Gambian Lawyer Clarifies Judges’ Inquiries; States Myanmar’s ARSA Reports Rely Solely on Military Claims
[ICJ Report]
January 27 | Burma Independent Voice
The Gambia countered the Myanmar side’s assertion regarding a witness providing duplicate testimonies following an inquiry by Judge Cleveland. In its submission, The Gambia explained that this was not a case of a single witness providing two different statements, but rather a single statement being duplicated in the records.
“To ensure that no witness provided testimony twice, The Gambia cross-checked each witness (except for IIMM witnesses) as we know the names of all witnesses submitted to the Court. We made a mistake by including the same testimony in both the original report and the rebuttal. This is not a case of one witness giving two different accounts; it is a single account that was accidentally duplicated. Upon realizing this, we informed the Court and withdrew the second copy from the record,” stated Gambian lawyer Paul Reichler.
During his argument, the lawyer mentioned that The Gambia is aware of the identities of the witnesses but has withheld their names for protective purposes. “The Gambia knows their names and personal information. However, when submitting to the Court, we redacted the names in 30 cases at the request of the witnesses themselves for their own safety and security,” he told the Court.
Regarding Myanmar’s allegations, he countered: “The claim by Myanmar’s lawyers that there are contradictions between statements given by the same witness is highly exaggerated. It is true that testimonies given to the IIMM are longer and more detailed. It is natural for minor details to vary slightly when a witness gives testimony three years apart. However, concerning the military’s attacks, there are absolutely no fundamental contradictions. Therefore, there is no reason to doubt the credibility of these witnesses, nor is there reason to doubt the credibility of the other 42 witnesses obtained from LAW (Legal Action Worldwide).”
Lawyer Paul Reichler also stated that Myanmar’s submissions to the Court regarding ARSA are unreliable as they depend entirely on the military’s own reports.
“Myanmar relies primarily on the military’s own reports for information regarding ARSA. They present attack locations, troop strengths, and casualty numbers exactly as they appear in the military’s reports. However, these cannot be considered independent sources. These are self-serving statements. As Professor Newton explained, military combat reports worldwide are often difficult to trust and tend to be self-interested. Officers do not report the war crimes they have committed, and superiors often do not wish to hear about them. Falsifying enemy strength and casualty counts is also a common practice,” he added
