Sudan accuses UAE of ‘complicity in genocide’ at ICJ

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) hears the case that the Sudan is currently accused of being a “public offering for massacre” during the inter -Korean war.

In response to the military rapid support (RSF) that gave the military’s army, it led to tens of thousands of deaths and forced more than 12 million people at home.

Sudan argued that the UAE was armed with RSF to delete the West Dar Lab Masa Rit population. The UAE said the incident is a cynical stunt and is looking for immediate dismissal.

Since the beginning of the war, RSF and Sudanese troops have been accused of committing cruelty.

According to the case of Sudan, RSF is intended to destroy it as a distinct national group by conducting a systematic attack on the non -Arab group, especially the Masalit community.

Above all, RSF claims that rape has been used as a weapon for civilians.

Earlier this year, the United States also prosecuted RSF for alleged massacre and imposed sanctions against Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, a leader who is also known as Hemedti.

Hemedti Gen rejected the fighter’s intentionally aimed at civilians.

As the ICJ handles disputes between countries, the military government of Sudan cannot take the RSF to the court.

Instead, it brought a case about one of the insisted supporters.

Sudan argued that this cruelty was possible by the extensive financial, military and political support of the UAE, including weapons shipment, drone training and recruitment of mercenaries.

This means that the UAE will conspire a massacre.

Sudanes are looking for reimbursement and urgent measures to prevent additional massacre.

The UAE refused to arm RSF and strongly rejected the charges and said it would pursue immediate dismissal.

The UAE said in a statement, “ICJ is not a stage of political play, and should not make information a weapon.”

“This is nothing more than a cynical PR stunt. An attempt to stop the well -documented cruelty and fire for people or refuse to participate in true negotiations.”

In Thursday, Sudan’s law team argued that there is a risk of a plausible harm for the Masalit people and that there is an urgent need for the ICJ to intervene not to be massacre anymore.

Sudan asked judges to decide that the UAE should prevent RSF supply. And the UAE must report to the court again about how these measures are being implemented.

The UAE is expected to claim that the event should be abandoned.

Most legal experts seem to agree that this incident has little chance beyond this point.

In the case of the UAE, the ICJ has no jurisdiction over this type of claim.

But when he complained about the UN’s top court, he noted that the means of the UAE in the dispute.

According to the following things, if judges believe that the UAE has the authority to develop a temporary measure to fulfill the promise to prevent the behavior of massacre at the request of the means to take action corresponding to the means of the means, the judges are known within a few weeks.

The ICJ ruling is legally binding, but the court itself has no direct authority to implement the decision.