Lawyer Patrick Baudouin: “We can say that in Gaza the conditions of the genocide are met”

Invited this September 17 on France Info, the lawyer and honorary president of the Human Rights League, Patrick Baudouin, recalled the legal definition of genocide crime from the 1948 Convention for the prevention and repression of the genocide, stressing that “the word prevention is in itself very important”.

Based on his experience of files related to Rwanda, Cambodia or Srebrenica, he said: “The genocide is understood to be any acts (…) committed with the intention of destroying, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group as such. »» Among these acts: “Murder of members of the group”, “serious attack on physical or mental integrity”, “intentional submission of the group on conditions of existence having to lead to its total or partial physical destruction”or “Measures aimed at hindering births”.

Returning to Gaza’s news, Patrick Baudouin said: ” Is there today there are members of the group with an intention of destroying in whole or in part? (…) Do not the young Palestinians see their physical integrity, mental for three years subject to test? (…) Famine, we still talk about it enough. (…) Is what’s going on in hospitals is not as such? »»

After having hesitated for a long time, the lawyer believes that the threshold is now crossed: “I think that today we can say that indeed these conditions which have been made of the qualification of genocide are met. This is how, I believe, that it must be accepted and also draw the consequences. »»

More and more experts, lawyers and human rights organizations are obvious. An almost international unanimity is emerging today to recognize that the crimes committed in Gaza are the genocide. Only the unconditional supporters of Israel continue to deny it, despite the documented facts on the ground. These words of Patrick Baudouin are part of this analytical movement and reinforce the idea that the qualification of genocide is no longer a matter of academic debate but of a largely shared legal and political observation.