More than 700,000 Rohingya fled to Bangladesh in 2017. On Thursday, the International Court of Justice closed marathon hearings in The Gambia v. Myanmar and sent the case to private deliberation on whether military operations against the Rohingya breached the 1948 Genocide Convention.

Judges heard final arguments from Gambia, which filed the case in 2019 on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, and from Myanmar, which denies genocide and disputes the evidence record. The hearings marked the first merits examination of a Genocide Convention dispute at the world court in more than a decade.

What is at stake in the case?

The Rohingya are a Muslim minority from Myanmar's western Rakhine State. Myanmar's military launched large-scale operations in 2016 and 2017 after attacks by Rohingya militants. United Nations investigators later documented killings, sexual violence, mass displacement and the destruction of villages, finding indications of genocidal intent. Myanmar rejects those findings and calls its operations legitimate counterterrorism.

More than 700,000 Rohingya fled to neighboring Bangladesh during the 2017 crackdown, joining an earlier displaced population that pushed the total above one million. Gambia argues Myanmar breached its duty to prevent and punish genocide. Myanmar's lawyers urged judges to disregard what they characterized as selective reliance on civil society reports.

What did the parties argue?

Gambia's team pressed the court to view individual incidents as part of a coordinated campaign. Philippe Sands told the bench in one of the final exchanges: "What remains is whether, now that the court has studied the extensive written pleadings and heard the oral arguments, whether the court is 'fully convinced' that genocide has been committed."

Gambia's agent, Justice Minister Dawda Jallow, tied the case to his country's history. "Over two decades of brutal dictatorship have taught us that we must use our moral voice in condemnation of oppression, of crimes against individuals and of groups, wherever and whenever they occur," he said.

Myanmar's lead counsel, Christopher Staker, cautioned judges against treating NGO documentation as proof. "So where a report of an NGO is cited as evidence of a fact, it cannot simply be assumed that the cited report necessarily supports that fact, much less that it proves that fact," he told the court.

What is the legal threshold?

Under the Genocide Convention, the court must find that Myanmar acted with the intent to destroy the Rohingya "in whole or in part," not merely that prohibited acts occurred. That intent requirement is the central hurdle for Gambia. The 1948 treaty permits any state party to bring a compliance dispute before the ICJ, explaining how Gambia, geographically distant from Myanmar, gained standing.

The case cleared major procedural barriers before reaching the merits. In 2020, the court ordered Myanmar to take emergency steps to prevent prohibited acts and preserve evidence. In 2022, judges rejected Myanmar's bid to dismiss the case on jurisdictional grounds.

What happens now?

The public process has ended. Judges will deliberate privately; the court has set no judgment date. The ICJ does not run criminal trials or impose sentences. Its role is to decide whether a state breached international law and to specify remedies, from ordering an end to violations to demanding guarantees of non-repetition.

What are the practical stakes?

A finding against Myanmar would carry heavy legal and political weight and could shape parallel accountability efforts. It would not trigger arrests or direct criminal prosecution. The ruling would, however, set precedent on how states interpret their duty to prevent genocide and could influence proceedings in other international forums.

For Rohingya advocates, the close of hearings already registers as a milestone. Matthew Smith, cofounder of Fortify Rights and a member of Gambia's delegation, said the proceedings lock the facts into the historical record. "Justice at the ICJ moves slowly, but this process has already helped lock the truth into the historical and legal record," he said.

Maria Elena Vignoli, senior international justice counsel at Human Rights Watch, said the case carries a signal that reaches beyond Myanmar. "Seeing it finally move toward a judgment is a powerful reminder of the ongoing need for justice for the Rohingya and it sends a message that their suffering has not been forgotten," she said.