Myanmar faces Rohingya genocide case: What to know

The International Court of Justice in The Hague began hearings on Monday in a landmark case accusing Myanmar of genocide against the country's ethnic minority Rohingya, more than six years after the case was filed.

Myanmar is accused of launching a sweeping campaign of arson, rape and murder against the Rohingya in 2017, driving some 700,000 of them into neighboring Bangladesh. The following year, a UN-backed fact-finding mission concluded that at least 10,000 people likely died.

The case is one of many filed against Myanmar and its military in courts around the world, but the first to begin hearings.

"For victims and survivors of the Rohingya community, this is an incredible development, and it's truly a testament to the resilience of the countless activists, survivors who kept pushing for justice, and keep pushing for justice in different avenues," said Maria Elena Vignoli, a human rights lawyer and senior counsel for Human Rights Watch.

"So, yes, absolutely I would say that this is a landmark case, and a very important development in a landmark case," she added.

International law experts say it's typical for such cases to take several years to reach the hearings stage.

"There are all kinds of stalling tactics that are used, and we've seen the military do that in this case — challenging jurisdiction, asking for extensions of time, and so forth. And the court is reasonably tolerant of those kinds of maneuvers," said Chris Sidoti, an international human rights lawyer and consultant.

Myanmar asked for and received multiple extensions from the court. It also challenged both the court's jurisdiction over the alleged crimes and The Gambia's right to bring the case against Myanmar.

To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video

In December 2019, Nobel Peace laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, Myanmar's de facto civilian leader at the time, personally defended the country at the ICJ, calling the allegations "incomplete and incorrect." Human rights advocates criticized her for appearing to defend the very military that had persecuted her for most of her life.

The military nonetheless seized power from her democratically elected government in 2021, once again placing her under arrest, where she remains. The ICJ rejected Myanmar's objections to the case the following year.

Since then, the Gambia and Myanmar have submitted their main arguments to the court in writing.

In December 2025, the court announced 14 days of hearings from January 12 to 29. They begin with seven days of opening oral arguments by both countries, to be broadcast live, followed by three days of witness and expert testimony.

The Gambia and Myanmar will then have two more days each for oral arguments, also to be broadcast live.

Sidoti called the hearings on the merits "the guts of the case," where each country lays out its arguments and challenges the other's claims before the judges.

They will have already made most of their arguments in writing, Elena Vignoli said, but added that the hearings inject a crucial element that documents cannot.

"That's where … judges get to interact with the parties on the merits, they get to hear firsthand from witnesses and experts that are brought by the parties. So, it is extremely, extremely significant," she said.

"It helps the court to finalize, to have all the information that they need … to enter into the deliberation phase," she added.

The Gambia is likely to have a number of survivors of Myanmar's alleged crimes testify, said Kate Vigneswaran, director of the global accountability initiative at the International Commission of Jurists, a nongovernmental group of legal experts around the world.

"Judging by the Gambia's application, they [its witnesses] may provide evidence not only about the killing of Rohingya and their forced displacement, but about how sexual and reproductive violence causes serious bodily and mental harm that can destroy the group and about the systematic violations of Rohingya's rights," she underlined.

"We may also hear evidence about how these acts particularly affect children."

Experts say The Gambia's case against Myanmar could also set a precedent for other cases before the ICJ, including one filed by South Africa against Israel in 2023 over its military operations in Gaza.

Like the Gambia, South Africa bore no direct impact from the crimes it is alleging.

"Israel is also before the International Court of Justice in relation to the genocide convention, and some of the legal interpretation issues that the court will decide in this case may have implications for the next case," said Sidoti, referring to the Gaza case, which is likely to be heard in the next few years.

The ICJ's decision may also affect whether Min Aung Hlaing, the Myanmar military's top general and leader of the 2021 coup, faces possible arrest.

Myanmar is currently under investigation by the International Criminal Court (ICC), also in The Hague, for its alleged crimes against the Rohingya. Unlike the ICJ, though, which judges the liability of states, the ICC can hold individuals criminally responsible. The ICC prosecutor asked the court to issue an arrest warrant for Min Aung Hlaing in 2024.

Sidoti said the ICJ's ultimate ruling on whether or not Myanmar is guilty of genocide against the Rohingya could influence the ICC's decision on whether to issue the warrant.

He and other experts say the ICJ could rule on the Gambia vs. Myanmar case by the end of this year.

If Myanmar is found liable, the ICJ's orders could take many forms.

Its past orders in similar cases have been "rather general in nature," Vigneswaran said.

The Gambia has asked the ICJ to order Myanmar to ensure that the perpetrators be tried in an independent domestic or international court and to provide reparations. That would include citizenship, which most Rohingya have been denied, and the right for those who fled Myanmar to return safely.

It has also asked that the court order Myanmar to guarantee it does not commit the same crimes again, which Vigneswaran said would likely involve extensive reform of the government and of the military's role in it.

She said the court could order Myanmar to compensate victims financially, though it denied that request in a previous genocide case.

"As with all ICJ judgments, enforcement would ultimately depend on political will and international pressure," she added.

Myanmar's military still rules the country, and since the 2021 coup, which set off a bloody civil war, has been accused of many other war crimes and crimes against humanity on its own people that continue today.

Sidoti said the UN Security Council is ultimately responsible for enforcing the orders of the ICJ, as it is the UN's top court.

But with China and Russia both shielding Myanmar from Security Council resolutions that would comprehensively sanction Myanmar, he sees little chance of it enforcing any ICJ orders against the regime.

"So, the Security Council should act; it has a legal obligation to act. But I don't expect it to. What I do expect is that other states acting individually and collectively will take stronger action against the Myanmar military in response to an adverse finding by the ICJ," he said.