The Gambia included an urgent request for the Court to order provisional measures in light of ‘the ongoing, severe and irreparable harm being suffered by members of the Rohingya group.’235 On 23 January 2020, the ICJ issued a relatively rare unanimous order on provisional measures. The Court described the Rohingya remaining in Myanmar as ‘extremely vulnerable’. As part of its rationale for issuing the order, the ICJ made it clear that, ‘Myanmar has not presented to the Court concrete measures aimed specifically at recognizing and ensuring the right of the Rohingya to exist as a protected group under the Genocide Convention.’236 In short, the provisional measures order recognises that Myanmar’s actions prior to the order were wholly inadequate to protect the Rohingya. It creates an expectation that Myanmar must take concrete measures in order to meet its obligations under the Genocide Convention.237 Without prejudging the merits of the case - i.e. whether or not genocide has already taken place - the ICJ ordered Myanmar to ‘take all measures within its power’ to prevent irreparable harm against the Rohingya. The Court emphasised that the Myanmar State must fulfil its obligations to prevent and punish the crime of genocide, regardless of the internal armed conflict situation in Rakhine State. 238 In brief, the provisional measures imposed by the Court require Myanmar to prevent the commission of genocidal acts, ensure security forces and those under its influence do not commit or incite genocide, preserve evidence of alleged genocidal acts, and report back within four months on its compliance with the order and every six months thereafter until the case concludes.239 Under the UN Charter, all member States must comply with ICJ decisions.240 Critically assessing Myanmar’s compliance with the order is therefore of the utmost importance. To date, the State of Myanmar has not been under any legal obligation to make its reports public, despite consistent calls for this from a broad range of actors, including BROUK along with a coalition of Rohingya organisations. At the time of publication of BROUK’s May 2023 briefing, two of Myanmar’s compliance reports and The Gambia’s observations on four of the reports had been made published on the Court’s website. However, they are no longer available and may have been published in error.241 235 The Gambia v. Myanmar, ICJ ‘Application Instituting Proceedings and Request for Provisional Measures’ (11 November 2019) [113]. 236 The Gambia v. Myanmar, ICJ provisional measures order op. cit. 22 [73]. 237 USHMM, ‘Practical Prevention - How the Genocide Convention’s Obligation to Prevent Applies to Myanmar - Report #2: The Denial of the Right to Citizenship and the Right to Participate in Public Affairs’ (October 2020) 5. 238 The Gambia v. Myanmar, ICJ provisional measures order op. cit. 22 [74]. 239 The Gambia v. Myanmar, ‘Application’ (11 November 2019) op. cit. 46 [86] 58 [113]. 240 United Nations, Charter of the United Nations (1945) 1 UNTS XVI Art 94(1). 241 The reports were previously mentioned but not linked on the main case page <https://www.icj-cij.org/case/178/otherdocuments>, and were previously available at the following links <https://www.icj-cij.org/node/106112> (Myanmar's first report); <https://www.icj-cij.org/node/106113> (The Gambia's observations on the first report); <https://www.icjcij.org/node/106115> (The Gambia's observations on the second report); <https://www.icj-cij.org/node/106117> (The Gambia's observations on the third report); <https://www.icj-cij.org/node/106118 (Myanmar’s fourth report only available in French); and <https://www.icj-cij.org/node/106119> (The Gambia's observations on the fourth report), accessed 23 May 2023. 42