I'm leaving this here without much comment. I think we have enough literature on why witnesses withdraw or change their statements. There are many clues in this withdrawal provided by #Myanmar - I hope the court does not take the argument rgd. "pervasive anonymity" at face value ...

I continue my thread after a 1-week break. All videos of the case #TheGambia vs #Myanmar are available at the #ICJ website. I have summarized the 1st week of the case by highlighting a crucial formal aspect when interpreting the #Genocide Convention: what counts as #evidence and what does not?

After disputing that the material #TheGambia has provided carries any evidential weight, #Myanmar focused on #ARSA (Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army), an Islamist group active in the camps in #Bangladesh, but - at least acc. to #Myanmar - responsible for many of the killings in #Myanmar, too.

On January 20th #Myanmar continued making their case, now focusing on #hatespeech and anti-Rohingya hate propaganda - asking whether it is at all relevant for establishing genocidal intent. "Myanmar says that it is not." Again, the criticism is that TheGambia has a "flawed genocidal intent approach"

Against #TheGambia s approach, which "has no basis in the court's case law", Stefan Talmon ( #Myanmar ) positions the court's "inference from a pattern of conduct approach." Question is: Could #hatespeech be relevant to establish a pattern of conduct? #Myanmar: no. #hatespeech has no role to play.

It is honestly hard to listen to a German legal expert (with whom I share an alma mater, having studied with the same law professor), advocating for #Myanmar and paraphrasing a statement of Min Aung Hlaing as "calling for cooperation" in Rakhine state. What is the worth of a state terrorist's words?

"... a protected group in whole or in part as such. This cannot be established simply by attributing to the state the genocidal intent of one or more individuals." In the #Croatia case, the #ICJ held: "the genocidal intent of a state is to be sought in the state's policy..."

"... or is to be established indirectly by inference from a pattern of conduct. It is not to be established by way of attributing the genocidal intent of individuals to the state." Anthropologist here: what / who is "the state" in this view, then?

How can speech acts be "attributable to #Myanmar" (the state), as the agent of Myanmar demands, if not via individuals who do the speaking? How does "the state" speak?

Still catching up with #ICJ hearing #TheGambia vs #Myanmar - on 20 January, 9 judges began to pose questions to the two parties. 1st Q: on the methodology of how #evidence was collected from anonymous witnesses by third parties. 2nd Q (to Myanmar): how many villages destroyed by ARSA/Tatmadaw/Gov.