Advocate & Solicitor(Malaysia), 🇲🇾Prosecutor, Counsel, International Criminal Law, Investigations, Children, SGBV, Prohibited Conduct

Joined February 2013
Shyamala Alagendra retweeted
Saya mohon maaf andai keputusan pengharaman aplikasi navigasi milik rejim Israel ini menyusahkan rakyat. Namun, soal keselamatan negara dan rakyat tidak boleh dikompromi sama sekali kerana kedaulatan negara serta keselamatan maklumat peribadi rakyat mesti kita pertahankan. #MalaysiaMADANI #YakinMADANI
339
714
91
3,236
615,118
Comments from the UN expert who is tasked with monitoring the independence of judges & lawyers all over the world. Amb Waltz's comment is essentially intimidation, intended to force Judge Pillay's hand, with the not so subtle threat that sanctions against the ICJ will be next.
I am concerned by the public statement directed by a US Government official at Judge ad hoc Navi Pillay in connection with the pending proceedings in The Gambia v. Myanmar before the International Court of Justice. Judge ad hoc Navi Pillay’s role is expressly provided for by Article 31 of the ICJ Statute. Each party in The Gambia v. Myanmar has a judge ad hoc. Such judges undertake to act impartially and conscientiously and participate in the decision on terms of complete equality with the other judges. Courts and judges are not beyond criticism. Judicial reasoning should be scrutinized rigorously, and governments are entitled to disagree with legal arguments and judgments. But attributing a political agenda to a sitting judge, saying “we’ll be watching,” and invoking punitive measures taken against another international court goes beyond disagreement with legal reasoning. It risks intimidation and improper pressure on a judge in a pending case. International safeguards are clear: judges must be free to decide according to law, without intimidation or improper pressure. Judicial independence is not a privilege for judges. It is a protection for all. Depending on the structure and jurisdiction of a given court, judicial independence ensures fairness for litigants, for States, for victims, for accused persons, and for the public interest in ensuring that disputes are determined according to law rather than political power. The bedrock safeguard of judicial independence cannot be contingent on whether a judge's decisions satisfy powerful governments.
1
4
9
967
Shyamala Alagendra retweeted
One does not need to come up with any radical or alternative interpretation of the law of genocide to conclude that - although these cases are not identical and should be considered on their own merits - both the Rohingya and the Palestinians of Gaza have experienced genocide.
1
3
12
218
Shyamala Alagendra retweeted
This whole line of argument/hasbara - that the ICJ is "changing the law of genocide" in the Myanmar case to "get" Israel is incredibly insulting to Rohingya victims. They deserve to have their experience recognized as genocide, in accordance with the convention.
1
4
22
330
Shyamala Alagendra retweeted
The decision of the European Parliament to honour the International Criminal Court with the 2026 Sakharov Prize is to be applauded. At this critical juncture, when international justice faces extraordinary pressures, this recognition sends an unequivocal message, that the rule of law must prevail over political expediency, and the independence of the Court must be resolutely defended. Above all, it is a statement of solidarity with victims of the gravest crimes, whose right to justice cannot be made hostage to political considerations. The Court exists for them. This is a moment not merely to affirm our belief in justice, but to stand up for it, defend the institutions that make it possible, and ensure that no pressure, however powerful, is allowed to extinguish the hope of justice for victims. Now, the European Parliament and Commission should enact effective sanctions blocking legislation to protect the Court which will soon house the prize just awarded.
71
17
222
32,673
I am concerned by the public statement directed by a US Government official at Judge ad hoc Navi Pillay in connection with the pending proceedings in The Gambia v. Myanmar before the International Court of Justice. Judge ad hoc Navi Pillay’s role is expressly provided for by Article 31 of the ICJ Statute. Each party in The Gambia v. Myanmar has a judge ad hoc. Such judges undertake to act impartially and conscientiously and participate in the decision on terms of complete equality with the other judges. Courts and judges are not beyond criticism. Judicial reasoning should be scrutinized rigorously, and governments are entitled to disagree with legal arguments and judgments. But attributing a political agenda to a sitting judge, saying “we’ll be watching,” and invoking punitive measures taken against another international court goes beyond disagreement with legal reasoning. It risks intimidation and improper pressure on a judge in a pending case. International safeguards are clear: judges must be free to decide according to law, without intimidation or improper pressure. Judicial independence is not a privilege for judges. It is a protection for all. Depending on the structure and jurisdiction of a given court, judicial independence ensures fairness for litigants, for States, for victims, for accused persons, and for the public interest in ensuring that disputes are determined according to law rather than political power. The bedrock safeguard of judicial independence cannot be contingent on whether a judge's decisions satisfy powerful governments.
17
61
9
114
23,593
From the article. [Rape and sexual violence were central to The Gambia's case. “They selected, particularly, women and girls of reproductive age. They gang raped them. That was the method of choice,” Mulvey said, of army soldiers.  She said investigators found “a pattern of biting, to leave an indelible mark on them”. She said rape in front of the community reflected “the intent to destroy the very social fabric of the community”.]
1
43
3
84
2,935
Shyamala Alagendra retweeted
Imagine the confusion and incompetence, when it comes to the @IntlCrimCourt that the US Ambassador to the Netherlands tagged an account about cricket (@ICC) It’s a good summary of the US’s understanding of the Rome Statute.
This quoted post is unavailable.
3
29
2
122
6,671
Shyamala Alagendra retweeted
📣 Le nouveau rapport de @FranceskAlbs, « La vérité sous les décombres », vient de sortir. Il analyse comment les médias contribuent au génocide à #Gaza. Les médias 🇫🇷 n’y sont pas nommément cités. Mais les pratiques dénoncées, vous seront familières… 🧵 Décryptage.👇
29
879
33
1,489
23,915
What a pathetically weak response by the Bureau.
The Bureau of the Assembly of States Parties regrets sanctions against the @IntlCrimCourt as an institution.
2
8
29
1,451
Shyamala Alagendra retweeted
Performative support rings hollow unless accompanied by a coherent, coordinated strategy for countering US coercion and protecting the ICC’s independence. "How the ICC can be saved" - my op-ed with @triestinom in @AJEnglish: aljazeera.com/opinions/2026/…
1
21
1
51
2,033
Shyamala Alagendra retweeted
Trump just sanctioned the International Criminal Court, which prosecutes war crimes. Why? Because the ICC issued warrants for Netanyahu and a Hamas commander over war crimes in Gaza, just as it did for Putin over Ukraine. No, Mr. President: War criminals are NOT above the law.
1,398
4,919
120
22,104
390,603
Shyamala Alagendra retweeted
Air France has agreed to enforce an Israeli order barring pilots and cabin crew of Muslim-majority countries from flights to Israel mee.s.gy/eWb5We
48
142
56
201
44,950
Shyamala Alagendra retweeted
🚨 The US has sanctioned the entire International Criminal Court. This cannot be allowed to stand. The US measures are a criminal violation of the Rome Statute contrary to Article 70. They are no more credible than any lowlife gangster threatening any court, judge or prosecutor in any domestic jurisdiction. The ICC is not an American institution. It was set up by treaty. 125 states are parties to it. Its jurisdiction over Gaza and Afghanistan comes from the Rome Statute, not from Washington. If the US disputes that, the Statute gives it a route: instruct lawyers and argue it in front of the judges. Instead it has cut the Court off from the banking system so it cannot work at all. Sanctioning judges for their rulings is interference with judicial independence. Sanctioning the Court itself, so that no bank, insurer or supplier can deal with it, is an attempt to shut it down and interfere with the course of justice. Nothing like this has happened to an international court before. The Assembly of States Parties should be honest about how it got here. The Prosecutor was removed in July to appease the US and Israel. We warned you it wound not work - and now it is clear it did not work. The Court was left weaker and more exposed and the sanctions came anyway. Strength does not respond to weakness. The 125 states have to act together and they have to act now. They should convene an emergency session of their foreign ministers and agree the following actions: 🔷 Governments should agree blocking legislation prohibiting domestic compliance with these sanctions, 🔷 Domestic protection measures should be implemented for the banks, lawyers and businesses supporting the Court. 🔷 Governments must also guarantee the Court’s banking, payment services, insurance and technology, and provide emergency funding 🔷 Coordinated Tariffs and other countermeasures should be imposed against any state using economic coercion to dismantle an international court. 🔷 States should recall ambassadors and suspend high-level engagement. If the US refuses to withdraw the sanctions, they should be prepared to suspend diplomatic relations. 🔷 They should create a guaranteed funding and banking channel for the Court that the US cannot reach. The US must face the combined economic and diplomatic strength of the Court’s member states. There is no reason to expect it to change course while those states leave their relationship with Washington untouched. The Rome Statute obliges States Parties to protect the Court's ability to function. If they will not do that when it is under direct attack, the obligation is worthless. Either the States Parties show their collective strength before it is too late, or the US decides who is allowed to break the law. One thing I can promise you is that further appeasement or retreating even more will only damage our safety, security and interests in ways that are too terrible to imagine.
31
319
33
575
12,654
Shyamala Alagendra retweeted
Replying to @SecRubio
The ICC has lost its way, from blatantly undermining Sovereignty of its member states by exclusively targeting African officials abandoning its original global mandate, some member states targeting senior court officials from the global South like former prosecutor Karim Khan for exercising their prosecutorial independence . Uganda will not hesitate to leave this increasingly rogue institution should it ever investigate or indict our people. As a member of the ICC Bureau we will continue to advocate for common-sense reforms.
82
54
23
185
29,999
Shyamala Alagendra retweeted
With due respect Ladit, there is no relationship between the campaign for Dr Olara Otunnu for SG , and you know the facts, amy views on ICC which has been consistent for years. I take offense by your assertion that I am parroting @SecRubio views. If you read my tweet , I mention that the court has mainly targeted African situations and caused mayhem, remember Sudan , Kenya etc. The hounding of Karim Khan the former prosecutor. I will never forget the delegate India who said that as a leading Democracy his country would never be part of the institution that treats countries differently when explaining why his country was not going to be part of the ICC, this was statement has stood the test of time. We go a long way and agree on many things but not this one. Have a great weekend.
61
28
9
136
54,415
Shyamala Alagendra retweeted
Trump administration opposes all options for new UN chief — and wants new candidates politi.co/4AY9t0j
16
101
37
135
124,481