Geneva - Colombia's withdrawal from the case South Africa filed against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), regarding Israel's alleged violations of the Genocide Convention in the Gaza Strip, marks a significant setback. This decision hampers international efforts to uphold the Convention, protect Palestinians from genocide, and hold perpetrators accountable.
In a statement issued on 22 September 2026, the International Court of Justice announced that Colombia had notified the Court on 18 September of its decision "to withdraw its Declaration of intervention that it had filed under Article 63 of the Statute of the Court."
Article 63 allows states parties to a convention to intervene and present their position on proceedings whenever the legal interpretation of a convention is in question, without thereby becoming a party to the proceedings. Accordingly, Colombia was not the Applicant in the case and had no authority to halt or drop it.
Colombia's withdrawal does not stop the proceedings, lead to the dismissal of the case, impact the Court's jurisdiction, or affect South Africa's arguments and evidence
Given the nature of such intervention, Colombia's withdrawal directly ends its participation as an intervening state and relinquishes its right to present its position on the provisions of the Genocide Convention before the Court. It does not affect the case itself or its proceedings.
Colombia's withdrawal does not stop the proceedings, lead to the dismissal of the case, impact the Court's jurisdiction, or affect South Africa's arguments and evidence. It also does not influence the Declarations of intervention filed by other states. Additionally, it does not diminish the binding nature of the provisional measures issued by the Court in January, March, and May 2024, which remain legally binding on Israel and must be fully and immediately implemented.
Any Israeli effort to depict or leverage Colombia's withdrawal as weakening the case or questioning its legal validity is therefore irrelevant. The withdrawal is a unilateral action by an intervening state and does not influence the Court's assessment of facts or evidence. It cannot justify exonerating Israel or dismissing its violations of the Genocide Convention. Only the Court has authority to decide on these issues, and the case remains actively pending until it delivers a final judgment.
Colombia's decision came after a change in leadership, alongside a declared shift in foreign policy aimed at bolstering political and security ties with Israel and the United States. However, government changes do not disrupt the state's ongoing commitments or allow political shifts or interests to influence international obligations. As a signatory to the Genocide Convention, Colombia is still obligated to faithfully uphold all its provisions, particularly the duty to prevent and punish genocide.
Any political or economic cooperation between states intended to protect their allies from accountability, such as pressuring other states to withdraw from legal processes, halting cooperation, or imposing sanctions and restrictions on international courts, their judges, prosecutors, staff, and collaborators, seriously undermines the independence of international justice and directly seeks to influence its work.
Allowing these practices, or making them routine, would create an international system that lacks accountability where the law would constrain weaker states, while powerful states or their allies could still act with impunity. This situation would deepen disdain for international law, erode the independence and credibility of international institutions, and hinder essential cooperation to gather evidence, safeguard witnesses and victims, and enforce rulings. It would also impair the justice system's capacity to prevent crimes and deter perpetrators.
The impact would go beyond obstructing a single case, leading to greater impunity, fostering repeated crimes, and leaving victims without protection or a proper way to seek redress.
The obligations under the Genocide Convention are collective and owed to all States Parties, aimed at safeguarding human groups from destruction. These obligations are not limited to bilateral relations and cannot be used as political or economic leverage or conditional on reciprocity. Each State Party has an independent duty to prevent and punish genocide and to faithfully implement the Convention, regardless of its relations, alliances, or interests with other states.
The duty to prevent genocide is an independent, proactive obligation that every state must uphold. It comes into effect as soon as a state is aware, or should be aware, of a significant risk that genocide might happen. This obligation compels the state to act immediately and employ all reasonably available measures, considering its capacity and influence, to stop the genocide from happening or persisting.
Failing to take these measures, even if able, can lead to international responsibility without a final judgment that the crime occurred. Leaving the intervention before the Court does not suspend, limit, or reduce this obligation or its binding nature.
Any military, security, intelligence, technical, or logistical cooperation between Colombia and Israel must undergo prior and continuous legal review. Such cooperation must be halted if there's a significant risk it could enable actions prohibited under the Convention or heighten dangers for Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. It is essential to ensure transparency, proper oversight, and monitoring of the end-use of any transferred equipment, information, or technologies.
All parties to the Genocide Convention must uphold the independence of the International Court of Justice and safeguard the judicial process from external pressure and politicisation. They should avoid implementing punitive or retaliatory actions against states, institutions, or individuals involved in accountability efforts. Additionally, they must take individual and collective steps, within their capabilities and influence, to compel Israel to immediately and fully comply with the Court's provisional measures. These efforts should also ensure that evidence preservation and victims' access to justice are not hindered.
All states must impose effective boycott measures and diplomatic, economic, and legal sanctions on Israel until it complies with the orders of the International Court of Justice and ceases acts prohibited under the Genocide Convention. These measures should include a comprehensive and immediate ban on the export and import of weapons, ammunition, military and security equipment, surveillance technologies, and dual-use materials to and from Israel; an end to military, security, and intelligence cooperation; the suspension of trade and investment agreements and privileges that support Israel's capacity to continue committing crimes; and an end to dealings with companies and entities involved.
Targeted and effective sanctions must be imposed on political and military officials and entities implicated in the crimes, including asset freezes and travel bans. Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor calls for opening national investigations and prosecuting those suspected of responsibility, including under universal jurisdiction; enforcing arrest warrants issued by the International Criminal Court; and supporting the preservation of evidence and the protection of victims, witnesses, and those cooperating with international justice mechanisms.
Any diplomatic, political, or economic efforts should aim to halt the genocide in the Gaza Strip and lift Israel's unlawful blockade. This includes opening all crossings and ensuring free access to food, water, medicine, fuel, shelter supplies, and reconstruction materials. Efforts should also focus on stopping forced displacement and systematic destruction, rather than shielding Israel from accountability or discouraging other states from engaging in international justice processes.
States parties to the Genocide Convention should actively support South Africa's case, including by submitting Declarations of intervention and legal memoranda. They should also avoid actions that could weaken the case or isolate the initiating state. Preventing genocide obligates countries to leverage their influence to stop the crime and disrupt its continuation, rather than undermining accountability efforts or providing perpetrators with additional time and protections.
