Read the I.C.J. Ruling on Israel’s Rafah Offensive (2024)

24 MAY 2024ORDERAPPLICATION OF THE CONVENTION ON THE PREVENTION AND PUNISHMENTOF THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE IN THE GAZA STRIP(SOUTH AFRICA v. ISRAEL)APPLICATION DE LA CONVENTION POUR LA PRÉVENTION ET LA RÉPRESSIONDU CRIME DE GÉNOCIDE DANS LA BANDE DE GAZA(AFRIQUE DU SUD c. ISRAËL)24 MAI 2024ORDONNANCE

TABLE OF CONTENTSParagraphsCHRONOLOGY OF THE PROCEDURE1-19I. GENERAL OBSERVATIONS20-30II. CONDITIONS FOR THE INDICATION OF PROVISIONAL MEASURES31-47III. CONCLUSION AND MEASURES TO BE ADOPTED48-55OPERATIVE CLAUSE57

202424 MayGeneral ListNo. 192INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICEYEAR 202424 May 2024APPLICATION OF THE CONVENTION ON THE PREVENTIONAND PUNISHMENT OF THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE IN THE GAZA STRIP(SOUTH AFRICA v. ISRAEL)REQUEST FOR THE MODIFICATION OF THE ORDER OF 28 MARCH 2024Present:ORDERPresident SALAM; Vice-President SEBUTINDE; Judges ABRAHAM, YUSUF, XUE,BHANDARI, IWASAWA, NOLTE, CHARLESWORTH, BRANT, GÓMEZ ROBLEDO,CLEVELAND, AURESCU, TLADI; Judge ad hoc BARAK; Registrar GAUTIER.The International Court of Justice,Composed as above,After deliberation,Having regard to Article 41 of the Statute of the Court and Article 76 of the Rules of Court,Makes the following Order:

-2-1. On 29 December 2023, the Republic of South Africa (hereinafter "South Africa") filed inthe Registry of the Court an Application instituting proceedings against the State of Israel (hereinafter“Israel”) concerning alleged violations in the Gaza Strip of obligations under the Convention on thePrevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (hereinafter the “Genocide Convention" or the"Convention").2. In its Application, South Africa seeks to found the Court's jurisdiction on Article 36,paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Court and on Article IX of the Genocide Convention.3. The Application contained a Request for the indication of provisional measures submittedwith reference to Article 41 of the Statute and to Articles 73, 74 and 75 of the Rules of Court.4. Since at the time of the filing of the Application the Court included upon the Bench no judgeof the nationality of either of the Parties, each Party availed itself of its right under Article 31 of theStatute to choose a judge ad hoc to sit in the case. South Africa chose Mr Dikgang Ernest Mosenekeand Israel chose Mr Aharon Barak.5. After hearing the Parties, the Court, by an Order of 26 January 2024, indicated the followingprovisional measures:"(1) The State of Israel shall, in accordance with its obligations under theConvention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, in relation toPalestinians in Gaza, take all measures within its power to prevent the commission ofall acts within the scope of Article II of this Convention, in particular:(a) killing members of the group;(b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;(c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about itsphysical destruction in whole or in part; and(d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;(2) The State of Israel shall ensure with immediate effect that its military doesnot commit any acts described in point 1 above;(3) The State of Israel shall take all measures within its power to prevent andpunish the direct and public incitement to commit genocide in relation to members ofthe Palestinian group in the Gaza Strip;(4) The State of Israel shall take immediate and effective measures to enable theprovision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance to address theadverse conditions of life faced by Palestinians in the Gaza Strip;(5) The State of Israel shall take effective measures to prevent the destruction andensure the preservation of evidence related to allegations of acts within the scope ofArticle II and Article III of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of theCrime of Genocide against members of the Palestinian group in the Gaza Strip;

-3-(6) The State of Israel shall submit a report to the Court on all measures taken togive effect to this Order within one month as from the date of this Order.”6. Following the election to the Court, with effect from 6 February 2024, of Judge Dire Tladi,a South African national, Mr Moseneke ceased to sit as judge ad hoc in the case, in accordance withArticle 35, paragraph 6, of the Rules of Court.7. By a letter dated 12 February 2024, South Africa, referring to “the developing circ*mstancesin Rafah”, called upon the Court urgently to exercise its power under Article 75, paragraph 1, of theRules of Court. By a letter dated 15 February 2024, Israel provided its observations on South Africa'scommunication.8. By letters dated 16 February 2024, the Registrar informed the Parties of the followingdecision of the Court in response to South Africa's communication:"The Court notes that the most recent developments in the Gaza Strip, and inRafah in particular, ‘would exponentially increase what is already a humanitariannightmare with untold regional consequences', as stated by the United NationsSecretary-General (Remarks to the General Assembly on priorities for 2024 (7 Feb.2024)).This perilous situation demands immediate and effective implementation of theprovisional measures indicated by the Court in its Order of 26 January 2024, which areapplicable throughout the Gaza Strip, including in Rafah, and does not demand theindication of additional provisional measures.The Court emphasizes that the State of Israel remains bound to fully comply withits obligations under the Genocide Convention and with the said Order, including byensuring the safety and security of the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip."9. On 26 February 2024, Israel submitted, within the time-limit fixed for that purpose, a reporton all measures taken to give effect to the Court's Order on the indication of provisional measuresof 26 January 2024, pursuant to paragraph 86, subparagraph 6, thereof. South Africa duly presentedits observations on that report.10. On 6 March 2024, South Africa requested the Court “to indicate further provisionalmeasures and/or to modify its provisional measures indicated on 26 January 2024”, with referenceto Article 41 of the Statute of the Court, as well as Articles 75, paragraphs 1 and 3, and 76 of theRules of Court. On 15 March 2024, Israel provided its written observations on that Request.11. By an Order of 28 March 2024, the Court reaffirmed the provisional measures indicatedin its Order of 26 January 2024 and indicated the following provisional measures:"The State of Israel shall, in conformity with its obligations under the Conventionon the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, and in view of theworsening conditions of life faced by Palestinians in Gaza, in particular the spread offamine and starvation:

-4-(a) Take all necessary and effective measures to ensure, without delay, in fullco-operation with the United Nations, the unhindered provision at scale by allconcerned of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance, includingfood, water, electricity, fuel, shelter, clothing, hygiene and sanitation requirements,as well as medical supplies and medical care to Palestinians throughout Gaza,including by increasing the capacity and number of land crossing points andmaintaining them open for as long as necessary;(b) Ensure with immediate effect that its military does not commit acts which constitutea violation of any of the rights of the Palestinians in Gaza as a protected group underthe Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide,including by preventing, through any action, the delivery of urgently neededhumanitarian assistance".The Court also directed Israel to submit a report to the Court on all measures taken to give effect tothat Order, within one month as from the date thereof.12. On 29 April 2024, Israel submitted, within the time-limit fixed for that purpose, a reporton all measures taken to give effect to the Court's Order on the indication of provisional measuresof 28 March 2024, pursuant to paragraph 51, subparagraph 3, thereof. South Africa duly presentedits observations on that report.13. On 10 May 2024, South Africa submitted to the Court an “urgent Request for themodification and indication of provisional measures” pursuant to Article 41 of the Statute andArticles 75 and 76 of the Rules of Court.14. In its Request, South Africa asked the Court to indicate the following provisional measures:"1. The State of Israel shall immediately withdraw and cease its military offensive inthe Rafah Governorate.2. The State of Israel shall immediately take all effective measures to ensure andfacilitate the unimpeded access to Gaza of United Nations and other officialsengaged in the provision of humanitarian aid and assistance to the population ofGaza, as well as fact-finding missions, internationally mandated bodies or officials,investigators, and journalists, in order to assess and record conditions on the groundin Gaza and enable the effective preservation and retention of evidence, and shallensure that its military does not act to prevent such access, provision, preservationor retention.3. The State of Israel shall submit an open report to the Court: (a) on all measurestaken to give effect to these provisional measures within one week as from the dateof this Order; and (b) on all measures taken to give effect to all previous provisionalmeasures indicated by the Court within one month as from the date of this Order."

-5-15. The Registrar immediately communicated to the Government of Israel a copy of SouthAfrica's Request, in accordance with Article 73, paragraph 2, of the Rules of Court. In a separatecommunication on the same day, Israel was invited to present written observations on that Requestby 15 May 2024. By letters dated 13 May 2024, the Registrar informed the Parties that, pursuant toArticle 74, paragraph 3, of its Rules, the Court had fixed 16 and 17 May 2024 as the dates for theoral proceedings on the Request. By a letter also dated 13 May 2024, Israel asked the Court topostpone the hearings to the following week. After having ascertained the views of the Applicant,which opposed this request, the Court, in light of the circ*mstances, decided not to postpone thehearings. The Parties were informed of the Court's decision by letters dated 14 May 2024.16. At the public hearings held on 16 and 17 May 2024, oral observations on the Request werepresented by:On behalf of South Africa:HE Mr Vusimuzi Madonsela,Mr Vaughan Lowe,Mr John Dugard,Mr Max du Plessis,Ms Adila Hassim,Mr Tembeka Ngcukaitobi,Ms Blinne Ní Ghrálaigh.On behalf of Israel:Mr Gilad Noam,Ms Tamar Kaplan Tourgeman.17. At the end of its oral observations, South Africa asked the Court to indicate the followingprovisional measures:"South Africa respectfully requests the Court to order the State of Israel, as aState party to the Genocide Convention and as a [P]arty to these proceedings, to:(1) immediately, and further to its obligations under the Court's previous Orders of26 January 2024 and 28 March 2024, cease its military operations in the Gaza Strip,including in the Rafah Governorate, and withdraw from the Rafah Crossing andimmediately, totally and unconditionally withdraw the Israeli army from the entiretyof the Gaza Strip;(2) immediately, and further to its obligations under provisional measure 4 of theCourt's 26 January 2024 Order and provisional measures 2 (a) and 2 (b) of theCourt's 28 March 2024 Order, take all effective measures to ensure and facilitatethe unimpeded access to Gaza of United Nations and other officials engaged in theprovision of humanitarian aid and assistance to the population of Gaza, as well asfact-finding missions, internationally mandated bodies and/or officials,

-6-investigators, and journalists, in order to assess and record conditions on the groundin Gaza and enable the effective preservation and retention of evidence; and ensurethat its military does not act to prevent such access, provision, preservation orretention;(3) submit an open report to the Court (a) on all measures taken to give effect to theseprovisional measures within one week as from the date of this Order; and (b) on allmeasures taken to give effect to all previous provisional measures indicated by theCourt within one month as from the date of this Order."18. At the end of its oral observations, Israel requested the Court to "reject the request for themodification and indication of provisional measures submitted by the Republic of South Africa”.19. At the end of the hearings, a Member of the Court put a question to Israel, which provideda written reply to the question on 18 May 2024. South Africa submitted written comments on thereply provided by Israel on 20 May 2024.***I. GENERAL OBSERVATIONS20. In the view of the Court, South Africa's present Request is a request for the modificationof the Order of 28 March 2024. For this reason, the Court must determine whether the conditions setforth in Article 76, paragraph 1, of the Rules of Court have been fulfilled. That paragraph reads asfollows:"At the request of a party or proprio motu, the Court may, at any time before thefinal judgment in the case, revoke or modify any decision concerning provisionalmeasures if, in its opinion, some change in the situation justifies such revocation ormodification."21. The Court must first ascertain whether, taking account of the information that the Partieshave provided with respect to the current situation, there is reason to conclude that the situation thatwarranted the decision set out in its Order of 28 March 2024 has changed since that time. If the Courtfinds that there was a change in the situation since the delivery of its earlier Order, it will then haveto consider whether such a change justifies a modification of its earlier decision concerningprovisional measures. Any such modification would be appropriate only if the general conditionslaid down in Article 41 of the Statute of the Court were also met in this instance (Application of theInternational Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Armenia v.Azerbaijan), Request for the Modification of the Order Indicating Provisional Measures of7 December 2021, Order of 12 October 2022, I.C.J. Reports 2022 (II), p. 581, para. 12).

-7-22. The Court will thus begin by determining whether there has been a change in the situationthat warranted the decision set out in its Order of 28 March 2024.**23. South Africa states that its present Request is prompted by the ground incursion thatIsrael's military began on 7 May 2024 in Rafah, the “last refuge” in Gaza for 1.5 million Palestinians,the majority of whom had been forcibly displaced from northern and central Gaza, and the last viablecentre in Gaza for habitation, public administration, and the provision of basic public services andmedical care. South Africa contends that Israel has now seized control of both the Rafah crossingand the Kerem Shalom (Karem Abu Salem) crossing, thereby taking full and direct control over allentry and exit points for people and goods to and from Gaza, and that it has closed the former crossingand "mostly disabled” the latter. It alleges that medical facilities in Rafah are also in danger, as themain facility in the entire Rafah Governorate is no longer operational, while the functioning of othersis severely impacted. South Africa argues that Israel has directed Palestinians in the eastern portionof Rafah to relocate to "the so-called Al-Mawasi ‘humanitarian area' in the Khan YounisGovernorate", which is allegedly already overcrowded and lacking in safety, as well as in essentialservices. According to South Africa, a mass evacuation on this scale is “impossible to carry outsafely”. The Applicant adds that, in any event, “there is nowhere for Palestinians in Rafah to go”, asapproximately 76 per cent of the territory of Gaza is now under evacuation orders, and “an estimatedtwo thirds of homes have been damaged or destroyed".24. In the Applicant's view, Israel's military incursion into Rafah, in light of the extreme riskit poses to humanitarian supplies and basic services in Gaza, to the Palestinian medical system andto the survival of Palestinians in Gaza as a group, "is not only an escalation of the prevailing situation,but gives rise to new facts that are causing irreparable harm to the rights of the Palestinian people inGaza". South Africa argues that “[t]his amounts to a change in the situation in Gaza since the Court'sOrder of 28 March 2024, within the meaning of Articles 75 (3) and 76 (2) of the Rules of the Court”.*25. Israel rejects South Africa's contention that there has been a change in the situation sincethe Court's Order of 28 March 2024. It claims that, “[w]hile many civilians have indeed evacuatedto Rafah over the past few months, the fact remains that the city of Rafah also serves as a militarystronghold for Hamas, which continues to pose a significant threat to the State of Israel and itscitizens”. Israel refutes South Africa's allegations that it has closed critical border crossings in Gaza,or that it has failed to facilitate the provision of fuel for sustaining humanitarian operations andfacilities. Israel emphasizes that, on the contrary, it has made continuous efforts to alleviate thehumanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip, including by opening a new land crossing at Erez West on12 May 2024, by facilitating the establishment of a floating pier off the Gaza coast, which becameoperational on 17 May 2024, and by supporting the "rehabilitation of hospitals" in and outside Rafah.

-8-26. Israel contends that it “continues to take extraordinary measures in order to minimize harmto Palestinian civilians in Gaza”, in particular by informing civilians of planned operations by theIsraeli Defense Forces in specific areas, by putting in place clear and definite targeting proceduresso as to achieve the requisite military needs while minimizing civilian harm, by taking additionalmeasures to ensure that the Israeli Defense Forces are aware of sensitive sites, such as medicalservices and shelters, and by ensuring that humanitarian aid continues to be delivered during thecourse of hostilities.*27. The Court recalls that, in its Order of 26 January 2024, it noted that the military operationconducted by Israel following the attack of 7 October 2023 had resulted in "a large number of deathsand injuries, as well as the massive destruction of homes, the forcible displacement of the vastmajority of the population, and extensive damage to civilian infrastructure" (Application of theConvention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip(South Africa v. Israel), Provisional Measures, Order of 26 January 2024, para. 46). In its decisioncommunicated to the Parties by letters of 16 February 2024, the Court noted, quoting theUnited Nations Secretary-General, that the developments in the Gaza Strip, and in Rafah inparticular, “would exponentially increase what [wa]s already a humanitarian nightmare with untoldregional consequences" (see paragraph 8 above). The Court further recalls that, in its Order of28 March 2024, it observed with regret that the catastrophic living conditions of the Palestinians inthe Gaza Strip had deteriorated further since January 2024, especially in view of the prolonged andwidespread deprivation of food and other basic necessities to which the Palestinians in the Gaza Striphad been subjected (Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crimeof Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel), Request for the Modification of the Order of26 January 2024 Indicating Provisional Measures, Order of 28 March 2024, para. 18).28. The Court notes that the catastrophic humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip which, asstated in its Order of 26 January 2024, was at serious risk of deteriorating, has deteriorated, and hasdone so even further since the Court adopted its Order of 28 March 2024. In this regard, the Courtobserves that the concerns that it expressed in its decision communicated to the Parties on16 February 2024 with respect to the developments in Rafah have materialized, and that thehumanitarian situation is now to be characterized as disastrous. After weeks of intensification ofmilitary bombardments of Rafah, where more than a million Palestinians had fled as a result of Israelievacuation orders covering more than three quarters of Gaza's entire territory, on 6 May 2024, nearly100,000 Palestinians were ordered by Israel to evacuate the eastern portion of Rafah and relocate tothe Al-Mawasi and Khan Younis areas ahead of a planned military offensive. The military groundoffensive in Rafah, which Israel started on 7 May 2024, is still ongoing and has led to new evacuationorders. As a result, according to United Nations reports, nearly 800,000 people have been displacedfrom Rafah as at 18 May 2024.29. The Court considers that the above-mentioned developments, which are exceptionallygrave, in particular the military offensive in Rafah and the resulting repeated large-scaledisplacement of the already extremely vulnerable Palestinian population in the Gaza Strip, constitutea change in the situation within the meaning of Article 76 of the Rules of Court.

-9-30. The Court is also of the view that the provisional measures indicated in its Order of28 March 2024, as well as those reaffirmed therein, do not fully address the consequences arisingfrom the change in the situation explained above, thus justifying the modification of these measures.However, in order to modify its earlier decision concerning provisional measures, the Court muststill satisfy itself that the general conditions laid down in Article 41 of the Statute of the Court aremet in the current situation.II. CONDITIONS FOR THE INDICATION OF PROVISIONAL MEASURES31. The Court recalls that, in its Order of 26 January 2024 indicating provisional measures inthe present case, it concluded that “prima facie, it ha[d] jurisdiction pursuant to Article IX of theGenocide Convention to entertain the case" (Application of the Convention on the Prevention andPunishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel), ProvisionalMeasures, Order of 26 January 2024, para. 31). In its Order of 28 March 2024 concerning SouthAfrica's Request of 6 March 2024 for the modification of the Order of 26 January 2024, the Courtstated that it saw no reason to revisit that conclusion (Application of the Convention on the Preventionand Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel), Request for theModification of the Order of 26 January 2024 Indicating Provisional Measures, Order of 28 March2024, para. 24). The Court likewise sees no reason to do so for the purposes of deciding on the presentRequest.32. In the Order of 26 January 2024, the Court also found that at least some of the rightsclaimed by South Africa under the Genocide Convention and for which it was seeking protectionwere plausible, namely the right of the Palestinians in Gaza to be protected from acts of genocideand related prohibited acts mentioned in Article III, and the right of South Africa to seek Israel'scompliance with the latter's obligations under that Convention (Application of the Convention on thePrevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel),Provisional Measures, Order of 26 January 2024, para. 54). The Court saw no reason to revisit thisconclusion in its Order of 28 March 2024 (Application of the Convention on the Prevention andPunishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel), Request for theModification of the Order of 26 January 2024 Indicating Provisional Measures, Order of 28 March2024, para. 25). The Court likewise sees no reason to do so for the purposes of deciding on the presentRequest. It further considers that, by their very nature, at least some of the provisional measuressought pursuant to the present Request (see paragraph 17 above) are aimed at preserving the rightsclaimed by the Applicant that the Court has found to be plausible.33. The Court must now consider whether the current situation entails a risk of irreparableprejudice to the plausible rights claimed by South Africa and whether there is urgency.34. The Court recalls in this regard that it has previously concluded that, in view of thefundamental values sought to be protected by the Genocide Convention, the plausible rights inquestion in these proceedings are of such a nature that prejudice to them is capable of causingirreparable harm (see Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crimeof Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel), Provisional Measures, Order of 26 January

- 10 -2024, para. 66; Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime ofGenocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel), Request for the Modification of the Order of26 January 2024 Indicating Provisional Measures, Order of 28 March 2024, para. 27).*35. The Applicant states that the situation in Gaza "could not be more urgent" and thereforedemands the indication of further or modified provisional measures. South Africa refers, inparticular, to the widespread risk of violent death and injury faced by the displaced Palestinianpopulation, as well as to the increased restrictions on the provision of humanitarian assistance andthe deprivation of access to healthcare that will ensue if hospitals in Rafah are rendered inoperable.36. The Applicant contends that there has already been “a total collapse of infrastructure, ofsanitation, of water, of food supply: in short, the conditions necessary to sustain life for the2.3 million Palestinians in Gaza”. According to South Africa, “[t]he level of destruction that Israelhas caused across Gaza and is now wreaking on Rafah threatens the very survival of futurePalestinian generations in Gaza".37. South Africa further contends that the very manner in which Israel is pursuing its militaryoperations in Rafah, as well as elsewhere in Gaza, is itself genocidal. Thus, according to SouthAfrica, an “explicit order that Israel ‘cease its military activities”” is required to “protect what is leftof Palestinian life in Gaza”. South Africa emphasizes that there are no evacuation zones in Gazawhere humanitarian aid and assistance are provided. It contends, in particular, that Al-Mawasi cannotbe considered as a humanitarian zone for Palestinians instructed to evacuate from Rafah because itis"profoundly unsafe: over-crowding, mountains of waste, and the lack of water andsanitation are leading to the spread of disease, while Israeli military attacks on the area,including aerial bombardment, shelling and sniping, have led to and continue to lead toserious injury and death”.According to South Africa, Israel “had no plan in place to accommodate the hundreds of thousandsof Palestinians ordered to flee Rafah and other areas in early May 2024 - just like it had no plan toaccommodate those forced to flee as a result of previous evacuation orders".38. The Applicant finally states that Israel's “complete refusal to allow independentinvestigators" in Gaza entails a risk that the true number of Palestinian casualties will remainunknown and that evidence will be obliterated as a result of Israel's ongoing military operation. InSouth Africa's view, this justifies the imposition of a measure requiring Israel to grant unimpededaccess to Gaza to “persons able to investigate ongoing atrocities”, particularly in light of the recent

- 11 -discovery of multiple mass graves at Nasser Hospital in Khan Younis and at Al Shifa Hospital inGaza City with bodies “reportedly showing signs of torture and summary executions".*39. Israel maintains that the allegations against it are “patently untrue” and that many of SouthAfrica's assertions lack any basis in fact or law. The Respondent argues that the provisional measuresindicated by the Court that are currently in place are entirely sufficient and claims that South Africahas not established that the “extreme measures” that it now seeks are justified.40. Israel contends that there has not been “a large-scale assault” on Rafah, but rather thatspecific, limited and localized operations have been undertaken, prefaced by incremental andlocalized evacuations and support for humanitarian activities. It states that, as part of its efforts tofacilitate the evacuation of civilians from parts of the Rafah region where intense hostilities wereexpected, "a humanitarian area was initially delineated by Israel in the Al-Mawasi area" locatedoutside the theatre of planned hostilities. Israel states that this area was “expanded very significantly"since the beginning of the military offensive.41. According to the Respondent, the Israeli Defense Forces implement “[r]estricted fire areas"and "tactical pauses in fighting along evacuation routes” to enhance the security of the Palestiniansevacuating. Israel further states that two main routes can reach this “humanitarian area”, making itpossible to deliver aid, including from the floating pier off the Gaza coast operational since 17 May2024. It also alleges that it actively facilitates the provision of food, water and shelter, and that six ofthe eight field hospitals in Gaza are located in that area. Israel submits that it has purchased40,000 tents capable of sheltering 320,000 people in the humanitarian area and that 7,000 of thosetents have entered Gaza. According to Israel's assessment, approximately 800,000 civilians haveevacuated the Rafah area to date, whether as a result of sectoral warnings issued by the IsraeliDefense Forces or on their own initiative.42. In Israel's view, an Order by the Court requesting the cessation of hostilities by Israel“would mean that 132 hostages would remain to languish in Hamas' tunnels forsaken . . . [and that]Hamas would be left unhindered and free to continue its attacks against Israeli territory and Israelicivilians”. Israel also states that its military action in Rafah has the purpose of protecting its civiliansand rescuing the Israeli hostages still held by Hamas and other armed groups. The Respondent furtherstates that it has in place the necessary mechanisms to examine and investigate allegations ofwrongdoing by its military forces and to ensure accountability.**

- 12 -43. The Court recalls that, on 7 May 2024, Israel began a military offensive in Rafah, followingweeks of intensified bombardment, and that, as a result, approximately 800,000 Palestinians weredisplaced from Rafah as at 18 May 2024 (see paragraph 28 above)._44. The Court notes that senior United Nations officials have consistently underscored theimmense risks associated with a military offensive in Rafah. For instance, on 3 May 2024, theSpokesperson of the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) warned that anassault on Rafah would put “hundreds of thousands of people... at imminent risk of death" andwould severely impact the humanitarian operation in the entire Gaza Strip, which is run primarilyout of Rafah (OCHA, “Hostilities in the Gaza Strip and Israel - Flash Update #162", 6 May 2024).On 6 May 2024, the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) indicated that about half of theapproximately 1.2 million Palestinians sheltering in Rafah were children, and warned that militaryoperations therein would result in “the few remaining basic services and infrastructure they need tosurvive being totally destroyed" (UNICEF, “UNICEF warns: There is ‘nowhere safe to go' for the600,000 children of Rafah”, press release, 6 May 2024).45. United Nations sources indicate that the above-mentioned risks have started to materializeand will intensify even further if the operation continues. For instance, on 8 May 2024, the Director-General of the World Health Organization stated that the Al Najjar Hospital, one of the last remainingmedical facilities in the Rafah Governorate, was no longer functional due to the ongoing hostilitiesin its vicinity. On 17 May 2024, the World Food Programme (WFP) warned that it had been unableto access its warehouse in Rafah for over a week and observed that “[t]he incursion into Rafah is asignificant setback to recent modest progress on access” (WFP, “Gaza updates: WFP responds tohunger crisis as Rafah incursion cuts access to warehouse", press release, 17 May 2024).46. On the basis of the information before it, the Court is not convinced that the evacuationefforts and related measures that Israel affirms to have undertaken to enhance the security of civiliansin the Gaza Strip, and in particular those recently displaced from the Rafah Governorate, aresufficient to alleviate the immense risk to which the Palestinian population is exposed as a result ofthe military offensive in Rafah. The Court observes, for instance, that according to a statement bythe Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugeesin the Near East (UNRWA), Mr Philippe Lazzarini, on 18 May 2024,“[t]he areas that people are fleeing to now do not have safe water supplies or sanitationfacilities. Al-Mawasi — as one example — is a sandy 14 square kilometre agriculturalland, where people are left out in the open with little to no buildings or roads. It lacksthe minimal conditions to provide emergency humanitarian assistance in a safe anddignified manner.”The Court observes that Israel has not provided sufficient information concerning the safety of thepopulation during the evacuation process, or the availability in the Al-Mawasi area of the necessaryamount of water, sanitation, food, medicine and shelter for the 800,000 Palestinians that haveevacuated thus far. Consequently, the Court is of the view that Israel has not sufficiently addressedand dispelled the concerns raised by its military offensive in Rafah.

- 13 -47. In light of the considerations set out above, and taking account of the provisional measuresindicated in its Orders of 26 January 2024 and 28 March 2024, the Court finds that the currentsituation arising from Israel's military offensive in Rafah entails a further risk of irreparable prejudiceto the plausible rights claimed by South Africa and that there is urgency, in the sense that there existsa real and imminent risk that such prejudice will be caused before the Court gives its final decision.III. CONCLUSION AND MEASURES TO BE ADOPTED48. The Court concludes, on the basis of the above considerations, that the circ*mstances ofthe case require it to modify its decision set out in its Order of 28 March 2024.49. The Court recalls that, in accordance with Article 75, paragraph 2, of its Rules, when arequest for the indication of provisional measures has been made, it has the power under its Statuteto indicate measures that are, in whole or in part, other than those requested. In the present case,having considered the terms of the provisional measures requested by South Africa and thecirc*mstances of the case, the Court finds that the measures to be indicated need not be identical tothose requested.50. The Court considers that, in conformity with its obligations under the GenocideConvention, Israel must immediately halt its military offensive, and any other action in the RafahGovernorate, which may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bringabout its physical destruction in whole or in part.51. The Court recalls that, in its Order of 26 January 2024, it ordered Israel, inter alia, to "takeeffective measures to prevent the destruction and ensure the preservation of evidence related toallegations of acts within the scope of Article II and Article III of [the Genocide Convention]" (seeparagraph 5 above). In the present circ*mstances, the Court is also of the view that, in order topreserve evidence related to allegations of acts falling within the scope of Article II and Article IIIof the Genocide Convention, Israel must take effective measures to ensure the unimpeded access tothe Gaza Strip of any commission of inquiry, fact-finding mission or other investigative bodymandated by competent organs of the United Nations to investigate allegations of genocide.52. The Court also considers that the catastrophic situation in Gaza confirms the need for theimmediate and effective implementation of the measures indicated in its Orders of 26 January 2024and 28 March 2024, which are applicable throughout the Gaza Strip, including in Rafah. In thesecirc*mstances, the Court finds it necessary to reaffirm the measures indicated in those Orders. In sodoing, the Court wishes to emphasize that the measure indicated in paragraph 51 (2) (a) of its Orderof 28 March 2024, requiring the “unhindered provision at scale by all concerned of urgently neededbasic services and humanitarian assistance”, necessitates that the Respondent maintain open landcrossing points, and in particular the Rafah crossing.53. In view of the specific provisional measures it has decided to indicate, the Court considersthat Israel must submit a report to the Court on all measures taken to give effect to this Order, withinone month as from the date of this Order. The report so provided will then be communicated to SouthAfrica, which shall be given the opportunity to submit to the Court its comments thereon.

- 14 -54. The Court recalls that its orders on provisional measures under Article 41 of the Statutehave binding effect and thus create international legal obligations for any party to whom theprovisional measures are addressed (Application of the International Convention on the Eliminationof All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Armenia v. Azerbaijan), Provisional Measures, Order of22 February 2023, I.C.J. Reports 2023, p. 29, para. 65).55. The Court underlines that the present Order is without prejudice to any findings concerningthe Respondent's compliance with the Orders of 26 January 2024 and 28 March 2024.*56. In its Orders of 26 January 2024 and 28 March 2024, the Court expressed its grave concernover the fate of the hostages abducted during the attack in Israel on 7 October 2023 and held sincethen by Hamas and other armed groups, and called for their immediate and unconditional release.The Court finds it deeply troubling that many of these hostages remain in captivity and reiterates itscall for their immediate and unconditional release.***57. For these reasons,THE COURT,(1) By thirteen votes to two,Reaffirms the provisional measures indicated in its Orders of 26 January 2024 and 28 March2024, which should be immediately and effectively implemented;IN FAVOUR: President Salam; Judges Abraham, Yusuf, Xue, Bhandari, Iwasawa, Nolte,Charlesworth, Brant, Gómez Robledo, Cleveland, Aurescu, Tladi;AGAINST: Vice-President Sebutinde; Judge ad hoc Barak;(2) Indicates the following provisional measures:The State of Israel shall, in conformity with its obligations under the Convention on thePrevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, and in view of the worsening conditions oflife faced by civilians in the Rafah Governorate:

- 15 -(a) By thirteen votes to two,Immediately halt its military offensive, and any other action in the Rafah Governorate, whichmay inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physicaldestruction in whole or in part;IN FAVOUR: President Salam; Judges Abraham, Yusuf, Xue, Bhandari, Iwasawa, Nolte,Charlesworth, Brant, Gómez Robledo, Cleveland, Aurescu, Tladi;AGAINST: Vice-President Sebutinde; Judge ad hoc Barak;(b) By thirteen votes to two,Maintain open the Rafah crossing for unhindered provision at scale of urgently needed basicservices and humanitarian assistance;IN FAVOUR: President Salam; Judges Abraham, Yusuf, Xue, Bhandari, Iwasawa, Nolte,Charlesworth, Brant, Gómez Robledo, Cleveland, Aurescu, Tladi;AGAINST: Vice-President Sebutinde; Judge ad hoc Barak;(c) By thirteen votes to two,Take effective measures to ensure the unimpeded access to the Gaza Strip of any commissionof inquiry, fact-finding mission or other investigative body mandated by competent organs of theUnited Nations to investigate allegations of genocide;IN FAVOUR: President Salam; Judges Abraham, Yusuf, Xue, Bhandari, Iwasawa, Nolte,Charlesworth, Brant, Gómez Robledo, Cleveland, Aurescu, Tladi;AGAINST: Vice-President Sebutinde; Judge ad hoc Barak;(3) By thirteen votes to two,Decides that the State of Israel shall submit a report to the Court on all measures taken to giveeffect to this Order, within one month as from the date of this Order.IN FAVOUR: President Salam; Judges Abraham, Yusuf, Xue, Bhandari, Iwasawa, Nolte,Charlesworth, Brant, Gómez Robledo, Cleveland, Aurescu, Tladi;AGAINST: Vice-President Sebutinde; Judge ad hoc Barak.

- 16 -Done in English and in French, the English text being authoritative, at the Peace Palace,The Hague, this twenty-fourth day of May, two thousand and twenty-four, in three copies, one ofwhich will be placed in the archives of the Court and the others transmitted to the Government of theRepublic of South Africa and the Government of the State of Israel, respectively.(Signed)Nawaf SALAM,President.(Signed) Philippe GAUTIER,Registrar.Vice-President SEBUTINDE appends a dissenting opinion to the Order of the Court;Judges NOLTE, AURESCU and TLADI append declarations to the Order of the Court;Judge ad hoc BARAK appends a dissenting opinion to the Order of the Court.(Initialled) N.S.(Initialled) Ph.G.