Last edited Mon Apr 29, 2024, 05:41 AM - Edit history (1)
the ruling she wrote and released actually states.
From the ruling:
The Court considers that, by their very nature, at least some of the provisional measures sought by South Africa are aimed at preserving the plausible rights it asserts on the basis of the Genocide Convention in the present case, namely the right of the Palestinians in Gaza to be protected from acts of genocide and related prohibited acts mentioned in Article III, and the right of South Africa to seek Israel’s compliance with the latter’s obligations under the Convention. Therefore, a link exists between the rights claimed by South Africa that the Court has found to be plausible, and at least some of the provisional measures requested.
The Court then turns to the condition of the link between the plausible rights claimed by South Africa and the provisional measures requested.
The Court considers that, by their very nature, at least some of the provisional measures sought by South Africa are aimed at preserving the plausible rights it asserts on the basis of the Genocide Convention in the present case, namely the right of the Palestinians in Gaza to be protected from acts of genocide and related prohibited acts mentioned in Article III, and the right of South Africa to seek Israel’s compliance with the latter’s obligations under the Convention. Therefore, a link exists between the rights claimed by South Africa that the Court has found to be plausible, and at least some of the provisional measures requested.
==================================
From Ms. O'Donoghue's interview:
Palestinians have a plausible right to be protected from genocide and SA has a right to present that claim in the Court.
--------------------------------------------------------
"The Court did not decide, and this is something where I'm correcting what's often said in the media, it didn't decide that the claim of genocide was plausible."
= new reply since forum marked as read