 Please be seated. Sitting is open. The court meets today and will meet tomorrow under Article 74, Paragraph 3 of the Rules of Court, to hear the oral observations of the parties on the request for the indication of provisional measures submitted by the Republic of 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 Israel. Article 31, Paragraph 3 of the statute, to choose a judge ad hoc. South Africa has chosen Judge Dick Gang, Ernest Massenike, and Israel, Judge Aharon Barak. Article 20 of the statute provides that every member of the court shall, before taking up his duties, make a solemn declaration in open court that he will exercise his powers impartially and conscientiously. Pursuing to Article 31, Paragraph 6 of the statute, that same provision applies to judges ad hoc. Before inviting Judge Massenike and Judge Barak to make their solemn declarations, I shall first, in accordance with custom, say a few words about their careers and qualifications. Judge Dick Gang, Ernest Massenike of South African Nationality has had a distinguished career as a judge, law practitioner, and academic. After obtaining degrees in English, political science, and law from the University of South Africa, he practiced as an attorney and an advocate with the Pretoria Bar. In 2001, he was appointed a judge on the High Court in Pretoria, and a year later, he became a judge on the Constitutional Court of South Africa, where he was Deputy Chief Justice for more than a decade and Acting Chief Justice in 2013 and 2014. Judge Massenike is also an honorary professor in the Department of Jurisprudence at the University of Pretoria, and has served as a Chancellor of the Pretoria Technicon and the University of Witwatersrand in Johannesburg. Judge Massenike has received numerous honorary doctorates and awards. I shall now say a few words about the career and qualifications of Judge Barak. Judge Aharon Barak of Israeli Nationality has had an eminent career as a judge and law professor. He holds a PhD in law from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and served as the Dean of the Faculty of Law of that university between 1974 and 1975. He was appointed to the Israeli Supreme Court in 1978 and served as its president from 1995 to 2006. Prior to joining the Supreme Court, Judge Barak served as the Attorney General of the State of Israel between 1975 and 1978. He has taught law in a number of law schools, including Yale University, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and the Reichman University in Herzliya, Israel. Judge Barak has also written extensively in law and has received numerous honorary degrees and awards. In accordance with the order of precedence fixed by Article 7, paragraph three of the rules of court, I shall first invite Judge Mohsenike to make the solemn declaration prescribed by the statute and I request all those present to rise. Judge Mohsenike, you have the floor. I solemnly declare that I will perform my duties and exercise my powers as a judge honorably, faithfully, impartially, and conscientiously. I thank Judge Mohsenike and I now invite Judge Barak to make the solemn declaration prescribed by the statute. Judge Barak, you have the floor. I solemnly declare that I will perform my duties and exercise my powers as a judge honorably, faithfully, impartially, and consciously. I thank you, Judge Barak. Please be seated. I take note of the solemn declarations made by Judge Adhok Mohsenike and Judge Adhok Barak and I declare them duly installed as judges Adhok 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 Israel. I shall now recall the principle steps of the procedure in the present case. On 29 December, 2023, the government of South Africa filed in the registry of the court an application instituting proceedings against the State of Israel, alleging violations by the latter of its obligations under the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. I shall refer to this convention as the genocide convention. To found the jurisdiction of the court, South Africa invokes Article 36, paragraph one, of the statute of court and Article nine of the genocide convention. South Africa states that its applications, concerns, acts threatened, adopted, condoned, taken and being taken by the government and military of Israel against the Palestinian people, a distinct national, racial and ethnical group in the wake of the attacks in Israel on 7 October 2023. South Africa contends that the acts and omissions by Israel of which it complains are genocidal in character because, I quote, they are intended to bring about the destruction of a substantial part of the Palestinian national, racial and ethnical group, that being the part of the Palestinian group in the Gaza Strip, end of quote. South Africa asserts that the relevant acts are attributable to Israel, which has failed to prevent genocide and is committing genocide and which has also violated and continues to violate other fundamental obligations under the genocide convention. The application contains a request for the indication of provisional measures pursuant to article 41 of the statute of court and articles 73, 74 and 75 of the rules of court. According to South Africa, I quote, provisional measures are necessary in this case to protect against further, severe and irreparable harm to the rights of the Palestinian people under the genocide convention, which continued to be violated with impunity. South Africa requests that the court indicate provisional measures to protect and preserve those rights as well as its own rights under the convention and to prevent any aggravation or extension of the dispute pending the determination of the merits of the issues raised by the application, end of quote. The registrar will now read out the passage from the request specifying the provisional measures which the government of South Africa is asking the court to indicate. You have the floor, Mr. Registrar. Thank you, Madam President. I quote, one, the State of Israel shall immediately suspend its military operations in and against Gaza. Two, the State of Israel shall ensure that any military or irregular armed units which may be directed, supported or influenced by it as well as any organizations and persons which may be subject to its control, direction or influence, take no steps in furtherance of the military operation, refer 2.1 above. Three, the Republic of South Africa and the State of Israel shall each, in accordance with their obligations under the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide in relation to the Palestinian people, take all reasonable measures within their power to prevent genocide. Four, 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 Palestinian people as a group protected by the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide, desist from the commission of any and 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 the members of the group, C, deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in all or in part, and D, imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group. Five, the State of Israel shall, person 2.4C above in relation to Palestinians, desist from and take all measures within its power, including the rescinding of relevant orders of restrictions and or of prohibitions to prevent. A, the expulsion and forced displacement from their homes. B, the deprivation of B1, access to adequate food and water. B2, access to humanitarian assistance, including access to adequate fuel, shelter, clothes, hygiene, and sanitation. B3, medical supplies and assistance. And C, the destruction of Palestinian life in Gaza. Six, the State of Israel shall, in relations to Palestinians, ensure that its military, as well as any irregular armed units or individuals, which may be directed, supported, or otherwise influenced by it, and any organizations and persons which may be subject to its control, direction, or influence, do not commit any acts described in four and five above. Or engage in direct and public incitement, to commit genocide, conspiracy to commit genocide, attempt to commit genocide, or complicity in genocide. And in so far as they do engage therein, that steps are taken towards their punishment, pursuant to articles one, two, three, and four, of the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide. Seven, 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 two of the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide. To that end, the State of Israel shall not act to deny or otherwise restrict access by fact-finding missions, international mandates, and other bodies to Gaza to assist in ensuring the preservation and retention of said evidence. Eight, the State of Israel shall submit a report to the court on all measures taken to give effect to this order within one week, as from the date of this order, and thereafter at such regular intervals as the court shall order until a final decision on the case is rendered by the court. Nine, the State of Israel shall refrain from any action and shall ensure that no action is taken which might aggravate or extend the dispute before the court or make it more difficult to resolve, end of court. I thank the registrar. Immediately after the application containing the request for the indication of provisional measures was filed, the deputy registrar transmitted an original copy thereof to the government of Israel. He also notified the Secretary General of the United Nations. According to Article 74, paragraph one of the rules of court, a request for the indication of provisional measures shall have priority over all other cases. Paragraph two of the same article states that the court shall proceed to a decision on the request as a matter of urgency. This imperative must, however, be balanced with the need to fix a date of oral proceedings in such a way as to afford the parties an opportunity to be represented at the hearings. Consequently, the parties were informed that the date for the opening of the oral proceedings, during which they could present their observations on the request for the indication of provisional measures had been fixed for Thursday, 11 January 2024 at 10 a.m. I would now like to welcome the delegations of South Africa and Israel. And I note the presence before the court of the agents and counsel of both parties. This morning, the court will hear the single round of oral argument of South Africa, which has submitted the request for the indication of provisional measures. It will hear Israel tomorrow morning at 10 a.m. For purposes of this single round of oral argument, each party will have available to it a three-hour sitting. In this first sitting, South Africa may, if required, avail itself of a short extension beyond 1 p.m. today in view of the time taken up by these introductory remarks. Before I give the floor to the agent of South Africa, I wish to draw the party's attention to practice direction 11, which states as follows, I quote, in oral proceedings on the request for the indication of provisional measures, parties should limit themselves to what is relevant to the criteria for the indication of provisional measures as stipulated in the statute, rules, and jurisprudence of the court. They should not enter into the merits of the case beyond what is strictly necessary for that purpose, end of quote. I now give the floor to the agent of South Africa, his Excellency, Mr. Visdomuzzi Madonsela. You have the floor, Excellency. Madam President, distinguished members of the court, it is an honor and a privilege for me to appear before you today on behalf of the Republic of South Africa. I wish to express my gratitude to the court for convening this hearing on the earliest possible date to entertain South Africa's requests for the indication of provisional measures in this matter. In our application, South Africa has recognized the ongoing nagpah of the Palestinian people through Israel's colonization since 1948, which has systematically and forcibly dispossessed, displaced, and fragmented the Palestinian people, deliberately denying them their internationally recognized inalienable right to self-determination, and their internationally recognized right of return as refugees to their towns and villages in what is now the state of Israel. We are also particularly mindful of Israel's institutionalized regime of discriminatory laws, policies, and practices designed and maintained to establish domination, subjecting the Palestinian people to apartheid on both sides of the green line. Decades-long impunity for widespread and systematic human rights violations has emboldened Israel in its recurrence and intensification of international crimes in Palestine. At the outset, South Africa acknowledges that the genocidal acts and omissions by the state of Israel inevitably form part of a continuum of illegal acts perpetrated against the Palestinian people since 1948. The application places Israel's genocidal acts and omissions within the broader context of Israel's 75-year apartheid, 56-year occupation, and 16-year siege imposed on the Gaza Strip, a siege which itself has been described by the director of UNRWA affairs in Gaza as a silent killer of people. As the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination warned on December 21st, hate speech and dehumanizing discourse targeted at Palestinians is raising severe concerns regarding Israel and other states' parties' obligation to prevent crimes against humanity and genocide in the Gaza Strip. This warning has been followed by a succession of warnings, including by 37 United Nations special reporters of the failure of the international system to mobilize to prevent genocide in Gaza. Today we are joined in court by representatives of the Palestinian state, the Palestinians who work in the fields of human rights, including residents of Gaza, who were in Gaza just a few days ago. They are some of the lucky ones who managed to get out of Gaza. Their future and the future of their fellow Palestinians who are still in Gaza depend on the decision this court will make on this matter. With the leave of the court, I now call upon His Excellency, Mr. Ronald Lamola, Minister of Justice of the Republic of South Africa to make South Africa's substantive opening remarks. I thank the agent of South Africa for his statement, and I now invite the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services for the Republic of South Africa. His Excellency, Mr. Ronald Lamola, to take the floor. You have the floor, Excellency. Thank you, Madam President, and distinguished members of the court. It is an honor for me to stand here in front of you on behalf of the Republic of South Africa on this exceptional case. In extending our hands across the miles to the people of Palestine, we do so in full knowledge that we're part of a humanity that is at one. These were the words of our founding president, Nelson Mandela. This is the spirit in which South Africa acceded to the convention on the prevention and punishment of crime of genocide in 1998. This is the spirit in which we approach this court, as a contracting party to the convention. This is a commitment to all, to the people of Palestine and Israelis alike. As previously mentioned, the violence and the destruction in Palestine and Israel did not begin on the 7th of October, 2023. The Palestinians have experienced systematic operation and violence for the last 76 years, on 6th of October, 2023, and every day since October the 7th, 2023. In Gaza Strip, at least since 2004, Israel continues to exercise control over the airspace, territorial waters, land crossing, water, electricity, and civilian infrastructure, as well as over key government functions. Entry and exit by air and sea to Gaza is strictly prohibited, with Israel operating the only two crossing points. Given that continuing effective control by Israel and over the territory of Gaza, Israel is still considered by international community to be under belligerent occupation by Israel. South Africa unequivocally condemned the targeting of civilians by Hamas and other Palestinians armed groups and the taking of hostages on the 7th of October, 2023. And as again expressly recorded, this condemnation mostly recently, and it's not verbal, to Israel on the 21st of December, 2023. That said, no armed attack on a state territory, no matter how serious, even an attack involving atrocity crimes can provide any justification for or defends two breaches to the convention, whether as a matter of law or morality. Israel's response to the 7th of October, 2023 attack has crossed this line and give rise to the breaches of the convention. Faced with such evidence and our duty to do what we can do to prevent genocide, as contained in article one of the convention, the South African government initiated this case. South Africa welcomes the fact that Israel has engaged with the case in order to have the matter resolved by the court. After careful and objective consideration of the facts and submission put before it, as the parties to the convention have intended. This hearing is concerned with South Africa's request to the court for the indication of provisional measures and will necessarily have a narrow and particular focus. I invoke the words of Martin Luther King, when he said, the arch of the moral of the universe is long, always bending towards justice. South Africa's case will be presented by a team of six legal counsels, comprising of Dr. Adila Asim, Mr. Tambergan Dugaitobi, Professor John Dugat, Ms. Blim Likron, Mr. Max Dupris, and Professor Wagon Low. Dr. Adila Asim, Senior Counsel, will provide an overview of the risk of genocidal acts in the perpetual vulnerability to acts of genocide. Mr. Tambergan Dugaitobi, Senior Counsel, will examine Israel's alleged genocidal intent. Professor John Dugat, Senior Counsel, will focus on the prima facie jurisdiction. Professor Max Dupris's Senior Counsel will discuss the various rights currently under threat. Bligny Crowell King's Counsel will provide, will present the argument of agency and potential irreparable harm. And Professor Wagon Low, King's Counsel will speak on the provisional measures. I now request Madam President, the court to call on Dr. Asim. I thank you. His Excellency, Mr. Lamola. And I now invite Ms. Adila Asim to address the court. You have the floor, Madam. Thank you. Madam President, distinguished members of the court, it is a privilege to appear on behalf of the Republic of South Africa in this case of exceptional importance. It's a case that underscores the very essence of our shared humanity, as expressed in the preamble to the Genocide Convention. It's my task to address the court on the genocidal acts that have led to this urgent request for provisional measures under Article 41 of the statute of the court. South Africa contends that Israel has transgressed Article 2 of the Convention by committing actions that fall within the definition of genocide. The actions show a systematic pattern of conduct from which genocide can be inferred. Allow me to place these acts in context. Gaza is one of the two constituent territories of the occupied Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967. It is a narrow strip of approximately 365 square kilometers as depicted in the map now displayed. Israel continues to exercise control over the space, territorial waters, land crossings, water, electricity, electromagnetic sphere, and civilian infrastructure in Gaza, as well as over key governmental functions. As the Honorable Minister has said, entry and exit by air and sea to Gaza is prohibited with Israel operating the only two crossing points. Gaza, which is one of the most densely populated places in the world, is home to approximately 2.3 million Palestinians, almost half of them children. For the past 96 days, Israel has subjected Gaza to what has been described as one of the heaviest conventional bombing campaigns in the history of modern warfare. Palestinians in Gaza are being killed by Israeli weaponry and bombs from air, land, and sea. They are also at immediate risk of death by starvation, dehydration, and disease as a result of the ongoing siege by Israel, the destruction of Palestinian towns, the insufficient aid being allowed through to the Palestinian population, and the impossibility of distributing this limited aid while bombs fall. This conduct renders essentials to life unobtainable. At this provisional measures stage, as this court has made clear in the Gambia-Myanmar case, it is not necessary for the court to come to a final view on the question of whether Israel's conduct constitutes genocide. It is necessary to establish only whether at least some of the acts alleged are capable of falling within the provisions of the convention. On analyzing the specific and ongoing genocidal acts complained of, it is clear that at least some, if not all of these acts, fall within the convention's provisions. These acts are documented in detail in South Africa's application and confirmed by reliable, often UN, sources. It's thus unnecessary and impossible for me to recount all of them. I will highlight only some in order to illustrate the pattern of genocidal conduct. The UN statistics that are relied upon are up to date as of 9 January 2024. In South Africa's oral submissions, we will illustrate the facts that we rely on with limited use of audiovisual material. Madam President, we do so with restraint and only where necessary and always with respect to the Palestinian people. Against this background, I move now to demonstrate in turn how Israel's conduct violates articles 2A, 2B, 2C, and 2D of the convention. First genocidal act committed by Israel is the mass killing of Palestinians in Gaza in violation of article 2A of the Genocide Convention. As the UN Secretary General explained five weeks ago, the level of Israel's killing is so extensive that nowhere is safe in Gaza. As I stand before you today, 23,210 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli forces during the sustained attacks over the last three months. At least 70% of whom are believed to be women and children. Some 7,000 Palestinians are still missing, presumed dead under the rubble. Palestinians in Gaza are subjected to relentless bombing wherever they go. They are killed in their homes, in places where they seek shelter, in hospitals, in schools, in mosques, in churches, and as they try to find food and water for their families. They have been killed if they failed to evacuate in the places to which they have fled and even while they attempted to flee along Israeli declared safe routes. The level of killing is so extensive that those whose bodies are found are buried in mass graves, often unidentified. In the first three weeks alone, following 7 October, Israel deployed 6,000 bombs per week. At least 200 times, it has deployed 2,000 pound bombs in southern areas of Palestine designated as safe. These bombs have also decimated the north, including refugee camps. 2,000 pound bombs are some of the biggest and most destructive bombs available. They are dropped by lethal fighter jets that are used to strike targets on the ground by one of the world's most resourced armies. Israel has killed an unparalleled and unprecedented number of civilians with the full knowledge of how many civilian lives each bomb will take. More than 1,800 families, Palestinian families in Gaza, have lost multiple family members and hundreds of multi-generational families have been wiped out with no remaining survivors. Mothers, fathers, children, siblings, grandparents, aunts, cousins, often all killed together. This killing is nothing short of destruction of Palestinian life. It is inflicted deliberately. No one is spared, not even newborn babies. The scale of Palestinian child killings in Gaza is such that UN chiefs have described it as a graveyard for children. The devastation, we submit, is intended to and has laid waste to Gaza beyond any acceptable legal, let alone humane, justification. The second genocidal act identified in South Africa's application is Israel's infliction of serious bodily or mental harm to Palestinians in Gaza in violation of Article 2b of the Genocide Convention. Israel's attacks have left close to 60,000 Palestinians wounded and maimed. Again, the majority of them women and children. This, in circumstances where the healthcare system has all but collapsed. I return to this later in my speech. Large numbers of Palestinian civilians, including children, are arrested, blindfolded, forced to undress and loaded onto trucks taken to unknown locations. The suffering of the Palestinian people, physical and mental, is undeniable. Turning to the third genocidal act under Article 2c, Israel has deliberately imposed conditions on Gaza that cannot sustain life and are calculated to bring about its physical destruction. Israel achieves this in at least four ways. First, by displacement. Israel has forced the displacement of about 85% of Palestinians in Gaza. There is nowhere safe for them to flee to. Those who cannot leave or refuse to be displaced have either been killed or at extreme risk of being killed in their homes. Many Palestinians have been displaced multiple times as families are forced to move repeatedly in search of safety. Israel's first evacuation order on 13 October required the evacuation of over one million people, including children, the elderly, the wounded and infirm. Entire hospitals were required to evacuate even newborn babies in intensive care. The order required them to evacuate the north to the south within 24 hours. The order itself was genocidal. It required immediate movement, taking only what could be carried while no humanitarian assistance was permitted and fuel, water and food and other necessities of life had deliberately been cut off. It was clearly calculated to bring about the destruction of the population. For many Palestinians, the forced evacuation from their homes is inevitably permanent. Israel has now damaged or destroyed an estimated 355,000 Palestinian homes, leaving at least half a million Palestinians with no home to return to. The special rapporteur on the human rights of internally displaced persons explains that houses and infrastructure, I quote, have been raised to the ground, frustrating any realistic prospects for displaced Gazans to return home, repeating a long history of mass force displacement of Palestinians by Israel. There is no indication at all that Israel accepts responsibility for rebuilding what it has destroyed. Instead, the destruction is celebrated by the Israeli army. Soldiers film themselves joyfully detonating entire apartment blocks and town squares, erecting the Israeli flag over the wreckage, seeking to re-establish Israeli settlements on the rubble of Palestinian homes and thus extinguishing the very basis of Palestinian life in Gaza. Second, together with the forced displacement, Israel's conduct has been deliberately calculated to cause widespread hunger, dehydration and starvation. Israel's campaign has pushed Gazans to the brink of famine. An unprecedented 93% of the population in Gaza is facing crisis levels of hunger. Of all the people in the world currently suffering catastrophic hunger, more than 80% are in Gaza. The situation is such that the experts are now predicting that more Palestinians in Gaza may die from starvation and disease than airstrikes. And yet Israel continues to impede the effective delivery of humanitarian assistance to Palestinians, not only refusing to allow sufficient aid in but removing the ability to distribute it through constant bombardment and obstruction. Just three days ago, on 8 January, a planned mission by UN agencies to deliver urgent medical supplies and vital fuel to a hospital and medical supply center was denied by Israeli authorities. This marked the fifth denial of a mission to the center since 26 December, leaving five hospitals in northern Gaza without access to life-saving medical supplies and equipment. Aid trucks that are allowed in are seized upon by the hungry. What is provided is simply not enough. President members of the court, this is an image of an aid truck arriving in Gaza. Israel has deliberately inflicted conditions in which Palestinians in Gaza are denied adequate shelter, clothes or sanitation. For weeks, there have been acute shortages of clothes, bedding blankets and critical non-food items. Clean water is all but gone, leaving far below the amount required to safely drink, clean and cook. Accordingly, the WHO has stated that Gaza is experiencing soaring rates of infectious disease outbreaks. Cases of diarrhea in children under five years of age have increased 2,000% since hostilities began. When combined and left untreated, malnutrition and disease create a deadly cycle. The fourth genocidal act under Article 2B is Israel's military assault on Gaza's healthcare system, which renders life unsustainable. Even by 7 December, the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to health noted that the healthcare of infrastructure in the Gaza Strip has been completely obliterated. Those wounded by Israel in Gaza are being deprived of life-saving medical care. Gaza's healthcare system already crippled by years of blockade and prior attacks by Israel is unable to cope with the sheer scale of the injuries. Finally, the UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls has pointed to acts committed by Israel that would fall under the fourth category of genocidal acts in Article 2D of the Convention. On 22 November, she expressly warned the following. The reproductive violence inflicted by Israel on Palestinian women, newborn babies, infants and children could be qualified as acts of genocide under Article 2 of the Genocide Convention, including imposing measures intended to prevent births within a group. Israel is blocking the delivery of life-saving aid, including essential medical kits for delivering babies. In circumstances where an estimated 180 women are giving birth in Gaza each day of these 180 women, the WHO warns that 15% are likely to experience pregnancy or birth-related complications and need additional medical care. That care is simply not available. In some, Madam President, all of these acts, individually and collectively, form a calculated pattern of conduct by Israel, indicating a genocidal intent. This intent is evident from Israel's conduct in specially targeting Palestinians living in Gaza, using weaponry that causes large-scale homicidal destruction, as well as targeting targeted sniping of civilians, designating safe zones for Palestinians to seek refuge and then bombing these, depriving Palestinians in Gaza of basic needs, food, water, healthcare, fuel, sanitation and communications, destroying social infrastructure, homes, schools, mosques, churches, hospitals. And killing, seriously injuring and leaving large numbers of children orphaned. Genocides are never declared in advance. But this court has the benefit of the past 13 weeks of evidence that shows incontrovertibly a pattern of conduct and related intention that justifies a plausible claim of genocidal acts. In the Gambia-Myanmar case, this court did not hesitate to impose provisional measures in relation to allegations that Myanmar was committing genocidal acts against the Rohingya within the Rakhine state. The facts before the court today are sadly even more stark. And like the Gambia-Myanmar case, deserve and demand this court's intervention. Every day there is mounting irreparable loss of life, property, dignity and humanity for the Palestinian people. Our news feeds show graphic images of suffering that has become unbearable to watch. Nothing will stop the suffering except in order from this court. Without an indication of provisional measures, the atrocities will continue with the Israeli Defence Force indicating that it intends pursuing this course of action for at least a year. In the words of the UN Under-Secretary-General on 5 January 2024, I quote, You think getting aid into Gaza is easy? Think again. Three layers of inspections before trucks can even enter. Confusion and long queues. A growing list of rejected items. A crossing point meant for pedestrians, not trucks. Another crossing point where trucks have been blocked by desperate hungry communities. A destroyed commercial sector. Constant bombardments. Poor communications. Damaged roads. Convoys shot at. Damage delays at checkpoints. A traumatised and exhausted population crammed into a smaller and smaller sliver of land. Shelters which have long exceeded their full capacity. Aid workers themselves displaced, killed. This is an impossible situation for the people of Gaza and for those trying to help them. The fighting must stop. Close quote. Madam President, members of the court, that concludes my section on the genocidal conduct of Israel. I thank you for your patient attention and I ask that you call Advocate Nuka Tobi to the podium to address the court on genocidal intent. I thank Ms. Hassim and I now invite Mr. Timbeke Nuka Tobi to address the court. You have the floor, sir. Madam President and distinguished members of the court, it is a privilege to appear before the court on behalf of South Africa. I will address Israel's genocidal intent. At this stage, the court is not required to determine that the only inference to be drawn from the available evidence is genocidal to order provisional measures as that is to decide the merits. Rather, the assessment of the existence of an intent to destroy could be made by the court only at the stage of the examination of the merits. That sum of the alleged acts may also amount to atrocities other than genocides, does not exclude the finding of plausible acts of genocides. Madam President South Africa is not alone in drawing attention to Israel's genocidal rhetoric against Palestinians in Gaza. Fifteen United Nations special rapporteurs and 21 members of the United Nations working groups have warned that what is happening in Gaza reflects a genocide in the making. And then of that intent to destroy the Palestinian people and our occupation, Israel has a genocidal intent against the Palestinians in Gaza. That is evident from the way in which Israel's military attack is being conducted which has been described by Ms. Hassim S.C. It is systematic in its character and form. The mass displacement of the population of Gaza headed into areas where they continue to be killed and the deliberate creation of conditions that lead to a slow death unquote. There is also the clear pattern of conduct the targeting of family homes and civilian infrastructure laying waste to vast areas of Gaza and the bombing, shelling and sniping of men, women and children where they stand the destruction of the health infrastructure and lack of access to humanitarian assistance. So much so that as we stand today 1% of the Palestinian population in Gaza has been systematically decimated and one in four Gazans have been injured since 7 October. These two elements alone are capable of evidencing Israel's genocidal intent into the whole or part of the Palestinian population in Gaza. However, third there is an extraordinary feature in this case that Israel's political leaders military commanders and persons holding official positions have systematically and in explicit terms declared their genocidal intent. And these statements are repeated by soldiers on the ground in Gaza as they engage in the destruction of Palestinians and the physical infrastructure of Gaza. We show this third element next. Israel's special genocidal intent is rooted in the belief that in fact the enemy is not just the military wing of Hamas or indeed Hamas generally, but is embedded in the fabric of Palestinian life in Gaza. On 7 October in a televised address Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared war on Gaza and I quote Israel had started clearing out the communities that have been infiltrated by terrorists and he warned of an unprecedented price to be paid by the enemy. There are more than 2.3 million Palestinians in Gaza. Israel is the occupying power in control of Gaza. It controls entry, exit and the internal movements of inside Gaza. And Qua Prime Minister Mr. Netanyahu exercises overall command over the Israeli Defence Force and in 10 the Palestinians in Gaza. Prime Minister Netanyahu in his address to the Israeli forces on 28 October 2023 preparing for the invasion of Gaza urged the soldiers to remember what Amalek has done to you. This refers to the Biblical command by God to Saul for the retaliatory destruction of an entire group of people known as the Amalekites put to death men and women children and infants cattle and sheep camels and donkeys. The genocidal invocation to Amalek was anything but idle. It was repeated by Mr. Netanyahu in a letter to the Israeli Armed Forces on 3 November 2023. Madam President let the Prime Minister's words speak for themselves. As Dan to you says our holy Bible and we do remember and we are fighting our brave troops and combatants who are now in Gaza or around Gaza and Deputy Speaker of the Kenneset Israel's parliament has called for the erasure of the Gaza slip from the face of the war. The Defence Force agrees on 9 October the Defence Minister gave a situation update to the army where he said that as Israel was imposing a complete siege on Gaza there would be no electricity no food, no water, no fuel everything would be closed because Israel is fighting human animals speaking to troops on the Gaza border he instructed them that he has released all the restraints and that Gaza won't return to what it was before we will eliminate everything we will reach all places eliminate everything reach all places without any restraints the theme of destruction of human animals was reiterated by an Israeli army coordinator of government activities in the territories on 9 October 2023 who in an address to Hamas and the residents of Gaza stated that Hamas has become ISIS and that the citizens of Gaza are celebrating instead of being horrified he concluded that human animals are dealt with accordingly Israel has imposed total blockade on Gaza no electricity no water, just damage you wanted hell, you will get hell the language of systematic dehumanization is evident here human animals both Hamas and civilians are condemned within the Israeli cabinet this is also a widely held view the minister of energy and infrastructure Israel cuts called for the denial of water and fuel as this is what will happen to a people of children killers and slaughterers this admits of no ambiguity it means to create conditions of death of the Palestinian people in Gaza to die a slow death because of starvation and dehydration not to die quickly because of a bomb attack or snipers but to die nevertheless in fact heritage minister said that Israel must find ways for dozens that are more painful than death it is no answer to say that neither are in command of the army they are ministers in the Israeli government they vote in the Knesset and are in a position to shape state policy the intent to destroy Gaza has been nurtured at the highest levels of state as president Isaac Herzog has joined the ranks of those signing bombs destined for Gaza having previously noted that the entire population in Gaza is responsible and that this rhetoric about civilians not aware not involved is absolutely not true we will fight until we break their backbone later attempts by the president and others to neutralize this speech have not altered the sting of his words which was to tar all Palestinians as responsible for the actions of Hamas nor as I will show below has it affected how state policy is understood within government the minister of national security repeated the president's statements that Hamas and civilians are responsible in equal measure on 10 November 2023 in a televised interview he stated that when we say that Hamas should be destroyed it also means those who celebrate those who support and those who hand out candy all terrorists and they should also be destroyed these are orders to destroy and to maim what cannot be destroyed these statements are not open to neutral interpretations or after the fact rationalizations and reinterpretations by Israel the statements were made by persons in command of the state they communicated state policy it is simple if the statements were not intended they would not have been made the genocidal intent behind these statements is not ambiguous to the Israeli soldiers on the ground indeed it is directing their actions and objectives on 7 December 2023 Israeli soldiers proved that they understood the prime minister's message to remember what the Amalek has done to you as genocidal they were recorded by journalists dancing and singing we know our motto they are not uninvolved that they obey one commandment to wipe off the seed of Amalek the prime minister's invocation of Amalek is being used by soldiers to justify the killing of civilians including children these are the soldiers reputing the inciting words of their prime minister in Gaza were filmed dancing, chanting and singing in November may their village burn may Gaza be erased there is now a trend among the soldiers to film themselves committing atrocities against civilians in Gaza in a form of snuff video one recorded himself detonating over 50 houses in Shujaiya other soldiers were recorded singing we will destroy all of Khan Yunus and this house we will blow it up for you and for everything you do for us these are the soldiers putting into effect their command the commanders of the army are also of the same mind Israeli army commander Yair Ben David has stated that the army had done in Beit Hanon and did there as Shimon and Levitt did in Nablus and that the entire Gaza should resemble Beit Hanon Israeli soldier Yesha Yeshalev published a video against the backdrop of the ruins of what was the site of Al-Azhar University with the caption once upon a time there was a university in Gaza and in practice a school for murderers and human animals soldiers obviously believe that this language and their actions are acceptable because the destruction of Palestinian life in Gaza is articulated state policy senior political and military officials encouraged without censure the 95-year-old Israeli army reservist Ezra Yahin a veteran of the Yasin massacre against the Palestinians in 1948 to speak to the soldiers ahead of the ground invasion in Gaza in his tour he echoed the same sentiment while being driven around in an officially Israeli army vehicle just in Israeli I quote be triumphant and finish them off and don't leave anyone behind erase the memory of them erase them their families, mothers and children these animals can no longer live if you have an Arab neighbor don't wait go to his home and shoot him we want to invade not like before we want to enter and destroy what's in front of us and destroy houses then destroy the one after it with all of our forces complete destruction enter and destroy as you can see we will witness things we've never dreamed of let them drop bombs on them and erase them as recently as 7th January 2024 a soldier was posted online where he boasts that the army had destroyed the entire village of Hebet Azar for two weeks he said they had worked hard to bomb the village and executed their mandate any suggestion that senior politicians did not mean what they said much less that the meaning was not understood by soldiers in Gaza would be without any merit the scale of destruction in Gaza the mass targeting of family homes and civilians the war being a war on children all make clear that genocidal intent is both understood and is being put into practice the articulated intent is the destruction of Palestinian life in all its manifestations the genocidal rhetoric is also commonplace in Israeli Knesset members of the Knesset have repeatedly called for Gaza to be wiped out flattened, erased and crushed on all its inhabitants they have deployed anyone feeling sorry for the uninvolved Gazans asserting repeatedly that there are no uninvolved that there are no innocence in Gaza because of the women and children should not be separated from the citizens of Gaza and that the children of Gaza have brought this upon themselves and that there should be one sentence for everyone there death finally the lawmakers have called for mercilessly bombing from the air with some advocating for the use of nuclear doomsday weapons and a nakba of 48 the prime minister's genocidal speech has gained ground among some elements of civil society a famous singer has repeated Mr Netanyahu's Amalek reference stating that Gaza must be wiped out and be destroyed with every Amalek seat we simply must destroy all of Gaza and exterminate everyone who is there another has called to erase Gaza a single person there journalists and commentators have announced that the woman is an enemy the baby is an enemy the pregnant woman is an enemy that it is necessary to turn the strip into a slaughterhouse to demolish every house our soldiers come across exterminate everyone the intentional failure of the government of Israel to condemn prevent and punish such genocidal incitement constitutes in itself a grave violation of the genocide convention we should recall that in article one of the convention Israel confirmed that genocide whether committed in time of peace or in time of war or in time under international law and it undertook to prevent and to punish it as such this failure to prevent condemn and punish such speech by the government has served to normalize genocidal rhetoric and extreme danger for Palestinians within Israeli society as M.K. Moshe Sada from the liquid party has said the government's own that Palestinians share his views that Palestinians in Gaza must be destroyed I quote you go anyway and they tell you to destroy them in the kibbutz they tell you to destroy them my friends at the state attorney's office who fought with me on political issues in debate said to me it is clear that we need to destroy all Gazans destroy all Gazans Israel is a way of its destruction of Palestinian life and infrastructure despite this knowledge it has maintained and indeed intensified its military activity in Gaza as to full awareness in the week after 7 October NGOs and the United Nations warned of an unprecedented humanitarian crisis in Gaza the UN stated that actors must allow humanitarian teams and goods to immediately and safely reach the hundreds of thousands of people in need so right from the beginning Israel knew that it was depriving water food, electricity and essentials for survivor it said so everything is closed it is known that it was depriving Palestinians of healthcare and treatment for injury in the middle of an unprecedented bombardment of food and water and of other essentials for survivor this prompted the World Health Organization to say we are on our knees asking for sustained scaled up protected humanitarian operations appealing to all those in a situation to make a decision or influence decision makers to give us the humanitarian space to address this human catastrophe despite this knowledge Israel continues to target infrastructure essential for survivor water and sanitation infrastructure solar panels bakeries meals crops decimating the healthcare system it targets aid workers and the infrastructure of the United Nations it is because of the policy of Israel that Gaza has become a place of death and despair in conclusion Madam President many propagators of grave atrocities have protested that they were misunderstood that they did not mean what they said and that their own words were taken out of context what state would admit to a genocidal intent yet the distinctive feature of this case has not been the silence as such but the reiteration and repetition of genocidal speech throughout every sphere of state in Israel will remind the court of the identity and authority of the genocidal insiders the prime minister the president the minister of defense the minister of national security the minister of energy and infrastructure members of the Knesset senior army officials and food soldiers genocidal utterances and are therefore not out in the fringes they are embodied in state policy the intent to destroy is plainly understood by soldiers on the ground it is also fully understood by some within the Israeli society with a government facing criticism for allowing in any aid to Gaza on the basis that it is recanting on its promise any suggestion that Israeli officials did not mean what they said or were not fully understood by soldiers and civilians alike to mean what they said should be rejected by this court the evidence of genocidal intent is not only chilling it is also overwhelming and incontrovertible Madam President it is now my honor to request you to call Mr. John Dugard on the subject of jurisdiction I thank Mr. Gutt-Kaitobi and I now invite Professor John Dugard to take the floor. You have the floor Professor. Madam President distinguished members of the court it is a great privilege to appear before you today on behalf of the Republic of South Africa in my speech I will address the question of jurisdiction the people of South Africa and of Israel both have a history of suffering both states have become parties to the genocide convention in the determination to end suffering in the spirit neither has attached a reservation to Article 9 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide it is in terms of this convention dedicated to saving humanity that South Africa brings this dispute before the court. The prohibition on genocide is a peremptory norm obligations under the genocide convention or Urga Omnes obligations owed to the international community as a whole states parties to this convention are obliged not only to desist from genocidal acts but also to prevent them that the obligation of state parties to prevent acts of genocide is the foundation of the convention is clear from its placement in Article 1 of the convention Article 9 of the genocide convention makes it clear that state parties are guardians of the genocide convention unlike other treaties designed to protect human rights it does not oblige states to pursue negotiations as a prelude to approaching this court it does not treat the ending of genocidal acts as a bilateral affair between states instead it envisages a situation in which a state acting on behalf of the international community as a whole it envisages the jurisdiction of the court as a matter of urgency to prevent genocide South Africa has a long history of close relations with Israel for this reason it did not bring the dispute immediately to the attention of the court it watched with horror as Israel responded to the terrible atrocities committed against its people on 7 of October with an attack on Gaza that resulted in the indiscriminate killing of innocent Palestinian civilians most of whom were women and children the South African government repeatedly voiced its concerns in the Security Council and in public statements that Israel's actions had become genocidal on 10 November in a formal diplomatic day it informed Israel that while it condemned the actions of Hamas it wanted the International Criminal Court to investigate the leadership of Israel for international crimes including genocide as the court will know the definition of genocide in the Rome Statute repeats that of the genocide convention on 17 October South Africa referred Israel's commission of the crime of genocide to the International Criminal Court for vigorous investigation in announcing this decision President Ramaphosa publicly expressed his abhorrence for what is happening right now in Gaza which is now turned into a concentration camp where genocide is taking place to accuse a state of committing acts of genocide and to condemn it in such strong language is a major act on the part of a state at this stage it became clear that there was a serious dispute between South Africa and Israel which would end only with the end of Israel's genocidal act South Africa repeated this accusation at a meeting of BRICS in December and at an emergency special session of the United Nations General Assembly on 12 December no response from Israel was forthcoming none was necessary by this time the dispute had crystallized as a matter of law this was confirmed by Israel's official and unequivocal denial on 6 December that it was committing genocide in Gaza however as a matter of courtesy before filing the present application on 21 December South Africa sent a note verbal to the embassy of Israel to reiterate its view that Israel's acts of genocide in Gaza amounted to genocide that it as a state party to the genocide convention and an obligation to prevent genocide from being committed Israel responded by way of a note that failed to address the issues raised by South Africa in its note and neither affirmed nor denied the existence of a dispute this was emailed later on 27 December this note was received by the relevant South African team on 29 December after the present application was filed on 4 January South Africa replied to this note verbal highlighting Israel's failure to prevent any response to the matters raised by South Africa over the previous months as reiterated in its note verbal South Africa made it clear that given Israel's ongoing against Palestinians in Gaza the dispute referred to in its note verbal of 21 December remained unresolved and was plainly not capable of resolution by way of a bilateral meeting nevertheless South Africa proposed a meeting on 5 January again out of courtesy Israel responded to this note verbal by proposing that we reconnect to coordinate a meeting at the earliest opportunity after the close of hearings in the present case to this South Africa understandably replied that such a meeting would serve no purpose Madam President these notes verbal are all to be found in the judges folder the existence of a dispute is a matter to be determined by an objective determination of the fact as they existed at the time of the filing of the application at this time South Africa had already accused Israel in the Security Council the General Assembly and other public fora of engaging in genocidal acts it had conducted a diplomatic day march on Israel warning it that it viewed its conduct as genocidal it had requested the international criminal court to vigorously investigate crimes under the Genocide Convention committed by Israel in the Guise of Strip and it accused Israel into alia of the deliberate targeting of civilians intentionally causing starvation and impeding relief supplies it had accused Israel leaders of expressing the intent of committing genocide Israel had flatly denied South Africa's accusations despite these harsh accusations Israel has persisted in this genocidal act against the population of Gaza what more evidence could be required to establish a dispute it is precisely because of the situation of this kind affecting the international community as a whole that Article 9 of the Genocide Convention does not require negotiations as a precondition to seizing the jurisdiction of the court certainly a respondent state cannot prevent a referral by claiming that there is no dispute and that it wants discussions on this matter when the existence of the dispute is clear for a state to insist on a timeframe for negotiations would simply be a license to commit genocide and would run counter to the object and purpose of the Genocide Convention I don't presently question of the crystallization of the dispute has been addressed by this court in preliminary objections at the merit stage where the burden of proof is higher although the court has generally adopted a flexible approach to the subject it has laid down a number of tests for the existence of a dispute first it must be shown that the claim of one party is positively opposed by the other second the date for determining the existence of the dispute is the date of the application by subsequent conduct may be considered three whether the dispute exists must be determined by an objective determination of the facts and four a dispute exists when it is demonstrated on the basis of the evidence that the respondent was aware or could not have been unaware that its views were positively opposed when these propositions are applied to the facts of this case it is incontrovertible that a dispute exists between South Africa and Israel South Africa strongly believes that what Israel is doing in Gaza amounts to genocide Israel denies this and claims that such an accusation is legally and factually wrong and moreover is obscene so an objective determination of the facts shows that a dispute existed on the date of the submission of South Africa's application and this has been confirmed by Israel's subsequent statements and by its continuing conduct in Gaza moreover Israel must have been aware from South Africa's public statements the D Marsh and the referral of the matter to the International Criminal Court of Israel's genocidal acts that a dispute existed between the two states but the president the court has indicated that in an application for provisional measures it is sufficient to show that there is a prima facie basis for jurisdiction it is submitted that South Africa has convincingly established the existence of a dispute between it and Israel over the fulfillment of its obligations under the Genocide Convention finally it is submitted that regard should be had to the special considerations that apply to the existence of a dispute and Article 9 of the Genocide Convention between a state that brings an application in furtherance of its obligation to prevent genocide and a state accused of committing genocide against us we would also encourage human rights can be ... The concludes my speech, madam president, your attention, your attention, I now ask for your attention, November for your attention, my name is to Official Before I give the floor to the next speaker, the court will observe a coffee break of 10 minutes. The sitting is adjourned. Please be seated. The sitting is resumed. I now give the floor to Professor Max De Pessi. You have the floor, Professor. Madam President, distinguished members of the court, it is a privilege to appear before you. It's truly my honor to represent South Africa in these proceedings. I will be focusing on the nature of the rights that South Africa seeks to preserve through its application and the link between such rights and the measures requested. As well established in the court's jurisprudence, and most recently in this court's decision in the Gambia case, for the court to exercise its power to indicate provisional measures, the rights claimed by South Africa on the merits and for which it is seeking protection must be at least plausible. This threshold does not require the court to determine definitively whether the rights which South Africa wishes to see protected exist. Rather, the rights asserted must merely be grounded in a possible interpretation of the Convention, and the court must be concerned to preserve by such measures the rights which may subsequently be adjudged by it to belong to either party. Citizens in Gaza as a very substantial and important part of the Palestinian national, racial and ethnical group simply but profoundly are entitled to exist. As South Africa's ambassador pointed out in opening, to situate the right to exist and the threats to that right requires the court to appreciate that this application by South Africa is brought within a particular context. What is happening in Gaza now is not correctly framed as a simple conflict between two parties. It entails instead destructive acts perpetrated by an occupying power, Israel, that has subjected the Palestinian people to an oppressive and prolonged violation of their rights to self-determination for more than half a century. And those violations occur in a world where Israel for years has regarded itself as beyond and above the law. As the UN special rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories explained in 2022, and I quote, the occupation by Israel has been conducted in profound defiance of international law and hundreds of United Nations resolutions with scant pushback from the international community. That context is important, as South Africa made clear in its application. Where the international community has failed Palestinians for so long, and despite Israel's willful defiance of Palestinians' rights, South Africa turns to this court seeking to protect the core rights of Palestinians in Gaza to be protected from acts of genocide, attempted genocide, direct and public incitement to genocide, and complicity in and conspiracy to commit genocide. As the court knows, the convention prohibits the destruction of a group or part of that group, including through killing, causing serious bodily and mental harm, and inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the group's physical destruction. Through these core rights, the convention further protects the rights of its members to life and physical and mental integrity. Palestinians in Gaza, women, men, children, because of their membership in a group are protected by the convention, as is the group itself. And the core rights are violated and threatened by a remarkable set of facts outlined by my colleagues and set out in detail in South Africa's application with supporting evidence. In the speeches to this court today, South Africa has chosen, as you've heard, to avoid the shying of graphic videos and photos. It has decided against turning this court into a theatre for spectacle. It knows, as well as your excellencies, the temptation for both sides in a dispute to parade pictures to shock. But South Africa's application in this court today is built on a foundation of clear legal rights, not images. The detailed material before the court is marshaled to show a case for provisional measures based firmly on this court's prior decisions. And South Africa advances its case on the basis that Palestinians' rights are equally as worthy of protection on the unprecedented evidence before you as those of the victim groups that this honourable court has previously protected by its issuance of provisional measures in the past. The material confirms the rights and issue and their violation that Israel has committed and is committing acts capable of being characterised as genocidal. You have heard from Isasim about direct extermination of thousands of people and children of the Palestinian population in Gaza since 7 October last year. And South Africa and the world together stand witness to the forced evacuation of over 85% of the population of Gaza from their homes and the herding of them into ever smaller areas without adequate shelter or medical care to be attacked, killed and harmed. So the rights are immediately and urgently in need of protection because of the ongoing denial by Israel of the conditions necessary for life. It is difficult with respect to think of a clearer or more abundantly urgent case. Aref Hussain, the chief economist at the United Nations World Food Programme, chillingly warned a week ago on the 3rd of January, and I quote, I've been doing this, he said, for the past two decades and I've been to all kinds of conflicts and all kinds of crises. And for me, this, the situation in Gaza, is unprecedented because of, one, the magnitude, the scale, the entire population of a particular place. Second, the severity. And third, the speed at which this is happening, at which this has unfolded, is unprecedented. He concluded, in my life, I've never seen anything like this in terms of severity, in terms of scale, and then in terms of speed. Madam President, esteemed judges, the core rights on the evidence provided by South Africa in its application are demonstrably being violated. Multiple further statements by UN bodies and experts, as well as various expert human rights organizations and institutions and states, all of which is set out in South Africa's application, confirm as much. They collectively have considered the acts committed by Israel to be genocidal or at the very least warned that the Palestinian people are at risk of genocide. Since the application was initiated further states, 13 to date, including the Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, representing 57 states, as well as other experts, have expressed their support for the case, thereby underlining the plausibility of South Africa's claim for provisional measures. For the purposes of the indication of provisional measures, the rights asserted by South Africa under the genocide convention and their protection corresponds with the very object and purpose of the convention. Based on the materials before the court, the acts by Israel complained of are capable of being characterized as at least plausibly genocidal. As Mr. Konkaitobi has explicated, the evidence of the specific genocidal intent is clear from the statements by Israeli government officials and soldiers towards Palestinians in Gaza and which may be characterized as at the very least plausibly genocidal. This at least plausible genocidal intent can also be deduced from the pattern of conduct against Palestinians in Gaza. It is also, again at the very least plausible, that Israel has failed to prevent or to punish genocide, conspiracy to commit genocide, direct and public incitement to genocide, attempted genocide and complicity in genocide. And it is further plausible that South Africa has an obligation to prevent genocide, including by taking all reasonable measures within its powers to influence effectively the actions of persons perpetrating and likely to commit genocide or engaging in direct or public incitement to genocide. So let me be clear, South Africa's obligation is motivated by the need to protect Palestinians in Gaza and their absolute rights not to be subjected to genocidal acts. Notwithstanding the incontestably serious nature of the allegations against Israel, the court should not be required before granting provisional measures to ascertain whether the existence of a genocidal intent is the only plausible inference to be drawn from the material before it. That would amount to the court making a determination on the merits. Moreover, South Africa has stressed that any motive or effort by Israel to destroy Hamas does not preclude genocidal intent by Israel towards the whole or part of the Palestinian people in Gaza. Evidence of other motives explaining its conduct as a perpetrator will not save Israel from a finding that it also possessed the requisite genocidal intent. And because of a fundamental feature of genocide, namely that the prohibitions on genocide and associated offences are used cogants in nature, they are subject therefore to no exceptional qualification. They are absolute in nature, in times of war and peace, always and everywhere. Furthermore, the fact that the alleged acts may also be characterised as crimes other than genocide should not exclude the plausible inference of the existence of genocidal intent. As the UN Secretary General has stated, the prevention of genocide is intrinsically connected to preventing crimes against humanity and war crimes, as these crimes tend to occur concurrently in the same situation rather than as isolated events. Consequently, he said initiatives aimed at preventing one of the crimes will in most circumstances also cover the others. And as also set out in the ILC articles on state responsibility, the wrongful act of genocide is generally made up of a series of acts which are themselves internationally wrongful. Madam President, honourable members of the Court, South Africa's claims thus concern in the first place its own obligations as a state party to the genocide convention to act, to prevent and punish genocide. In the application, South Africa has stressed that it is acutely aware of its own obligation as a state party to the convention to prevent genocide. Indeed, this Court has recognised the universal character both of the condemnation of genocide and of the cooperation required in order to liberate mankind from such an odious scourge. As the prohibition of genocide is assuredly a peremptory norm of international law or use kogans, it is crucial that states pursue their interest under the convention in ensuring acts of genocide are prevented. Additionally, due to the special characteristics of the genocide convention, the respondent state owes this duty not only to the Palestinian people, but to all states' parties to the genocide convention including South Africa. This has been emphasised repeatedly by this Court and most recently in the Gambia case, where the Court held, and I quote, all the state's parties to the genocide convention have a common interest to ensure that acts of genocide are prevented and that if they occur, their authors do not enjoy impunity. That common interest, said the Court, implies that the obligations in question are owed by any state party to all the other states' parties to the convention. Similarly, the Court has reiterated that in such a convention, the contracting states do not have any interests of their own. They merely have one and all a common interest, namely, the accomplishment of those high purposes which are the raison d'etre of the convention. Accordingly, any state party to the genocide convention, and not only a specially affected state, may invoke the responsibility of another state party with a view to ascertaining the alleged failure to comply with its obligations, ergo omnes partes, and to bring that failure to an end. That means that South Africa is asserting both a collective and an individual right. It is thus beyond doubt that South Africa is entitled to invoke the responsibility of Israel under the genocide convention. Through South Africa's interest in the common interest, and as a state party to the genocide convention itself, it is entitled to safeguard compliance with that instrument. As has been explained, the events unfolding in Gaza at the hands of the Israeli forces are frighteningly unprecedented. Yet what this court is being asked to do in these proceedings, interdicting genocidal acts on an interim basis, is sadly by no means novel. In relation to genocide, the court has indicated provisional measures in analogous circumstances to these in the Gambia case, where, as here, a state sought provisional measures on the basis of the ergo omnes right that the genocide convention be complied with. Also in respect of genocide, the court did the same in the Bosnia and Ukraine cases. And most recently, this court further accepted the ergo omnes character of parties' rights in relation to the torture convention. So South Africa respectfully contends that in this case, the rights of the Palestinians in Gaza are no less worthy of this court's considerable protective power under Article 41 to issue provisional measures. This court cannot but find, as it did in the Gambia case, where this court held that there is a correlation between the rights of members of groups protected under the genocide convention, the obligations incumbent on state's parties there too, and the right of any state party to seek compliance therewith by another state party. South Africa's request therefore complies with Article 41 of this court statute, and engages the power of this court to preserve by such measures the rights which may subsequently be adjudged by it to belong to either party. South Africa requests this court to discharge that critical protective power. And South Africa does so by virtue of its own clear right and solemn obligations held towards the international community as a whole. For the court to indicate one or more provisional measures, there must also be a link between the rights, the protection of which is sought, and the provisional measure being requested. Such a link manifestly exists, we say, between the rights claimed by South Africa in its application and the provisional measures requested, which are directly linked to the rights which form the subject matter of the dispute. The provisional measures sought therefore ensure the protection of rights which might ultimately form the basis of a judgment in the exercise of the court's jurisdiction in due course. The rights at stake in these proceedings are certainly at least plausible, grounded in a possible interpretation of the convention, and as the convention imposes on parties the obligation to prevent and punish genocide under Article I, and in doing so, intends to protect groups and parts of groups from genocide. The convention was designed to protect both states' parties and human groups. When acts in breach of the convention are perpetrated, it is the fundamental rights of people and the relevant group that are violated. Those fundamental rights of Palestinians in Gaza would be the subject of any judgment by this court on the merits. Madam President, members of the court, to find otherwise will not only be to treat Palestinians differently as less worthy of protection than others. It would also be for the court to unduly limit its own competence, to turn its back upon its extensive prior jurisprudence, and to close its eyes to the breach of the rights which lie at the heart of the convention, and which breaches are taking place in Gaza right now as I close. Madam President, I'll ask you now to call Ms. Negorali KC to the podium, who will address you on a risk of further genocidal acts, the risk of veritable harm and urgency. And I thank you for your attention. I thank Professor Diplassi, and I now invite Ms. Binlini Negorali to take the floor. You have the floor, Madam. Madam President, members of the court, it is a great honor for me to appear before the court once again. It is also both a privilege and a weighty responsibility for me to represent South Africa in this case of such severe gravity. It is my task to examine the urgency and the risk of irreparable harm to the rights claimed, the final two conditions to be met for the court to indicate provisional measures. Before that, I should like to address South Africa's sincere apologies to the Francophone members of the court for not having made any of its submissions in French. South Africa would ask you not to regard this as a lack of courtesy on its part. If you will allow, I shall now continue my pleadings in English. Madam President, members of the court, there is an urgent need for provisional measures to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the irreparable prejudice caused by Israel's violations of the genocide convention. The United Nations Secretary General and its chiefs describe the situation in Gaza variously as a crisis of humanity, a living hell, a bloodbath, a situation of utter deepening and unmatched horror, where an entire population is besieged and under attack, denied access to the essentials for survival on a massive scale. As the United Nations Under Secretary General for Humanitarian Affairs stated last Friday, and I quote, 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 relentless attack, bombardment. Medical facilities are under relentless attack. The few hospitals that are partially functional are overwhelmed with trauma cases, critically short of all supplies, and inundated by desperate people seeking safety. A public health disaster is unfolding. Infectious diseases are spreading in overcrowded shelters as sewers spill over. Some 180 women are giving birth daily amidst this chaos. People are facing the highest levels of food insecurity ever recorded. Famine is around the corner. For children in particular, the last 12 weeks have been traumatic. No food, no water, no school, nothing but the terrifying sounds of war day in and day out. Gaza has simply become uninhabitable. Its people are witnessing daily threats to their very existence. While the world watches on. End quote. The court has heard of the horrific death toll and of the more than 7,000 Palestinian men, women, and children reported missing, presumed dead, or dying slow, excruciating deaths trapped under the rubble. Reports of field executions and torture and ill treatment are mounting, as are images of decomposing bodies of Palestinian men, women, and children left unburied where they were killed, some being picked upon by animals. It is becoming ever clearer that huge swathes of Gaza, entire towns, villages, refugee camps are being wiped from the map. As you have heard, but it bears repeating, according to the World Food Program, four out of five people in the world, in famine, or a catastrophic type of hunger, are in Gaza right now. Indeed, experts warn that deaths from starvation and disease risk significantly outstripping deaths from bombings. The daily statistics stand as clear evidence of the urgency and of the irreparable prejudice. On the basis of the current figures, on average, 247 Palestinians are being killed and are at risk of being killed each day. Many of them literally blown to pieces. They include 48 mothers each day, two every hour, and over 117 children each day, leading UNICEF to call Israel's actions a war on children. On current rates, which show no sign of abating, each day, over three medics, two teachers, more than one United Nations employee, and more than one journalist will be killed, many while at work, or in what appeared to be targeted attacks on their family homes or where they are sheltering. The risk of famine will increase each day. Each day, an average of 629 people will be wounded, some multiple times over as they move from place to place, desperately seeking sanctuary. Each day, over 10 Palestinian children will have one or both legs amputated, many without an aesthetic. Each day, on current rates, an average of 3,900 Palestinian homes will be damaged or destroyed, more mass graves will be dug, more cemeteries will be bulldozed and bombed, and corpses violently exhumed, denying even the dead any dignity or peace. Each day, ambulances, hospitals, and medics will continue to be attacked and killed. The first responders who have spent three months without international assistance, trying to dig families out of the rubble with their bare hands, will continue to be targeted. On current figures, one will be killed almost every second day, sometimes in attacks launched against those attending the scene to rescue the wounded. Each day, yet more desperate people will be forced to relocate from where they are sheltering or will be bombed in places where they have been told to evacuate to. Entire multi-generational families will be obliterated, and yet more Palestinian children will become WCNSF, Wounded Child, No Surviving Family, the terrible new acronym born out of Israel's genocidal assault on the Palestinian population in Gaza. There is an urgent need for provisional measures to prevent imminent, irreparable prejudice to the rights and issue in this case. There could not be a clearer or more compelling case. In the words of the Commissioner General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, there must be an end to the decimation of Gaza and of its people. Turning to the court's case law, as the court has recently reaffirmed, and I quote, the condition of urgency is met when acts susceptible of causing irreparable prejudice can occur at any moment before the court makes a final decision on the case. End quote. That is precisely the situation here. Any of those matters to which I have referred can and are occurring at any moment. United Nations Security Council resolutions demanding, quote, the immediate safe, unhindered delivery of humanitarian assistance at scale throughout Gaza and full, rapid, safe and unhindered humanitarian access, end quote, remain unimplemented. United Nations General Assembly resolutions calling for a humanitarian ceasefire have been ignored. The situation could not be more urgent. Since these proceedings were initiated on the 29th of December, 2023 alone, an estimated over 1,703 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza and over 3,252 injured. As to the criterion of irreparable prejudice, for decades now, the court has repeatedly found it to be satisfied in situations where serious risks arise to human life or to other fundamental rights. In the cases of Georgia, Russia, and Armenia, Azerbaijan, the court ordered provisional measures, having found a serious risk of irreparable prejudice where hundreds of thousands of people had been forced from their homes. In ordering provisional measures in the latter case, the court noted the context of, I quote, the long-standing exposure of the population to a situation of vulnerability, including hindrances to the importation of essential goods, causing shortages of food, medicine, and other life-saving medical supplies, end quote. In Gaza, as you have heard, nearly 2 million people, over 85% of the population, have been repeatedly forced to flee their homes and shelters, not just once or twice, but some three, four, or more times over into shrinking slivers of land where they continue to be bombed and killed. This is a population that Israel had already made vulnerable through 16 years of military blockade and crippling de-development. Today, Israel's hindrances to the import of food and essential items have brought Gaza to the brink of famine. With adults, mothers, fathers, grandparents, regularly foregoing food for the day so that children can eat at least something, medicine shortages and the lack of medical treatment, clean water, and electricity are so great that large numbers of Palestinians are dying or are at imminent risk of dying preventable deaths. Cancer and other services have long shut down. Women are undergoing caesarean sections without anesthetic in barely functioning hospitals, described as scenes from a horror movie, with many undergoing otherwise unnecessary hysterectomies in an attempt to save their lives. In the Canada-Syria torture case, the court made clear that, I quote, individual subject to torture and other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment are at serious risk of irreparable prejudice. While Palestinians in Gaza are also at risk of such irreparable prejudice, with videos of Palestinian boys and men rounded up and stripped and degraded broadcast to the world, alongside footage of serious bodily harm and accounts of serious mental harm and humiliation. In Qatar, United Arab Emirates, the court considered provisional measures to be justified, having regard to the risk of irreparable prejudice deriving from factors such as people being forced to leave their places of residence without the possibility of return, the psychological distress of temporary or potentially ongoing separation from their families, and the harm associated with students being prevented from taking their exams. If provisional measures were justified there, how could they not be in Gaza, where countless families have been separated, with some family members evacuating under Israeli military orders and others staying behind at extreme risk to care for the wounded, infirm, and the elderly? Where husband's fathers and sons are being rounded up and separated from their families, taken to unknown locations for indeterminate periods of time. In the Qatar case, the court issued a provisional order where harm to approximately 150 students was an issue. In Gaza, 625,000 school children have not attended school for three months, with the United Nations Security Council expressing deep concern, I quote, that the disruption of access to education has a dramatic impact on children and that conflict has lifelong effects on their physical and mental health. Almost 90,000 Palestinian university students cannot attend a university in Gaza. Over 60% of schools, almost all universities and countless bookshops and libraries have been damaged or destroyed and hundreds of teachers and academics have been killed, including deans of universities and leading Palestinian scholars, obliterating the very prospects for the future education of Gaza's children and young people. Notably, the court has found provisional measures to be justified in all three cases where they were previously sought in relation to violations of the genocide convention. It did so in Bosnia and Serbia in 1993, finding on the basis of evidence that was certainly no more compelling than that presently before the court, that it was sufficient to determine that there was, and I quote, a grave risk of acts of genocide being committed. The court found provisional measures to be justified in the Gambia-Myanmar case on the basis of a risk of irreparable prejudice under the Rohingya, subject to, quote, mass killings as well as beatings, the destruction of villages and homes, denial of access to food, shelter, and other essentials of life. More recently, in indicating provisional measures in Ukraine-Russia, the court considered that Russia's military activities had, quote, resulted in numerous civilian deaths and injuries and caused significant material damage, including the destruction of buildings and infrastructure, end quote, giving rise to a risk of irreparable prejudice. The court had regard to the fact that, quote, attacks are ongoing and are creating increasingly difficult living conditions for the civilian population, end quote, which it considered to be extremely vulnerable. The court also considered the fact that, I quote again, many persons have no access to the most basic foodstuffs, potable water, electricity, essential medicines, or heating, and that many were attempting to flee under extremely insecure conditions. This is occurring in Gaza on a much more intensive scale to a besieged, trapped, terrified population that has nowhere safe to go. Lest the country be suggested, it is clear from Ukraine-Russia that the fact that the urgent risk of irreparable harm arises in a situation of armed conflict does not undermine much less preclude a request for provisional measures. That's also clear from the court's other judgments. So in the case of armed activities on the territory of the Congo, for example, the court ordered provisional measures based on its finding that, quote, persons, assets, and resources present on the territory of the Congo, particularly in the area of conflict, remain extremely vulnerable, and that there was a serious risk that rights at issue in the case may suffer irreparable prejudice, end quote. Similarly, in Costa Rica, Nicaragua, the court indicated provisional measures in part on the basis that the presence of troops in the disputed territory gave rise, I quote, to a real and present risk of incidents liable to cause irremediable harm in the form of bodily injury or death, end quote. In relation to the genocide convention in particular, the court recalled in Gambia Myanmar that, quote, states parties expressly confirmed their willingness to consider genocide as a crime under international law, which they must prevent and punish independently of the context of peace or of war in which it takes place, end quote. More recently, in the case of Guyana, Venezuela, the court considered that the serious risk of Venezuela, quote, acquiring and exercising control and administration of the territory in dispute, end quote, gave rise to a risk of irreparable prejudice to the rights asserted in the case. Similar factors are an issue here, having regard to the territorial ambitions and settlement plans for Gaza being raised by members of the Israeli government and the relationship of those factors to the very survival of Palestinians in Gaza as such. Similarly, any scaling up by Israel of access of humanitarian relief to Gaza in response to these proceedings or otherwise would be no answer to South Africa's request for provisional measures. In the case of Iran, United States, the court found a risk of irreparable harm from the exposure of individuals to danger, to health and life, caused by restrictions placed on medicines and medical devices, foodstuffs and other goods required for humanitarian needs. That was notwithstanding the assurances offered by the United States for it to expedite the consideration of humanitarian issues and notwithstanding the fact that essentials were in any event exempt from the United States sanctions. The court considered that the assurances were, I quote, not adequate to address fully the humanitarian and safety concerns raised and that there remained a risk that measures adopted by the United States may entail irreparable consequences. In Armenia, Azerbaijan, unilateral undertakings to alleviate restrictions alongside the full resumption of humanitarian and commercial deliveries did not defeat requests for the indication of provisional measures. The court was clear that while contributing, quote, towards mitigating the imminent risk of irreparable prejudice resulting from the military operation, those developments did not remove the risk entirely. Indeed, in Georgia, Russia, the court made clear that it considers a serious risk to subsist, where, quote, the situation is unstable and could rapidly change. The court considered, quote, given the ongoing tension and the absence of an overall settlement to the conflict in this region, populations also remain vulnerable, end quote. Israel continues to deny that it is responsible for the humanitarian crisis it has created, even as Gaza starves. The aid it has belatedly begun to allow in is wholly inadequate and does not come anywhere close to the average 500 trucks being permitted daily before October 2023, even under the blockade. Any unilateral undertakings Israel might seek to give about future aid would not remove the risk of irreparable prejudice, not least considering Israel's past and current conduct towards the Palestinian people, including the 16 years of brutal siege on Gaza. In any event, as the United Nations Secretary General has made absolutely clear, it is a mistake to measure, quote, the effectiveness of the humanitarian operation in Gaza based on the number of trucks allowed in. As he stressed, I quote, the real problem is that the way Israel is conducting this offensive means that the conditions for the effective delivery of humanitarian aid no longer exist. That would require security, staff who can work in safety, logistical capacity, and the resumption of commercial activity. It requires electricity and steady communications. All of these remain absent, end quote. Indeed, only shortly after Israel opened the Karem Shalom crossing to goods in late December 2023, it was struck in a drone attack, killing five Palestinians and leading to another temporary closure. Nowhere and nobody is safe. As the United Nations Secretary General and all its chiefs have made clear, without a halt to Israel's military operations, crossings, aid convoys, and humanitarian workers, like everyone and everything else in Gaza, remain at imminent risk of further irreparable prejudice. An unprecedented 148 United Nations staff have been killed to date. Without a halt to Israel's military activity in Gaza, there will be no end to the extreme situation facing Palestinian civilians. Madam President, members of the court, if the indication of provisional measures was justified on the facts in those cases I have cited, how could it not be here in a situation of much greater severity where the imminent risk of irreparable harm is so much greater? How could they not be justified in a situation that humanitarian veterans from crises spanning as far back as the killing fields of Cambodia? People who, in the words of the United Nations Secretary General, have seen everything, if they say it is so utterly unprecedented that they are out of words to describe it. It would be a complete departure from the long and established line of jurisprudence that this court has firmly established and recently reconfirmed for the court not to order provisional measures in this case. The imminent risk of death, harm, and destruction that Palestinians in Gaza face today and that they risk every day during the pendency of these proceedings on any view justifies, indeed compels the indication of provisional measures. Some might say that the very reputation of international law, its ability and willingness to bind and to protect all people equally hangs in the balance. But the genocide convention is about much more than legal precedent. It is also fundamentally about the confirmation and endorsement of elementary principles of morality. The court recalled the 1946 General Assembly resolution on the crime of genocide, which made clear that, I quote, 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, end quote. Notwithstanding the genocide convention's recognition of the need to rid the world of the odious scourge of genocide, the international community has repeatedly failed. It failed the people of Rwanda, it had failed the Bosnian people and their Rohingya, prompting this court to take action. It failed again by ignoring the early warnings of the grave risk of genocide to the Palestinian people sounded by international experts since 19th of October of last year. The international community continues to fail the Palestinian people despite the overt dehumanizing genocidal rhetoric by Israeli governmental and military officials matched by the Israeli army's actions on the ground. Despite the horror of the genocide against the Palestinian people being live streamed from Gaza to our mobile phones, computers and television screens, the first genocide in history where its victims are broadcasting their own destruction in real time in the desperate so far vain hope that the world might do something. Gaza represents nothing short of a moral failure as described by the universe usually circumspect international committee of the Red Cross. As underscored by United Nations chiefs that failure has, I quote, repercussions not just for the people of Gaza but for the generations to come who will never forget these over 90 days of hell and assaults on the most basic precepts of humanity. As stated by a United Nations spokesperson in Gaza last week, at the site of a hospital clearly marked with the symbol of the red present where five Palestinians, including a five day old baby, had just been killed. The world should be absolutely horrified. The world should be absolutely outraged. There is no safe space in Gaza and the world should be ashamed. Madam president, members of the court, in conclusion, I share with you two photographs. The first is of a whiteboard at a hospital in northern Gaza, one of the many Palestinian hospitals targeted, besieged and bombed by Israel over the course of the past three brutal months. The whiteboard is wiped clean of no longer possible surgical cases, leaving only a handwritten message by a Med Sans Sans Frontier doctor which reads, we did what we could, remember us. The second photograph is of the same whiteboard after an Israeli strike on the hospital on the 21st of November that killed the author of the message, Dr. Mahmoud Abu Nujaila, along with two of his colleagues. Just over a month later in a powerful sermon delivered from a church in Bethlehem on Christmas Day, the same day Israel had killed 250 Palestinians, including at least 86 people, many from the same family, massacred in a single strike on Maghazi refugee camp. Palestinian pastor, Mundur Isaac, addressed his congregation and the world, and he said, and I quote, Gaza as we know it no longer exists. This is an annihilation. This is a genocide. We will rise. We will stand up again from the midst of destruction as we have always done as Palestinians, though this is by far maybe the biggest blow we have received. But he said, no apologies will be accepted after the genocide. What has been done has been done. I want you to look in the mirror and ask, where was I when Gaza was going through a genocide? South Africa is here before this court in the peace palace. It has done what it could. It is doing what it can by initiating these proceedings by seeking interim measures against itself as well as against Israel. South Africa now respectfully and humbly calls on this honorable court to do what is in its power to do, to indicate the provisional measures that are so urgently required to prevent further irreparable harm to the Palestinian people in Gaza, whose hopes, including for their very survival, are now vested in this court. Madam President, members of the court, I should like to thank you for your kind attention. I ask that you call Professor Lowe Casey to the podium now to describe the provisional measures sought by South Africa on behalf of the Palestinian people. I thank Ms. Negraleg and I now invite Professor von Lowe to address the court. You have the floor, Professor. Madam President, members of the court, it's a privilege to appear before you and an honour to do so on behalf of the Republic of South Africa. This case is brought under Article 9 of the Genocide Convention, which entitles any contracting party to the convention to submit to the court disputes relating to the interpretation, application, or fulfilment of the convention. The court does not, at this stage, have to determine whether or not Israel has or has not acted contrary to its obligations under the Genocide Convention. That can only be done at the merits stage. It's concerned now only with the question of what provisional measures are required pending the court's final decision on the merits. The court's jurisprudence points to five requirements for the ordering of provisional measures. The first is that there should be prima facie jurisdiction, and that was addressed by Professor Dugart. The second is that there should be a link between the measures requested and the rights underlying the main claim. This requirement is plainly satisfied. The measures request an order that Israel does not violate the very rights secured by the Genocide Convention as set out in South Africa's application. The third is the plausibility of the rights that are claimed. Professor Dupleti explained that this is clearly satisfied. The rights claimed are the very core of the convention, notably the right not to be killed or seriously harmed and the right of the group not to be physically destroyed. Fourth and fifth, there must be a risk of irreparable prejudice capable of arising prior to the final determination of the dispute and there must be urgency. Ms. Negroli addressed those points. Israel has for over three months been mounting a continuous siege and bombardment of Gaza of a ferocity and duration that can only be seen as an attempt to destroy Gaza and its citizens. And it is publicly asserting that it will continue to do so. You are aware of the scale of the death and the scale of the destruction. And it is continuing at this very minute. The court has said that, quote, a state's obligation to prevent genocide and the corresponding duty to act arise at the instant that the state learns of or should normally have learned of the existence of a serious risk that genocide will be committed. From that moment onwards, if a state has available to it means likely to have a deterrent effect on those suspected of preparing genocide or reasonably suspected of harboring specific intent, it is under a duty to make such use of those means as the circumstances permit, end quote. And that is what South Africa has done by making this application. In cases such as Lagrange, Avena, Jadav, this court has exercised its power to order provisional measures having regard to the impact, not only of provisional measures on the state's parties to a case, but also to the impact on the individuals directly affected and their rights. It has issued orders to restrain states from killing individuals in a manner alleged to violate international law. And that is what South Africa is requesting. After more than 23,000 individuals have already been killed in the siege and bombardment of Gaza, the overwhelming majority of them innocent men, women and children. The court also issues orders to safeguard the integrity of its proceedings and the efficacy of its final ruling. In the Bosnia genocide case, for example, you ordered that the parties, quote, not take any action and ensure that no action is taken, which may aggravate or extend the existing dispute over the prevention or punishment of the crime of genocide, or render it more difficult of solution, end quote. Without such non-aggravation orders, there is a real risk that a respondent will rush to complete its unlawful conduct before the court's final ruling, thus rendering the ruling and the court an irrelevance. Well, South Africa has kept its application in this case within the scope of the convention. First, some will ask why South Africa does not seek any court order against Hamas. This case concerns Israel's actions in Gaza, which is territory that three weeks ago in Resolution 2720, the UN Security Council stressed is, quote, an integral part of the territory occupied in 1967, end quote, by Israel. As the court will understand, Hamas is not a state and cannot be a party to the genocide convention and cannot be a party to these proceedings. There are other bodies and processes that can address the questions of steps to be taken in respect of past atrocities and against other actors, and they are no doubt considering what they should do. But as a matter of law, under the convention, South Africa cannot request an order from this court against Hamas. Secondly, South Africa understands that not all violence constitutes genocide, acts of ethnic cleansing, collective punishment, the targeting of civilians, attacks on hospitals, and other war crimes are all unlawful, but they do not always violate the genocide convention. Genocide requires an intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group, but the fact that what Israel is doing in Gaza may also constitute war crimes against humanity is no defense and no bar to a charge of genocide. South Africa has set out its request for relief in paragraph 111 of its application and its request for provisional measures in paragraph 144. The reasoning behind the request is pragmatic. The first two paragraphs of the provisional measures request is a call for the suspension of Israel's military operations in and against Gaza. Israel's continuing operation in Gaza since the 7th of October attack is the focus of this case. Minister LeMolder has recalled the fact that South Africa has condemned the 7th of October attack. Israel says that Palestine and Palestinians are not its target and that its aim is to destroy hammers, but months of continuous bombing, flattening entire residential blocks and cutting off food and water and electricity and communications to an entire population cannot credibly be argued to be a manhunt for members of hammers. It is an indiscriminate attack, killing, maiming and terrorizing the entire population of Gaza with no regard to questions of innocence or guilt, obliterating the homes and cities in which they live and destroying any practical possibility of their return to make their homes amidst the rubble. Israel's actions both attack Palestinians in Gaza directly and also prevents humanitarian relief reaching them. Palestinians face death from continuing bombardments and shootings and death from starvation and disease, which is even more indiscriminate, but usually slower. In recent days, the United States has said again that far too many civilians are being killed and the UN Secretary General and the UN Undersecretary for Humanitarian Affairs and the Commissioner General of the UN Relief and Works Agency have asserted that it is imperative to halt military operations in order to enable the effective delivery of humanitarian relief. And that is why South Africa has requested an order for the immediate suspension of Israel's military operations in and against Gaza. It is the only way to secure the humanitarian response and avoid yet more unnecessary death and destruction. There is a point to emphasize. It's no use, Israel, saying that it does whatever it can to minimize the deaths of innocent men, women and children. The use of 2,000-pound bunker-busting bombs and dumb bombs in residential areas and the relentless bombardment of Gaza and even of so-called safe areas to which Palestinians have been directed by Israel tell another story. But that is not the only point. It's not just a question of scale and of indiscriminate killing. It's also a question of intention. If any military operation, no matter how carefully it's carried out, is carried out pursuant to an intention to destroy a people in whole or in part, it violates the genocide convention and it must stop. And that is why all military operations capable of violating the genocide convention must cease. The third request is for an order that both Israel and South Africa, in accordance with their obligations under the genocide convention in relation to the Palestinian people, take all reasonable measures to prevent genocide. The fourth and fifth measures then spell out these general obligations in terms of the specific instances of offenses listed in articles one, two, and three of the convention. The sixth requested measure addresses the fact that aside from its own acts, the government of Israel is legally bound to prevent and punish others who engage in or incite or actively support conduct that violates the genocide convention. Until the reported intervention of the attorney general 36 hours ago, Israeli authorities appear to have done practically nothing to stop the flow of genocidal rhetoric including statements emanating from the ranks of public officials. Indeed, the toleration, even normalization of such incitement has become a matter of concern within Israel itself. And that is why this measure is sought. This case is important. Lives are at stake. Israel's credibility and reputation are at stake. Yet evidence that could determine whether or not particular acts violate the genocide convention is being lost or destroyed while fact-finders and foreign journalists are unable to report freely from Gaza. Hence the seventh request, which is for an order directing the preservation of evidence. And finally, South Africa asks that the court require specific reports from Israel on what it is doing to implement the order. General assurances are not enough. Reports published via the court are an essential element of accountability. I should address the question of self-defense. In its advisory opinion in the wall case, the court noted that the threat that Israel had argued justified the construction of the wall was not imputable to a foreign state but emanated from territory, the occupied Palestinian territory, over which Israel itself exercises control. For those reasons, the court decided as a matter of international law the right of self-defense under article 51 of the charter, the UN charter, had no relevance in such circumstances. 20 days ago, the Security Council affirmed yet again that Gaza is occupied territory. Though Israel refers to a complete withdrawal from Gaza, it has retained control over Gaza, over access by land and sea and air, and over key governmental functions and supplies of water and electricity. The tightness of its grip may have varied, but no one can doubt the continuous reality of Israel's grip on Gaza. The court's legal holding from 2004 holds good, and a similar point is to be made here. What Israel is doing in Gaza, it is doing in territory under its own control. Its actions are enforcing its occupation. The law on self-defense under article 51 of the UN charter has no application, but that is not the main point. The main point is much simpler. It is that no matter how monstrous or appalling an attack or provocation, genocide is never a permitted response. Every use of force, whether used in self-defense or in enforcing an occupation or in policing operations or otherwise, must stay within the limits set by international law, including the explicit duty in article one of the convention to prevent genocide. South Africa believes that the publicly available evidence of the scale of the destruction resulting from the bombardment of Gaza and the deliberate restriction of food, water, medicines and electricity available to the population of Gaza demonstrates that the government of Israel, not Jewish people or Israeli citizens, the government of Israel and its military is intent on destroying the Palestinians in Gaza as a group and is doing nothing to prevent or punish the actions of others who support that aim. And I repeat, the point is not simply that Israel is acting disproportionately. The point is that the prohibition on genocide is an absolute, a peremptory rule of law. Nothing can ever justify genocide. No matter what some individuals within the group of Palestinians in Gaza may have done and no matter how great the threat to Israeli citizens might be, genocidal attacks on the whole of Gaza and the whole of its population with the intent of destroying them cannot be justified. And no exception can be made in a provisional measures order to allow a state to engage in actions that are capable of violating its obligations under the genocide convention. It is unthinkable that a court would ever do such a thing. That is the simple point in this case. Genocide can never be justified in any circumstances. Israel's actions will be examined closely and methodically at the merit stage when the court will want to hear what Israel has to say in its defense. What matters now is that the evidence indicates that Israel's actions have violated its obligations under the genocide convention, that they continue to violate them and that Israel has asserted that it intends to continue them. Israel may say that it will comply with all of its obligations under the genocide convention and that orders from the court are not necessary. But in previous cases, the court has held that such unilateral statements do not remove the risk of irreparable prejudice or obviate the need for a court order. In this case, one reason for doubting the efficacy of any such unilateral undertaking is Israel's apparent inability to see that it has done anything wrong in grinding Gaza and its people into the dust. Another reason is that a departure from or reinterpretation of any unilateral undertaking by Israel may lead to consequences so appalling that the risk simply cannot be taken. But there is a third reason. As was noted during the submissions to this court in the case concerning the reservations to the genocide convention in 1951, quote, the obligation to submit disputes concerning the interpretation or execution of the convention to the International Court of Justice was regarded as one of the prime guarantees of the due fulfillment of the basic obligation to prevent and punish the crime of genocide, end quote. The role of the court, which unusually extends not only to the interpretation and application of the convention, but also to its fulfillment is pivotal. In addition to their substantive obligations under the convention, it is vitally important that states respect the court and their procedural obligations. This is not a moment for the court to sit back and be silent. It's necessary that it assert its authority and itself order compliance with the obligations under the genocide convention. Indeed, it's hard to think of a case in recent history, which has been so important for the future of international law and of this court. Madam President, members of the court, that concludes my submission. All right, thank you for your attention. And unless I can help you further, I'd ask that you call on South Africa's agent to read out the request for relief. I thank Professor Lowe and I now invite the agent of South Africa, His Excellency, Mr. Vosemouzi Madonsella, to address the court. You have the floor, Excellency. Madam President, it remains my honor to read to your Excellencies the provisional measures that South Africa requests from the court. You have heard the reasons set out which justify the measures being sought. To sum up, the indication of provisional measures is, we recognize, without prejudice to the merits of the underlying claim. Yet, the evidence at this stage indicates grave violence and genocidal acts against the Palestinians in Gaza, and flagrant contravention of the Genocide Convention and in breach of their rights. South Africa has come to this court to prevent genocide. And to do so in the discharge of the international obligation that rests on South Africa and all other states under the convention. The consequences of not indicating clear and particularized specific provisional measures and not taking steps to intervene while Israel disregards its international obligations before our eyes would, with fear, be very grave indeed for the Palestinians in Gaza, who remain at real risk of further genocidal acts. For the integrity of the convention, for the rights of South Africa, and for the reputation of this court, which is equipped with and must exercise its powers to afford an effective realization of the rights under the convention. That means, we respectfully submit, indicating the provisional measures being sought by South Africa, as well as any others in addition which the court might demappropriate. Justice and equal respect for the rights of Palestinians points overwhelmingly in favor of these critically required provisional measures. Madam President, I now proceed to read the measures requested by South Africa. On the basis of the facts set forth above, South Africa is a state party to the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide. Respectfully request the courts as a matter of extreme agency, pending the court's determination of this case on the merits to indicate the following provisional measures in relation to the Palestinian people as a group protected by the genocide convention. These measures are directly linked to the rights that form the subject matter of South Africa's disputes with Israel. One, the state of Israel shall immediately suspend its military operations in and against Gaza. Two, the state of Israel shall ensure that any military or irregular armed units which may be directed, supported or influenced by it, as well as any organizations and persons which may be subject to its control, direction or influence take no steps in furtherance of the military operations referred to in point one above. Three, the Republic of South Africa and the state of Israel shall each in accordance with their obligations under the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide in relation to the Palestinian people, take all reasonable measures within their power to prevent genocide. Four, 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 Palestinian people as a group protected by the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide, desists from the commission of any and all acts within the scope of article two of the convention. In particular, A, killing members of the group, B, causing serious bodily or mental harm to the 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. Five, the state of Israel shall in pursuant to point four paragraph C above in relation to Palestinians desist from and take all measures within its power, including the rescinding of relevant orders of restrictions and or prohibitions to prevent A, the expulsion and forced displacement from their homes, B, the deprivation of access to adequate food and water, access to humanitarian assistance, including access to adequate fuel, shelter, clothes, hygiene and sanitation, the medical supplies and assistance, and C, the destruction of Palestinian life in Gaza. Number six, the state of Israel shall in relation to Palestinians ensure that its military as well as any irregular armed units or individuals which may be directed, supported or otherwise influenced by it, and any organizations and persons which may be subject to control, directional influence, do not commit any acts described in four and five above or engage in direct and public incitement to commit genocide, conspiracy to commit genocide, attempt to commit genocide, or complicity in genocide. And in so far as they do engage therein that steps are taken towards their punishment pursuant to articles one, two, three and four of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Number seven, 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 two of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. To that end, the states of Israel shall not act to deny or otherwise restrict access by effect finding missions, international mandates and other bodies to Gaza to assist in ensuring the preservation and retention of said evidence. Number eight, the state of Israel shall submit a report to the court on all measures taken to give effect to this order within one week as from the date of this order and thereafter at such regular intervals as the court shall order until a final decision on the case is rendered by the court and that such reports shall be published by the court a bigger party. Number nine, the state of Israel shall refrain from any action and shall ensure that no action is taken which might aggravate or extend the disputes before the court or make it more difficult to resolve. Thank you, Madam President and distinguished members of the court. That concludes South Africa's address. Thank you. I thank the agent of South Africa whose statement brings to an end the single round of oral argument of South Africa as well as this morning's sitting. The court will meet again tomorrow, 12 January 2024 at 10 a.m. to hear the single round oral argument of Israel. The sitting is adjourned.