Solidarity demo - Budrus to Ni'lin - 7-7-08

Solidarity demo - Budrus to Ni'lin - 7-7-08:

"March from Budrus to Ni'lin 7-7-2008
In solidarity with the people of Ni'lin Village
The Village has been kept under curfew for the fourth day."

"The village of Ni'alin, which is located in the Ramallah district, has for more than a month now been leading an intense struggle against the de-facto appropriation of 2,500 of its 7,000 dunams of land by the 'separation fence'. The route of the fence in this area, much like the famous case of Bil'in, has been planned in such a way that would allow the near by illegal settlement of Hashmonaim to expand on lands that will be 'left behind' the fence.

The villagers, who refuse to accept this, hold three-four demonstrations a week, marching towards the construction site and the settlement, in many cases successfully forcing a halt of construction.

The army, however, is responding with growing ferocity. According to the army spokesperson, an entire regiment was relocated to guard the construction, and these soldiers use brutal force against the unarmed demonstrators. On Friday the village was put under a ten-day siege, and residents were informed it was a punishment for the demonstrations. During the weekend an attempt was made to enforce a curfew on the village, but the villagers' active resistance changed the army's plans."

Four years ago today, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) declared the Israeli wall illegal:

Advisory Opinion of 9 July 2004
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
SUMMARY 2004/2
Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall
in the Occupied Palestinian Territory
(Request for advisory opinion)

History of the proceedings (paras. 1‑12)

The Court first recalls that on 10 December 2003 the Secretary‑General of the United Nations officially communicated to the Court the decision taken by the General Assembly to submit the question set forth in its resolution ES‑10/14, adopted on 8 December 2003 at its Tenth Emergency Special Session, for an advisory opinion. The question is the following:

“What are the legal consequences arising from the construction of the wall being built by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, as described in the report of the Secretary‑General, considering the rules and principles of international law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, and relevant Security Council and General Assembly resolutions?”
Summary of the Advisory Opinion of 9 July 2004

To reach the ICJ site where you can download the full Summary, please Click here


The full text of the final paragraph (para. 163) reads as follows:

“For these reasons,

The Court,

(1) Unanimously,

Finds that it has jurisdiction to give the advisory opinion requested;

(2) By fourteen votes to one,

Decides to comply with the request for an advisory opinion;

in favour: President Shi; Vice‑President Ranjeva; Judges Guillaume, Koroma, Vereshchetin, Higgins, Parra‑Aranguren, Kooijmans, Rezek, Al‑Khasawneh, Elaraby, Owada, Simma, Tomka;

against: Judge Buergenthal;

(3) Replies in the following manner to the question put by the General Assembly:

A. By fourteen votes to one,

The construction of the wall being built by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, and its associated régime, are contrary to international law;

in favour: President Shi; Vice‑President Ranjeva; Judges Guillaume, Koroma, Vereshchetin, Higgins, Parra‑Aranguren, Kooijmans, Rezek, Al‑Khasawneh, Elaraby, Owada, Simma, Tomka;

against: Judge Buergenthal;

B. By fourteen votes to one,

Israel is under an obligation to terminate its breaches of international law; it is under an obligation to cease forthwith the works of construction of the wall being built in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, to dismantle forthwith the structure therein situated, and to repeal or render ineffective forthwith all legislative and regulatory acts relating thereto, in accordance with paragraph 151 of this Opinion;

in favour: President Shi; Vice‑President Ranjeva; Judges Guillaume, Koroma, Vereshchetin, Higgins, Parra‑Aranguren, Kooijmans, Rezek, Al‑Khasawneh, Elaraby, Owada, Simma, Tomka;

against: Judge Buergenthal;

C. By fourteen votes to one,

Israel is under an obligation to make reparation for all damage caused by the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem;

in favour: President Shi; Vice‑President Ranjeva; Judges Guillaume, Koroma, Vereshchetin, Higgins, Parra‑Aranguren, Kooijmans, Rezek, Al‑Khasawneh, Elaraby, Owada, Simma, Tomka;

against: Judge Buergenthal;

D. By thirteen votes to two,

All States are under an obligation not to recognize the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall and not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by such construction; all States parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 have in addition the obligation, while respecting the United Nations Charter and international law, to ensure compliance by Israel with international humanitarian law as embodied in that Convention;

in favour: President Shi; Vice‑President Ranjeva; Judges Guillaume, Koroma, Vereshchetin, Higgins, Parra‑Aranguren, Rezek, Al‑Khasawneh, Elaraby, Owada, Simma, Tomka;

against: Judges Kooijmans, Buergenthal;

E. By fourteen votes to one,

The United Nations, and especially the General Assembly and the Security Council, should consider what further action is required to bring to an end the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall and the associated régime, taking due account of the present Advisory Opinion.

in favour: President Shi; Vice‑President Ranjeva; Judges Guillaume, Koroma, Vereshchetin, Higgins, Parra‑Aranguren, Kooijmans, Rezek, Al‑Khasawneh, Elaraby, Owada, Simma, Tomka;

against: Judge Buergenthal.”