This should make for a very interesting cross-examination. But also interesting that #TheGambia is presenting a *legal* expert, with very substantial military experience, rather that someone with non-legal expertise. The implications for establishing genocidal intent seem clear, however.

#Rohingya case: The Gambia is coming out very strong here (in the person of @philippesands.bsky.social) to make the case that a finding of genocidal intent is not precluded by the existence of parallel state objectives (and invoking Ireland's declaration here specifically to underline the point).

#Rohingya case: Paul Reichler making clear that #TheGambia is not asking #ICJ to repudiate its past approach to establishing genocidal intent and will show that the facts here (in support of genocidal intent) are stronger than in the Bosnia and Croatia cases (where the ICJ did not find such intent).

This is a prudent strategy in many ways. I've said before that The Gambia's main task is to show the ICJ how its own test can be met here. But doubling-down on the Court's past approach depends on a shared understanding of what that test means (namely re the 'only reasonable inference' test).

Making extensive use of the FFM report, Paul Reichler is handing the ICJ several ways to distinguish situation in Myanmar from those in Bosnia & Croatia. These are necessary building blocks for the ICJ to adhere to its demanding standard while getting to a different outcome.

But I think his effort to show key differences with facts in Bosnia was more effective than w/Croatia, where ICJ found controversially that Serb policy of ethnic cleansing actually undermined genocidal intent. The Gambia likely needs to do more to explain how Tatmadaw policy/actions were different.

#Rohingya case: At the start of the afternoon session (12 Jan), Paul Reichler for The Gambia to address a topic near-and-dear to me: the evidentiary weight to be accorded to third-party fact-finding reports (in this case, the UN FFM on Myanmar). t.co/pnoaDaigRs

For anyone interested in the UN FFM: ohchr.org/en/hr-bodies.... As Reichler explains, the FFM's work makes up just part of the many reports from UN bodies and NGOs that The Gambia has put into the record. Plus signed witness statements (something the ICJ is often not wild about).

Fascinating to learn that Myanmar's position (per The Gambia) is that UN reports carry ZERO weight & the Court could only rely on (non-existent) findings by other courts. This is an untenable position and not consistent at all with the Court's case law (as Reichler is making clear).

Reichler also making the case that the UN FFM was a state-of-the-art inquiry body. In my view (having studied many inquiry bodies, this is not far-fetched. The FFM reports go out of their way to explain methodology & working methods. Doesn't mean they are unassailable but they reflect serious care.

Reichler makes the key point: reports do not merit weight automatically because they are UN reports, but because they satisfy the indicia for reliability the Court has set out in its case law. (Not clear this is an issue the intervening states can properly weigh in on though!)

Reichler now dissecting Myanmar's (predictable) reasons to disregard the FFM reports: i.e. that Myanmar did not participate (but this was Myanmar's choice; it repeatedly refused to cooperate or engage). (You can probably think of other disputes where these types of arguments will be made.)

Reichler: Giving weight to fact-finding reports is not a delegation of duty (as Myanmar argues) but in fact *is* how the ICJ can exercise its fact-finding responsibility. I think this turns on the Court's approach & reiterate my view that the ICJ could benefit from hearing directly from the FFM.