal intent, are reserved (paras. 30, 62, 84) — so its findings are stated as appearances, capability and plausibility rather than as conclusions of breach. Its plausibility reasoning (paras. 43-54) works from the Convention text, the Bosnia substantial-part test, the scale of death, injury, destruction and displacement in the OCHA figures it reproduces while noting they cannot be independently verified, the humanitarian statements of UN officials, and the statements of three senior Israeli officials, which it takes note of without characterising them itself. The operative measures track South Africa’s requested measures 4, 6 (in part), 7 and 8 in narrowed form — prevention of Article II acts, non-commission by the military, prevention and punishment of incitement, humanitarian provision, evidence preservation and a one-month report — while the requested suspension of military operations, the measure addressed to both States, the itemised deprivation list, non-aggravation and one-week reporting are not indicated; the Court invokes its power to indicate measures other than those requested (paras. 76-77). The humanitarian-assistance measure (para. 80, operative point 4) is framed as addressing adverse conditions of life, not in the itemised terms of requested measure 5.

People, organizations, places and events

International Court of Justice, South Africa, Israel, Gaza, Hamas, UNRWA, UN-OCHA, World Health Organization, Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Philippe Lazzarini, Yoav Gallant, Isaac Herzog, Israel Katz, Aharon Barak, Dikgang Moseneke, South Africa v. Israel (Genocide Convention)

Concepts

Genocide Convention, Genocide, Genocidal intent, Provisional measures, Erga omnes obligations

How it relates to other sources

Open questions

  • The table of contents (PDF p.4) lists Section VI as paras. 75-84 and the Operative Clause as para. 86, and does not list para. 85, which in the text is the Court’s emphasis that all parties are bound by international humanitarian law and its call for the hostages’ immediate and unconditional release (PDF p.31).
  • Para. 46 states the OCHA figures while noting that figures relating to the Gaza Strip cannot be independently verified; no alternative figures are given in the Order.
  • Israel’s Foreign Ministry document denying the genocide accusation is dated 6 December 2023 and updated 8 December 2023 in South Africa’s account (para. 21), and is described at para. 27 as published on 6 December 2023, subsequently updated and reproduced on the IDF website on 15 December 2023 under a different title, “The War against Hamas: Answering Your Most Pressing Questions”; the Order does not reconcile the two update dates or titles beyond presenting both.
  • The declarations appended by Judges Xue, Bhandari and Nolte are noted at PDF p.33 but are not in this file and have not been ingested; the Sebutinde dissent and Barak separate opinion noted there are ingested separately (see How it relates).

Coverage

PDF p.1-33 of 33, read in full

Graph View

Backlinks