Sudan on Thursday accused the United Arab Emirates of complicity in genocide at a hearing before the International Court of Justice in The Hague, Netherlands.
Sudan held the alleged genocide against the Masalit community in Darfur by the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) would not be possible without the support of the UAE.
Khartoum laid out its oral argument as part of a public hearing into its case accusing the UAE of violating its obligations under the Genocide Convention.
The UAE will give its response at 4pm.
Muawia Osman, Sudan’s acting justice minister, told the court that the “ongoing genocide would not be possible without the complicity of the UAE, including the shipment of arms to the RSF”.
New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch
Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on
Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters
“The direct logistical and other support that the UAE has provided and continues to provide to the RSF has been and continues to be the primary driving force behind the genocide now taking place, including killing, rape, forced displacement and looting,” said Osman.
Sudan’s army-allied government, which has been at war with the RSF since April 2023, accuses the paramilitary group and allied militias of perpetrating genocide, murder, theft, rape and forcible displacement. It says that these crimes were enabled by direct support from the UAE.
Last year, an independent inquiry carried out by the Raoul Wallenberg Centre found that there is “clear and convincing evidence” that the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) paramilitary and its allied militias “have committed and are committing genocide against the Masalit,” a Black African group in the country.
West Darfur state was the site of intense ethnic-based attacks by the RSF and its allied Arab militias against the Masalit in 2023.
Khartoum has requested that the World Court implements a number of provisional measures.
That includes ordering the UAE to take measures to prevent: the killing and causing serious harm towards the Masalit, deliberately inflicting conditions to bring about the physical destruction of the group, and the imposition of measures that are intended to prevent births within the group.
It also called for provisional measures ordering the UAE to ensure that any armed units supported by it do not directly or publicly incite to commit genocide.
Although the UAE is a party to the Genocide Convention, on which the case is based, it made a reservtion to Article Nine of the treaty when it acceded to it in 2005.
That fact may lead the court to dismiss the case, according to Michael Becker, a international human rights law expert who spoke to Middle East Eye on the issue last month.
Article Nine of the convention allows dispute settlement before the ICJ when a state party violates the treaty. States are allowed to opt out of the provision in advance of signing the treaty.
By making a reservation to the article, the UAE withheld its consent to this provision, said Becker. Many other states have opted out of this clause, including the US, China, Algeria, Bahrain, Morocco, Malaysia, Yemen and India.
