|
Judges found that the International Court of Justice lacked the
authority to continue the proceedings. While both Sudan and the
UAE are signatories to the 1948 genocide convention, the United
Arab Emirates has a carveout to the part of the treaty that
gives The Hague-based court jurisdiction.
“The violent conflict has a devastating effect, resulting in
untold loss of life and suffering, in particular in West Darfur.
The scope of the case before the court is, however, necessarily
circumscribed by the basis of jurisdiction invoked in the
application," Yuji Iwasawa, the court's president said, reading
out the decision.
Both Sudan and the UAE are signatories to the 1948 genocide
convention. The UAE, however, has a caveat to part of the treaty
which legal experts said would make it unlikely that the case
would proceed.
The UAE applauded the decision. “The court’s finding that it is
without jurisdiction affirms that this case should have never
been brought forward,” Reem Ketait, a senior official at the
UAE’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, told reporters after the
hearing ended.
Around a dozen pro-Sudanese protestors gathered outside the
court, shouting as Ketait spoke.
In March, Sudan asked the International Court of Justice for
several orders, known as provisional measures, including telling
the UAE to do all it could to prevent the killings and other
crimes targeting the Masalit people. In a hearing last month the
UAE argued the court had no jurisdiction.
Sudan descended into a deadly conflict in mid-April 2023 when
long-simmering tensions between its military and rival
paramilitary forces broke out in the capital, Khartoum, and
spread to other regions.
Both the Rapid Support Forces and Sudan’s military have been
accused of abuses.
The UAE, a federation of seven sheikhdoms on the Arabian
Peninsula which is also a U.S. ally, has been repeatedly accused
of arming the RSF, something it has strenuously denied despite
evidence to the contrary.
All contents © copyright 2025 Associated Press. All rights
reserved |
|
