Provisional measure (3) – preserve evidence ‘The Republic of the Union of Myanmar shall take effective measures to prevent the destruction and ensure the preservation of evidence related to allegations of acts within the scope of Article II of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.’ The Myanmar State is obliged to comply with this provisional measure at all times. This includes during situations of internal armed conflict, as well as with reference to fresh allegations of genocidal acts since the provisional measures were ordered in January 2020. In previous briefings, BROUK highlighted how the Myanmar regime continued to build infrastructure on Rohingya land razed during the ‘clearance operations’ of 2016-2017, including on sites of alleged mass killings and other serious crimes. BROUK’s research built on the findings of the UNFFMM’s 2019 report.150 In many cases, the land razed was used to construct Border Guard Police (BGP) outposts or military camps.151 According to reports received from the ground, the Arakan Army now occupies many of those same BGP outposts and military camps. This potentially further compromises evidence relating to alleged genocidal acts committed by the Myanmar military during the 2016-2017 ‘clearance operations’. Provisional measure (4) – report to the ICJ ‘The Republic of the Union of Myanmar shall submit a report to the Court on all measures taken to give effect to this Order within four months, as from the date of this Order, and thereafter every six months, until a final decision on the case is rendered by the Court.’ It is unclear whether Min Aung Hlaing’s regime met the 23 May 2025 deadline to submit its latest report on compliance with the provisional measures order to the Court. The first batch of Rohingya prisoners were released from prisons in Myanmar within days of the Argentinian court issuing arrest warrants for Min Aung Hlaing and others.152 It is likely the releases will feature in the regime’s report to the Court on its compliance with the provisional measures order, although this is impossible to verify as the reports are not publicly available. The extensive evidence and analysis of the junta’s breaches of the ICJ’s provisional measures order presented in this report underscore – for the eleventh time – the urgent need for contemporaneous international scrutiny and transparency in the reporting process on compliance with provisional measures to the Court in this case. The military regime has routinely breached the provisional measures order for more than four years, without facing any consequences. Under the Rules of the Court, the ICJ may of its own accord either issue further provisional measures or amend the existing order by providing more specific instructions.153 If the Myanmar State were 150 UNFFMM, ‘Detailed findings of the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar’ (16 September 2019) UN Doc A/HRC/42/CRP.5 [116-140]. 151 UNFFMM ibid [126]. 152 RFA, ‘Myanmar junta frees nearly 1,000 Rohingya from prison, group says’ (17 February 2025) available at <https://www.rfa.org/english/myanmar/2025/02/17/rohingya-freed/> accessed 22 May 2025. 153 See International Court of Justice Rules of Court adopted on 14 April 1978 and entered into force on 1 July 1978, Rules 75 and 76. See also Prachiti Venkatraman and Ashley Jordana, UK Human Rights Blog, ‘Myanmar’s Compliance with the ICJ Provisional Measures Order & the Road Ahead’ (3 September 2020) available at <https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2020/09/03/myanmars-compliance-with-the-icj-provisional-measures-order-the-roadahead/> accessed 14 May 2024 and USHMM, Report#2, op.cit. 5. A change to the Internal Judicial Practice of the Court provided for the establishment of an ad hoc committee comprised of three judges to assist the Court in monitoring the implementation of provisional measures. The ad hoc committee reports periodically to the Court and can recommend potential options to the Court, which should include a recommendation to make Myanmar’s reports public. ICJ Press Release, ‘Adoption of a new Article 11 of the Resolution concerning the Internal Judicial Practice of the Court, on 27