IN FULL | ICJ ruling on provisional measures in SA vs Israel genocide case

The following is a full transcription of the ruling read by the president of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), judge Joan Donoghue, on Friday in The Hague, Netherlands.

Please be seated. The sitting is open. The court meets today to deliver in open court its decision on the request for indication of provisional measures submitted by South Africa in the case concerning application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip, South Africa versus.

Judge Robinson, who duly participated in both the deliberation and the final vote, is for reasons made known to me, unable to take his seat on the bench today.

I would like to welcome the eminent representatives of the Republic of South Africa and the State of Israel, who are in the Great Hall of Justice today. In particular, I recognise the presence of Her Excellency Ms Naledi Pandor, minister of international relations and cooperation of the Republic of South Africa.

I recall that on December 29 2023, South Africa filed in the registry of the court an application instituting proceedings against Israel concerning alleged violations in the Gaza Strip of obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, to which I shall refer as the Genocide Convention.

The application of South Africa contained a request for the indication of provisional measures submitted with reference to article 41 of the statute and to articles 7374 and 75 of the rules of court.

In accordance with the usual practice, I shall not read the introductory paragraphs of the order, which set out the procedural history of the case. I shall also omit or summarise some other paragraphs. I shall therefore begin the reading of the order at paragraph 13.

In the order the court begins by recalling the immediate context in which the present case came before it, it observes that on October 7 2023, Hamas and other armed groups present in the Gaza Strip carried out an attack in Israel killing more than 1,200 persons, injuring thousands and abducting some 240 people, many of whom continue to be held hostage.

Following this attack, Israel launched a large-scale military operation in Gaza by land, air and sea, which is causing massive civilian casualties, extensive destruction of civilian infrastructure, and the displacement of the overwhelming majority of the population in Gaza.

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.

The ongoing conflict in Gaza has been addressed in the framework of several organs and specialised agencies of the United Nations. In particular, reservations have been adopted by the General Assembly and the Security Council of the United Nations, referring to many aspects of the conflict. The scope of the present case submitted to the court, however, is limited as South Africa has instituted these proceedings under the Genocide Convention.

The court then turns to the conditions needed to be fulfilled in order for it to indicate provisional measures with respect to the question of prima facie jurisdiction. The court observes that it may indicate provisional measures only if the provisions relied on by the applicant appear prima facie.

To afford a basis on which its jurisdiction could be founded, it need not satisfy itself in a definitive manner that it has jurisdiction as regards the merits of the case.

In the present case, South Africa seeks to found the jurisdiction of the court on article 36, paragraph 1 of the statute of the court, and on article 9 of the Genocide Convention. The court must therefore first determine whether those provisions prima facie confer upon it jurisdiction to rule on the merits of the case.

Enabling it if the other necessary conditions are fulfilled to indicate provisional measures.

Article 9 of the Genocide Convention provides: "Disputes between the contracting parties relating to the interpretation, application or fulfilment of the present convention, including those relating to the responsibility of a state for genocide or for any of the other acts enumerated in article 3, shall be submitted to the International Court of Justice at the request of any of the parties to the dispute."

South Africa and Israel are both parties to the Genocide Convention, and neither of them has entered a reservation to article 9 or any other provision of the convention. The court then recalls that article 9 of the Genocide Convention makes its jurisdiction conditional on the existence of a dispute.

Leading to the interpretation, application or fulfilment of the convention, a dispute is a disagreement on a point of law or fact, a conflict of legal views, or of interest between parties. In order for a dispute to exist, it must be shown that the claim of one party is positively opposed by the.other. The two sides must hold clearly opposite views concerning the question of the performance or non performance of certain international obligations.

To determine whether a dispute exists in the present case, the court cannot limit itself to noting that one of the parties maintains the Convention applies while the other denies it.

Since South Africa has invoked as a basis for the courts jurisdiction, the compromised clause of the Genocide Convention.

The court must also ascertain at the present stage of the proceedings, whether it appears that the acts and omissions complained of by the applicant are capable of falling within the scope of that convention grassian material.

The court recalls that for purposes of deciding whether a dispute existed between the parties at the time of the filing of the application, it takes into account in particular any statements or documents exchanged between the parties, as well as any exchanges made in multilateral settings. In so doing, it pays special attention to the author of the statement or document its intended or actual addressee and its content.

The existence of a dispute is a matter for objective determination by the court. It is a matter of substance, not a question of form or procedure.

The court notes that South Africa issued public statements in various multilateral and bilateral settings in which it expressed its view that in light of the nature, scope and extent of Israel's military operations in Gaza.

Israel's actions amounted to violations of its obligations under the Genocide Convention. For instance, at the resumed 10th Emergency Special session of the United Nations General Assembly on December 12 2023, at which Israel was represented, the South African representative to the United Nations stated that: "The events of the past six weeks in Gaza have illustrated that Israel is acting contrary to its obligations in terms of the Genocide Convention."

South Africa recalled this statement in its note for ball of 21 December 2023 to the Embassy of Israel in Pretoria.

The court notes that Israel dismissed any accusation of genocide in the context of the conflict in Gaza, in a document published by the Israeli ministry of foreign affairs on December 6 2023, which was subsequently updated and reproduced on the website of the Israel Defense Forces on December 15 2023 under the title, "The war against Hamas, answering your most pressing questions", stating that: "The accusation of genocide against Israel is not only wholly unfounded as a matter of fact and law, it is morally repugnant."

In the document, Israel also stated that "the accusation of genocide is not just legally and factually incoherent, it is obscene and that there was no valid basis in fact or law for the outrageous charge of genocide".

In light of the foregoing, the court considers that the parties appear to hold clearly opposite views as to whether certain acts or omissions allegedly committed by Israel and God.

Amount to violations by the latter of its obligations under the Genocide convention, the court finds that the aforementioned elements are sufficient at this stage to establish prima facie. The existence of a dispute between the parties relating to the interpretation, application, or fulfilment of the Genocide Convention.

As to whether the acts and omissions complained of by the applicant appear to be capable of falling within the provisions of the Genocide convention, the court recalls that South Africa considers Israel to be responsible for committing genocide in Gaza and for failing to prevent and punish genocidal acts, South Africa contends.

That Israel has also violated other obligations under the Genocide Convention, including those concerning conspiracy to commit genocide, direct and public incitement to genocide, attempted genocide and complicity in genocide.

At the present stage of the proceedings, the court is not required to ascertain whether any violations of Israel's obligations under the Genocide Convention have occurred. Such a finding could only be made by the court at the stage of the examination of the merits of the present case at the stage of making an order on the request for an indication of provisional.

Measures the courts tax is to establish whether the acts and omissions complained of by the applicant appear to be capable of falling within the provisions of the Genocide Convention. 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.

In light of the following, the court concludes that prima facie it has jurisdiction pursuant to article 9 of the convention to entertain the case.

Given this conclusion, the court considers that it cannot accede to Israel's request that the case be removed from the general list.

The court turns next to the question of standing of South Africa.

Court notes that the respondent did not challenge the standing of the applicant in the present proceedings in the case concerning application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The Gambia v Myanmar, where article 9 of the Genocide Convention was also invoked.

The court observed that all states parties to the convention have a common interest to ensure the prevention, suppression and punishment of genocide by committing themselves to fulfilling the obligations contained in the convention.

Such common interest implies that the obligations in question are owed by any state party to all the other state parties to the relevant convention. There are obligations erga omnes partes in the sense that each state party has an interest in compliance with them in any given case.

The common interest in compliance with the relevant obligations under the Genocide Convention entails that any state party without distinction is entitled to invoke the responsibility of another state party for an alleged breach of its obligations, erga omnes partes.

Accordingly, the court found that any state party to the Genocide Convention may invoke the responsibility of another state party, including through the institution of Proceedings, before the court, with a view to determining the alleged failure to comply with its obligations. Erga omnes parties under the convention and to bringing a failure to the end.

The court concludes prima facie that South Africa has standing to submit to it. The dispute with Israel concerning alleged violations of obligations under the Genocide Convention.

The court then turns to the question of the rights whose protection is sought and the link between such rights and the measures requested. It recalls that its power to indicate provisional measures under article 41 of the statute has as its object the preservation of the respective rights claimed by the parties in a case pending its decision on the merits thereof.

It follows that the court must be concerned to preserve by such measures the rights which may subsequently be adjudged by it to belong to either party. Therefore, the court may exercise this power only if it is satisfied that the rights asserted by the party requesting such measures are at least plausible.

At this stage of the proceedings, however, the court is not called upon to determine definitively whether the rights which South Africa wishes to seek protected exist. It need only decide whether the rights claimed by South Africa and for which it seeks protection are plausible.

Moreover, a link much must exist between the rights whose protection is sought and the provisional measures being requested.

The court recalls that, in accordance with article 1 of the convention, all states parties thereto have undertaken to prevent and to punish the crime of genocide.

Article 2 provides that: "Genocide means any of the following acts committed with an intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

• (a) killing members of the group;
• (b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
• (c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction, in whole or in part;
• (d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
• (e) forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

Pursuant to article 3 of the Genocide Convention, the following acts are also prohibited by the Convention's conspiracy to commit genocide, direct and public incitement to commit genocide, attempt to commit genocide and complicity in genocide.

The provisions of the convention are intended to protect the members of a national, ethnical, racial or religious group from Acts of genocide or any other punishable acts enumerated in article 3.

The court considers that there is a correlation between the rights of members of groups protected under the Genocide Convention, the obligations incumbent on state parties there too, and the right of any state party to seek compliance therewith by another state party.

As the court has stated in other cases, in order for acts to fall within the scope of article 2 of the Convention, the intent must be to destroy at least a substantial part of a particular.

The group this is demanded by the very nature of the crime of genocide. Since the object and purpose of the Convention as a whole is to prevent the intentional destruction of groups, the part part targeted must be significant enough to have an impact on the group as a whole.

The Palestinians appear to constitute a distinct national, ethnical, racial or religious group, and hence A protected group within the meaning of article 2 of the Genocide Convention.

The court observes that according to United Nations sources, the Palestinian population in the Gaza Strip comprises over 2-million Palestinians in the Gaza Strip form a substantial part of the protected group.

The court notes that the military operation being conducted by Israel following the attack of seven October 2023 has resulted in a large number of deaths and injuries, as well as massive destruction of homes, the forcible displacement of the vast majority of the population, and extensive damage to civilian.

While figures relating to the Gaza Strip can not be independently verified, recent information indicates that 25,700 Palestinians have been killed. Over 63,000 injuries have been reported over 360 housing units have been destroyed or partially damaged, and approximately 1.7-million persons have been internally displaced.

The court takes note in this regard of the statement by the United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, Mr Martin Griffiths, on January 5 2024: "Gaza has become a place of death and despair. Families are sleeping in the open as temperatures plummet, areas where civilians were told to relocate for their safety have come under bombardment.

"Medical facilities are under relentless attack. A public health disaster is unfolding. Gaza has simply become uninhabitable. Its people are witnessing daily threats to their very existence while the world watches on."

Following a mission to north Gaza, the World Health Organisation reported that as of December 21 2023, "an unprecedented 93% of the population of Gaza is facing crisis levels of hunger, with insufficient food and high levels of malnutrition".

The court further notes the statement issued by the Commissioner General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (or UNRWA) Mr Philippe Lazzarini on January 13 2024: "It's been 100 days since the devastating war started. Killing and displacing people in Gaza following the horrific attacks that Hamas and other groups carried out against people in Israel, it's been 100 days of ordeal and anxiety for hostages and their family.

"In the past 100 days, sustained bombardment across the geyser strip called caused the massive displacement of a population that is in a state of flux, constantly uprooted and forced to leave overnight, only to move to places which are just as unsafe. This war affected more than 2-million people, the entire population of Gaza. Many will carry lifelong scars, both physical and psychological. The vast majority, including children, are deeply traumatised.

"Overcrowded and unsanitary shelters have become home to more than 1.4-million people. They lack everything from food to hygiene to privacy. People live in inhumane conditions where diseases are spreading, including young children. They live through the unliveable and with the clock ticking fast.

"The plight of children in Gaza is especially heartbreaking. An entire generation of children is traumatised and will take years to heal. Thousands have been killed, maimed and orphaned. Hundreds of thousands are deprived of education. Their future is in jeopardy with far-reaching and long-lasting consequences."

The UNRWA commissioner-general also stated that the crisis in Gaza is "compounded by dehumanising language". In this regard, the court has taken note of a number of statements made by senior Israeli officials. It calls attention in particular to the following examples.

On October 9 2023, Mr Yoav Gallant, defence minister of Israel, announced that he had ordered a complete siege of Gaza City, and there then that there would be no electricity, no food, no fuel, and that everything was closed.

On the following day, minister Gallant stated, speaking to Israeli troops on the Gaza border: "I have released all restraints. You saw what we are fighting against. We are fighting human animals. This is the ISIS of Gaza. This is what we are fighting against. Gaza won't return to what it was before. There will be no Hamas. We will eliminate everything.

"If it doesn't take one day, it will take a week. It will take weeks or even months. We will reach all places."

On October 12 2023, Mr Isaac Herzog, President of Israel, stated referring to Gaza: "We are working operating militarily according to rules of international law. Unequivocally, it is an entire nation out there that is responsible. It is not true this rhetoric about civilians not aware, not involved. It is absolutely not true. They could have risen up, they could have fought against that evil regime which took over Gaza and Dakotas. But we are at war. We are at war. We are at war. We are defending our homes. We are protecting our homes. That's the truth. And when a nation protects its home, it fights and we will fight until we break their backbone."

On October 13 2023, Mr Israel Katz, then minister of energy and Infrastructure of Israel, stated on X, formerly Twitter: "We will fight the terrorist organisation Hamas and destroy it. All the civilian population in Gaza is ordered to leave immediately. We will win. They will not receive a drop of water or a single battery until they leave the world."

The court also takes note of a press release of 16 November 2023 issued by 37 special rapporteurs, independent experts and members of working groups, part of the special procedures of the United Nations Human Rights Council, in which they voiced alarm over "discernibly genocidal and dehumanising rhetoric coming from senior Israeli government officials".

In addition, on October 27 2023, the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination observed that it was highly concerned about the sharp increase in racist hate speech and dehumanisation directed at Palestinians since October 7.

In the court's view, the aforementioned facts and circumstances are sufficient to conclude that at least some of the rights claimed by South Africa and for which it is seeking protection are plausible.

This is the case with respect to the right of Palestinians in Gaza to be protected from acts of genocide and related prohibited acts identified in article 3 and the right of South Africa to seek Israel's compliance with the latter's obligations under the Convention.

The court then turns to the condition of the link between the plausible rights claimed by South Africa and the provisional measures requested. It considers that by their very nature, at least some of the provisional measures sought by South Africa are aimed at preserving the plausible rights it asserts on the basis of the Genocide Convention.

In the present case, namely the right of the Palestinians and Gaza to be protected from acts of genocide and related prohibited acts mentioned in article 3 and the right of South Africa to seek Israel's compliance with the latter's obligations under the convention. Therefore a link exists between the rights claimed by South Africa that the court has found to be plausible and at least some of the provisional measures requested.

The court turns next to the question of risk of irreparable prejudice and urgency. It notes that, pursuant to article 41 of its statute, it has the power to indicate provisional measures when irreparable prejudice could be caused to rights which are the subject 0f judicial proceedings or when the alleged disregard of such rights might entail irreparable consequences.

However, the power of the court to indicate provisional measures will only be exercised if there is urgency in the sense that there is a real and imminent risk that irreparable prejudice will be caused to the rights claimed before the court gives its final decisions.

The condition of urgency is met when the acts susceptible of causing irreparable prejudice can occur at any moment before the court makes the final decision in the case. The court must therefore consider whether such a risk exists at this stage of the proceedings.

The court is not called upon, for purposes of its decision on the request for the indication of provisional measures to establish the existence of breaches of obligations under the Genocide Convention, but to determine whether the circumstances require the indication of provisional measures for the protection of rights under that instrument.

As already noted, the court cannot at this stage make definitive findings of fact and the right of each party to submit arguments with respect to the merits remains unaffected by the courts decision on the request for the indication of provisional measure.

The court recalls that, as underlined and General Assembly resolution 96(1) of December 11 1946: "Genocide is a denial of the right of existence of entire human groups, as homicide is the denial of the right to live of individual human beings.

"Such denial of the right of existence shocks the conscience of mankind, results in great losses to humanity in the form of cultural and other contributions represented by these human groups, and is contrary to moral law and to the spirit and aims of the United Nations."

In view of the fundamental values sought to be protected by the Genocide Convention, the court considers that the plausible rights in question in this proceeding, namely the right of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip to be protected from acts of genocide and related prohibited acts identified in article 3 of the Genocide Convention and the right of South Africa to seek Israel's compliance with the latter's obligation under the Convention are of such a nature that prejudice to them is capable of causing irreparable harm.

During the ongoing conflict, senior United Nations officials have repeatedly called attention to the risk of further deterioration of conditions in the Gaza Strip. The court takes note, for instance, of the letter dated December 6 2023, whereby the secretary-general of the United Nations brought the following information to the attention of the Security Council.

The healthcare system in Gaza is collapsing. Nowhere is safe in Gaza, amid constant bombarding by the Israel Defense Forces and without shelter or the essentials to survive. I expect public order to break to completely break down soon due to the desperate conditions rendering even limited humanitarian assistance impossible.

An even worse situation could unfold, including epidemic diseases and increased pressure for mass displacement into neighbouring countries.

We are facing a severe risk of collapse of the humanitarian system. The situation is fast deteriorating into a catastrophe, with potentially irreversible implications for Palestinians as a whole and for peace and security in the recent region. Such an outcome must be avoided at all costs."

On January 5, the secretary-general wrote again to the Security Council, providing an update on the situation in the Gaza Strip and observing that "sadly devastating levels of death and destruction continue".

The court also takes note of the January 17 statement issued by the UNRWA commissioner-general upon return from his fourth visit to the Gaza Strip since the beginning of the current conflict in Gaza: "Every time I visit Gaza, I witness how people have sunk further into despair with the struggle for survival, consuming every hour."

The court considers that the civilian population in the Gaza Strip remains extremely vulnerable. It recalls that the military operation conducted by Israel after October 7 2023 has resulted inter alia in tens of thousands of deaths and injuries and the destruction of homes, schools, medical facilities and other vital infrastructure, as well as displacement on a massive scale.

The court notes that the operation is ongoing and that the Prime Minister of Israel announced on January 18 that the war "will take many more long months".

At present, many Palestinians in the Gaza Strip have no access to the most basic foodstuffs potable water, electricity, essential medicines or heat.

The World Health Organisation has estimated that 15% of the women giving birth in Gaza Strip are likely to experience complications and indicates that maternal and newborn death rates are expected to increase due to the lack of access to medical care.

In these circumstances, the court considers that the catastrophic humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip is at serious risk of deteriorating further before the court renders its final judgment.

The court recalls Israel's statement that it has taken certain steps to address and alleviate the conditions faced by the population in the Gaza Strip.

The court further notes that the attorney-general of Israel recently stated that a call for intentional harm to civilians may amount to a criminal offence including that of incitement, and that several such cases are being examined by Israeli law enforcement authorities.

While such steps are to be encouraged, they are insufficient to remove the risk that irreparable prejudice will be caused before the court issues its final decision in the case.

In light of the foregoing, the court considers that there is urgency in the sense that there is a real and imminent risk that irreparable prejudice will be caused to the rights found by the court to be plausible before it gives its final decision.

The court concludes on the basis of the aforementioned considerations that the conditions required by its statute for it to indicate provisional measures are met. It is therefore necessary, pending its final decision for the court to indicate certain measures in order to protect the rights claimed by South Africa that the court has found to be plausible.

The court recalls that it has the power under its statute, when a request for provisional measures has been made, to indicate measures that are in whole or in part other than those requested.

In the present case, having considered the terms of the provisional measures requested by South Africa and the circumstances of the case, the court finds that the measures indicated need not be identical to those requested.

The court considers that with regard to the presence situation, Israel must, in accordance with its obligations under the Genocide Convention in relation to Palestinians in Gaza, take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of all acts within the scope of article 2 of the convention in particular:

• (a) killing groups members of the group;
• (b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
• (c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction, in whole or in part; and
• (d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group.

The court recalls that these acts fall within the scope of article 2 of the convention, when they are committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, the group as such.

The court further considers that Israel must ensure with immediate effect that its military forces do not commit any of the aforementioned acts.

The court is also of the view that Israel must take measures within its power to prevent and punish the direct and public incitement to commit genocide in relation to the members of the Palestinian group in the Gaza Strip.

The court further considers that Israel must 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.

Israel must also take effective measures to prevent the destruction and ensure the preservation of evidence related to allegations of acts within the scope of article 2 and article 3 of the Genocide Convention against members of the Palestinian group in the Gaza Strip.

Regarding the provisional measure requested by South Africa that Israel must submit a report to the court on all measures taken to give effect to the order, the court recalls that it has the power reflected in article 78 of the rules of court to request the parties to provide information on any matter connected with the implementation of any provisional measures it has indicated.

In view of the specific provisional measures it has decided to indicate, the court considers that Israel must submit a report to the court on all measures taken to give effect this order within one month as from the date of this order.

The report so provided shall then be communicated to South Africa, which shall be given the opportunity to submit to the court its comments thereon.

The court recalls that its orders on provisional measures under article 41 of the statute have binding effect and thus create international legal obligations for any party to whom the provisional measures are addressed.

The court reaffirms that the decision given in the present proceedings in no way prejudges the question of the jurisdiction of the court to deal with the merits of the case or any questions related to the admissibility of the application or to the merits themself.

It leaves unaffected the right of the governments of the Republic of South Africa and the State of Israel to submit arguments in respect of these questions.

The order then states that the court deems it necessary to emphasise that all parties to the conflict in the Gaza Strip are bound by international humanitarian law. It is gravely concerned about the fate of the hostages abducted during the attack in Israel on October 7 2023 and held since then by Hamas and other armed groups, and calls for their immediate and unconditional release.

I shall now read out the operative part of the order.

For these reasons, the court indicates the following provisional measures:

1. Won by 15 votes to two, the state of Israel shall, in accordance with its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in relation to the Palestinians in Gaza, take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of all acts within the scope of article 2 of the convention, in particular:

• (a) killing members of the group;
• (b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
• (c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction, in whole or in part; and
• (d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group.

In favour: president Donoghue, vice-president Gevorgian, judges Tomka, Abraham, Bennouna, Yusuf, Xue, Bhandari, Robinson, Salam, Iwasawa, Nolte, Charlesworth, Brant, judge (ad hoc) Moseneke.

Against: judge Sebutindo, judge (ad hoc) Barak.

2. By 15 votes to two, the State of Israel shall ensure with immediate effect that its military does not commit any acts described in (1) above.

In favour: president Donoghue, vice-president Kevorkian, judges, Tomka Abraham, Benona, Yousef Shuei, Bandari Robinson, Salam Iwasawa, Nolte Charlesworth, branch judge attachment, Seneca.

Against: judge Sebutindo, judge (ad hoc) Barak.

3. By 16 votes to one, the State of Israel shall take all measures within its power to prevent and punish the direct and public incitement to commit genocide in relation to members of the Palestinian group in the Gaza Strip.

In favour: president Donoghue, vice-resident Gevorgian, judges Tomka, Abraham, Bennouna, Yusuf, Xue, Bhandari, Robinson, Salam, Iwasawa, Nolte, Charlesworth, Brant, judges (ad hoc) Barak, Moseneke.

Against: judge Sebutinde

4. By 16 votes to one, the state of Israel shall take immediate and effective measures to ensure the provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance to address the adverse conditions of life faced by Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.

In favour: president Donoghue, vice-president Gevorgian, judges Tomka, Abraham, Bennouna, Yusuf, Xue, Bhandari, Robinson, Salam, Iwasawa, Nolte, Charlesworth, Brant, judges (ad hoc) Barak, Moseneke.

Against: judge Sebutinde.

5. The State of Israel shall take effective measures to prevent the destruction and ensure the preservation of evidence related to allegations of acts within the scope of article 2 and article 3 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide against members of the Palestinian group in the Gaza Strip.

In favour: president Donoghue, vice-president Gevorgian, judges Tomka, Abraham, Bennouna, Yusef, Xue, Bhandari, Robinson, Salam, Iwasawa, Nolte, Charlesworth, Brant, judge (ad hoc) Moseneke.

Against: judge Sebutinde, judge (ad hoc) Barak

6. By 15 votes to two, the State of Israel shall submit a report to the Court on all measures taken to give effect to this order within one month, as from the date of the order.

In favour: president Donoghue, vice-president Gevorgian, judges Tomka, Abraham Bennouna, Yusuf, Xue, Bhandari, Robinson, Salam, Iwasawa, Nolte, Charlesworth, Brant, judge (ad hoc) Moseneke.

Against: judge Sebutinde, judge (ad hoc) Barak.

I shall now call upon the registrar to read the operative part of the order in French.

Judge Xue appends a declaration to the order of the court judge submitting the appendix A dissenting opinion to the order of the court. Judges Bhandari and Nolte append declarations to the order of the court. Judge (ad hoc) Barak appends a separate opinion to the order of the court.

The text of the court will be available from today in TypeScript. It will be available shortly on the courts website. The printed text will be available in due course.

As the court has no further business today. I declare the sitting closed.