The International Court of Justice (ICJ) heard a case filed by Sudan, accusing the United Arab Emirates of being “a co-conspirator of genocide” during the current civil war.
The two-year conflict has contradicted Sudan’s military with the Paramilitary Rapid Support Force (RSF), killing tens of thousands of people and forcing their homes to exceed 12 million.
Sudan claims that the UAE has been arming the RSF with the aim of eliminating the non-Arab Masalit population in West Darfur. The UAE said the case was a cynical propaganda stunt and was seeking immediate dismissal.
Both the RSF and the Sudanese army have been accused of committing atrocities since the war began.
According to the Sudan case, the RSF carried out a systematic attack on non-Arab groups, especially the Masalit community, with the aim of destroying them into a unique ethnic group.
Among other things, it claims that the RSF uses rape as a weapon against civilians.
Earlier this year, the United States also accused the RSF of causing genocide and imposed sanctions on its leader Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, also known as Hemedti.
General Hemedti had previously denied that his soldiers were deliberately targeting civilians.
As the International Court of Justice deals with disputes among the states, the Sudanese military government cannot send the RSF to the court.
Instead, it filed a lawsuit against one of the so-called sponsors.
Sudan believes that extensive financial, military and political support in the UAE has initiated these atrocities, including arms transport, drone training and recruitment of mercenaries.
It said that means the UAE is a co-conspirator of genocide.
Sudan is seeking compensation and emergency measures to prevent further genocide.
The Sudan’s legal team argued in court Thursday that there is a possibility of reasonable harm to the people of Masalit and that ICJ intervention is urgently needed to ensure no further genocide is taken.
Sudan has asked a judge to rule that the UAE should be prevented from providing RSF. The UAE should report to the court how these measures are implemented.
In court, UAE Ambassador to the Netherlands Ameirah Alhefeiti first described the violence in Sudan as “heartbreaking”.
But instead of bringing the case to The Hague to relieve the pain, Sudan was to deviate from his actions, she added, using the courts as a stage for attacking the UAE.
An earlier statement from the government said the International Court of Justice “is not a stage of political drama and cannot be weaponized by false information.”
The ambassador said her country did not provide weapons to any warring party, but instead the UAE is working tirelessly to alleviate the pain of building a field hospital, for example.
UAE lawyers argued that the case should be removed.
Most legal experts seem to agree that the case has little chance of going beyond that.
The UAE has reservations or opt-out of the genocide Convention, which in the past had no jurisdiction over these types of claims.
However, Sudan drew attention to what it pointed out to the UAE’s role in the conflict when bringing its complaint to the Supreme Court of the United Nations.
As far as what happens next, if the judge thinks they have the right to act on the Sudan’s request, ask them to issue measures that basically involve the injunction – the UAE fulfills its commitment to prevent genocide.
The International Court of Justice is legally binding, but the Court itself does not have the power to directly enforce its decisions.
More BBC stories about Sudan:
go bbcafrica.com More news about the African continent.
Follow us on Twitter @bbcafrica,on Facebook BBC Africa Or on Instagram bbcafraca
BBC Africa Podcast
