Read on Twitter
The #ICJ has announced today a new approach to how it will monitor compliance with provisional measures ( https://www.icj-cij.org/public/files/press-releases/0/000-20201221-PRE-01-00-EN.pdf). This is significant in the context of the #TheGambia v #Myanmar case, where implementation reports have remained confidential to date. #Rohingya 1/6
The new internal procedure means that an ad hoc three-judge committee will examine information provided by parties on implementation of provisional measures and ‘recommend potential options for it’. Much is left unsaid, including whether this could mean public disclosure. 2/6
In many provisional measure orders, the #ICJ has required parties to report back to it on efforts to implement the PMs. In the #Rohingya case, the Court’s January 2020 order requires Myanmar to make periodic reports, and Myanmar has already done so twice. 3/6
As I’ve argued with @bruno_faucher and @AbbottKingsley in @opiniojuris (see http://opiniojuris.org/2020/08/25/rohingya-symposium-why-so-secret-the-case-for-public-access-to-myanmars-reports-on-implementation-of-the-icjs-provisional-measures-order/), the fact that the implementation reports remain confidential undermines their effectiveness and fails to offer transparency to #Rohingya groups and others. 4/6
Moreover there is no legal bar to the disclosure of such reports. #Rohingya groups, such as the European Rohingya Council ( @the_erc) have specifically called upon the #ICJ to make Myanmar’s reports available to public scrutiny ( https://www.theerc.eu/joint-letter-to-icj-myanmars-obligation-to-comply-with-the-provisional-measures/). 5/6
